- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of orders dated 05.02.2004, 28.05.2004 and 17.12.2004.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the respondent-bank in the year, 1979. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.06.2001 to which he replied on 21.07.2001. Another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.04.2002 which was replied by the petitioner on 20.06.2002. However, as the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a Charge-Memo on 04.06.2003. The enquiry report was submitted on 16.10.2003 and a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.2003. Thereafter, the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 05.02.2004 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 28.05.2004. The revisional authority has also dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner by order dated 17.12.2004.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under: "6. That there is no illegality in passing the punishment order dated 5.2.2004 as contained in Annexure-9 because all the procedural and legal formalities have been applied in relation to issuance of show cause, charges, enquiry and punishment as per the provision of Regulations 4(h) of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976. 7. That the petitioner has annexed almost all the relevant document/order which the respondents had passed time to time in connection with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. Initially the respondents have issued several show cause notice as contained in Annexure-1, 3 and 4 of the writ application and reply thereto was given by the petitioner, those were considered without being prejudiced from any corner and thereafter when a prima-facie case was made out, then only the Article of charges as contained in Annexure-6 was issued. 8. That it is stated that enquiry officer has considered all the plea raised by the petitioner and the connected documents produced by the presenting officer of the Bank and thereafter he came to the finding on 16.10.2003 wherein he found both the Articles of charges proved vide Annexure-7. 9. That it is stated that after the issuance of the petitioner was provided an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority and the copy of the report of the enquiry officer was also served to him and in response thereto the petitioner submitted the final representation vide Annex-8 dated 3.12.2003. Finally after considering Annexure-8 the disciplinary authority (i.e. Res. No. 3) issued the punishment order dated 5.2.2004 whereby and whereunder punishment has been awarded upto reduction of one increment for three years without cumulative effect and the compulsory retirement. Those punishment order have been passed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Bank of India time to time and after following the principles of the natural justice. 10. That the Appellate authority and the Reviewing authority vide their order dated 28.05.2004 and 17.12.2004 respectively considered the entire materials on records and found the punishment order legally correct hence did not interfere in the punishment order. The petitioner could not bring any mitigating circumstance or any fresh grounds to warrant the interference by the Appellate or Reviewing authority. That as per the discipline maintained by the Bank and the law laid down for dealing the officers i.e. Regulation of 1976 no harsh order has been passed rather in the given situation it was incumbent upon the authorities to retire the petitioner compulsorily.";