Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against refusal to grant him extension in service as it would not be in the interest of the Bank. The appellant who joined the service of the Bank as a probationary Officer in the year 1961 rose to the level of top executive grade VI. On 27th August, 1980 he was given charge as Deputy General Manager of the zone comprising of the bank branches of Haryana State and Union Territory of Chandigarh. In 1981 an inquiry was ordered against him by the Banks Vigilance Department, Central Office, Bombay, which ultimately resulted in imposing the punishment of reduction by three grades. This order was set aside by the High Court and the order was maintained by this Court. The appellant got relief as the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer committed certain procedural irregularities. Since the order was not complied with, the appellant approached the High Court by way of contempt proceedings and the respondents moved this Court for review of its order. Against issuance of notice in contempt by the High Court, the respondents approached this Court. We disposed of both the review application and the S.L.P. directed against issuance of contempt notice by the High Court by accepting the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General that no fresh proceedings shall be taken against the appellant. And the contempt application filed by the appellant shall stand withdrawn. Further the respondents shall consider the appellant for promotion in accordance with rules by a properly constituted committee. This order was passed in August 1993 whereas the appellant was reaching the age of super-annuation at 58 in September, 1993. He could be considered for promotion only if he was in service. Therefore, the Review Committee considered the case of appellant for extension of his service up to the age of 60. It did not find him suitable. The recommendation was accepted by the appropriate authority. The order was maintained in the departmental appeal filed by the appellant. The appellate authority passed a detailed order dismissing the appeal as the appellants case for extension was considered by the committee in conformity with the procedure. The appellate authority further found that the competent authority did not decide the appellants claim for extension only on average or above average ratings earned by the appellant but it had also considered the guidelines issued by the Bank.

2. Two submissions were advanced by the learned senior counsel Shri Nariman to assail the orders passed by the respodents, one, that the constitution of the Committee was not proper inasmuch as the Committee was constituted of persons other than who were entitled to look into the matters of extension of service of officers of the category to which the appellant belonged. It was next urged that the appellate authority had based its finding more on assumptions than on correct appreciation and appraisal of the record. The learned counsel urged that the extension in the Bank services is granted at the age of 50, 55 and 58 years. He urged that even though the appellant was granted extension after the age of 55 years in 1993 only yet he was refused extension when there was no material available to show that the appellant had deteriorated in his functioning nor any entry or warning was given to him during this period. The learned counsel urged that the character roll entry, prior to 1981, being all excellent and good and the disciplinary proceedings having remained pending between 1981 to 1987 which ultimately resulted in their quashing and there being no entry available from 1987 to 1993 which could have resulted in concluding that the appellant could not function in the interest of the Bank the orders were liable to be quashed. On the other hand the learned counsel appear