ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Satyendra Chandra Jam, appellant herein, was employed as Branch Manager with Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct. After holding an inquiry wherein the charges were found to be established, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Patna High Court by the impugned judgment.

3. Shri Vikas Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the disciplinary authority had proposed to impose the penalty of reduction in rank on the appellant and had forwarded the matter to the Chief Vigilance Officer in accordance with Regulation 19 of the Punjab a National Bank Officer/Employees (Disciplinary & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. But the Chief Vigilance Officer was of the view that punishment of removal from service should be imposed. Keeping in view the said recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the more severe punishment of removal from service on the appellant. Shri Vikas Singh has contended that in thus relying upon the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer, the disciplinary authority has abdicated the function entrusted to it, i.e., deciding the punishment to be imposed on the appellant for the misconduct found established against him. Shri Vikas Singh has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nagaraj Shivarao Kariagi v. Syndicate Bank, Head Office. In that case also the disciplinary authority was inclined to impose a lesser punishment but had imposed a higher punishment on the basis of the recommendations made by the Central Vigilance Commission. In the said decision reference has been made to the directive dated 21-7-1984, from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to all banking institutions whereby it was stated that "under no circumstances the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission should be modified except with the prior concurrence of the Commission and this Ministry". This Court has held that the said directive of the Ministry of Finance was wholly without jurisdiction and plainly contrary to the statutory regulations governing the disciplinary matters. It has been observed that the punishment to be imposed, whether minor or major, depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved and that the authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and that they cannot act under the dictates of the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government and that no third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise their powers and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officers.

4. In the present case the disciplinary authority had passed the order for removal from service of the appellant on 16-11-1988, i.e., at a time when the said directive dated 21-7-1984 was operative. It must, therefore, be presumed that in passing the said order, the disciplinary authority was acting in accordance with the said directive and has imposed the punishment of removal from service in accordance with the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Officer.

5. Having regard to the decision in Nagaral Shivarao Kariagi and the fact that the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation we are of the view that the disciplinary authority should reconsider the matter regarding the penalty to be imposed on the appellant in the light of the misconduct that has been found established against him. The disciplinary authority will take this decision on the basis that the recommendation made by the Chief V