The facts of the case are:

The petitioner was appointed as a clerk with the respondent-Bank on 10-4-1964 and was confirmed on 9-3-1965. It is the petitioner's case that he has rendered 35 years of service with the respondent-Bank and he was a Senior Manager in the year 1991 and that he has to his credit, a blemishless service, as evidenced by the respondent-Bank itself conferring several awards for his performance.

2. By a letter dated 24-4-1995, the petitioner was called upon by the General Manager, South Zone, to submit his explanation in respect of certain irregularities· in advances at Panambur. The petitioner, accordingly, had furnished his explanation clarifying the position and refuting the several allegations against him. However, the respondent Bank had proceeded to issue a charge-sheet, fourteen months thereafter, consisting of eight charges, dated 22-11-1996. The petitioner had submitted his statement of defence. An enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 7-10-1998 where the charges were held proved. The Disciplinary Authority, issued an order of punishment imposing compulsory retirement. The petitioner had challenged the same by way of an appeal. The appeal having been dismissed on merits, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit, that the action of the respondents is illegal and unjust. The charges were general and ambiguous and are without reference to the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity). In this light of the matter, the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to plead his defence effectively. The Articles of charge were not accompanied by a list of documents, which also hampered the petitioner in defending his case. He would submit that during the course of enquiry, only a few documents were produced by the Presenting Officer and in respect of other documents, they were claimed to be privileged documents and the petitioner was therefore disabled from controverting their contents. Further, non-supply of additional documents also caused injury and prejudice to the defence of the case.

These infirmities were in direct violation of the regulations governing the Bank and its employees. The findings therefore, are not based on evidence on record, but proceeded on assumptions and presumptions. As no witnesses were examined, the documents produced by the Presiding Officer would have no evidenciary value and it would not support the case of the respondents. The Appellate Authority has equally failed to consider the merits of the case and has mechanically proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, the ingredients necessary for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction are glaringly present and that the petition will have to be allowed.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a large number of cases as follows.-

(a) G. V. Aswathanarayana v. Central Bank of India, Bombay and Others1: Wherein this Court has laid down that the delinquent must be informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges levelled against him and the object of this requirement is that the delinquent employee must know what he is charged with and have adequate opportunity to meet the charge and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation. If such an opportunity is got granted, it will amount to the delinquent being condemned, unheard.

(b) State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Singh, Ex. Constable1; Wherein, the Supreme Court has defined the word 'misconduct'.

(c) S.G. Nayak and Another v. Canara Bank, J.C. Road, Bangalore and Another2; Wherein, this Court, while dealing with the contention as to denial of certain documents, has held that where the delinquents had sought for documents at the earliest point of time and have made known the relevancy of the same even before summoning them. This Court held that the custodian of those documents cannot decide the relevancy of t