Mr. M.N. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised only two contentions i.e., non-compliance of the Mandatory Regulations 6(15) and 6(17) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees’ Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘Regulations’). The main thrust of his argument is that there is a clear violation of the Regulations inasmuch as Regulation 6(17) has not been scrupulously followed.

2. Smt. K. Subha Ananthi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that there is no violation of Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations inasmuch as an opportunity was given to the petitioner and he has filed his written brief, which would be a sufficient compliance of Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations, which would deal with the major penalties.

3. Whether indeed Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations has been scrupulously followed or not as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, few facts are required to be noticed:

The petitioner joined the services of the respondent – Bank as a probationary officer on 01.02.1978.

The case of the petitioner is that his integrity, honesty and intelligence were recognized and he was t