D. D. SINHA, J.: - Heard Mr. Rohit Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.2 issued charge - sheet dated 30 - 8 - 1990 and in para 5 of the charge - sheet the Disciplinary Authority has observed that it has been decided to institute Disciplinary action against the petitioner under Regulation 8(1) of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for the lapses on the part of the petitioner mentioned in para 1 to 4 of the charge - sheet. Learned counsel contended that Regulation 8( 1) deals with minor penalty. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following penalty for breach of conduct regulations:

(1) No.13(1) ..... proved fully.

Penalty: Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

(2) No.13(2) ..... proved fully.

Penalty: Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

(3) No.3(1) ..... proved partly. Penalty: CENSURE

All the penalties are awarded concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1990(11) CLR SC 686, the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not be imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry as well as the procedure required to be followed by the department before imposing major penalty. It is further contended that in the instant' case there was no departmental enquiry conducted by the respondents before imposing major penalty, and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26 - 2 - 1991 and the Appellate Authority dated 10 - 8 - 1991 as well as order of the Reviewing Authority dated 3 - 31992 cannot be sustained - in - law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents - Bank has contended that as per sub - clause (b) of Regulation No.4 of Regulations, 1976 demonstrates that withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is included in .the category of minor penalties, and therefore, summary procedure is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority, which in fact has been followed in the present case. It is contended that the charge - sheet was served on the petitioner and the explanation of the petitioner was called within 15 days from the date of service of the charge - sheet. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the chargesheet which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and since the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority held that the misconduct of absence from duty mentioned in Regulation No. 13(1) of the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 is proved, and therefore, penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. Similarly, misconduct of absence from duty contemplated in Regulation No.13(2) of the conduct Regulations, 1976 is also held to be proved and therefore, the punishment for withholding of one increment, with cumulative effect was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and thus supported the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the Appellate Authority modified the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority so far as the punishment awarded in respect of proved misconduct in view of Regulation 13(1) of Conduct Regulation, 1976 is concerned and though upheld the punishment of withholding of one increment but without cumulative effect.

So far as the punishment awarded in respect of the proved misconduct vis - a - vis Regulation 13(2) is concerned, the Appellate Authority has upheld the order of punishment withholding of one increment with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document