The delay in approaching the Reviewing Authority can be considered as a bonafide belief, allowing the petitioner to seek redressal under Regulation No. 18 of the Regulations of 1976.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. This Petition raises a challenge to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Bank of India. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the facts in detail, suffice it to say that, the Petitioner was an employee of Respondent No. 3 Bank of India and was discharging his duties as a Branch Manager in Solapur Branch for certain period and subsequently, he was transferred to Osmanabad Branch. The Petitioner was subjected to the order of penalty dated 15th January, 2019 in the form of dismissal. The copy of the same is placed on record at Exhibit E. The perusal of the order show that the Petitioner was charged for committing acts of misconduct in regulation of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short Regulations of 1976).

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority could not find favour in the matter of Petitioner and ultimately vide order dated 31st July, 2019 the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed by confirming the Disciplinary Authorities order dated 15th January, 2019.

4. Certain grounds raised in the present Petition and there is challenge to the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority including the ground that the relevant and necessary material was not supplied to the Petitioner.

5. Then the Petition was posted before this Court on various occasions. Perusal of the order-sheet shows that initially the Petitioner failed to add the necessary Respondent i.e. Bank of India as party Respondent to the Petition and then vide order of this Court dated July 16, 2021, the Petitioner was permitted to amend the Petition so as to join Bank of India as party Respondent No. 3 to the Petition.

6. On 29th July, 2021, again the matter was posted before this Court. It was submitted before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that copy of the Petition is already forwarded to the Respondents. It seems that the Petitioner was permitted to serve the Respondents by way of the legally permissible mode of service including the postal service on the Respondents and affidavit is filed in this Court submitting therein that all the Respondents were duly served. The receipts of speed post and track record of postal service were annexed to the service affidavit.

7. In view of this facts, it can safely be said that, the Respondents are though duly served they have chosen not to appear before this Court either personally or by engaging Counsel of their choice.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the Petition he had gone through the Regulations of 1976 and it revealed that the authority can exercise the powers of review under Regulation No. 18.

9. Perusal of this Regulations 1976 show that Regulation No. 17 deals with the Appeals being preferred by the officers or employee and Regulation No. 18 deals with the Review. It may not be out of place to refer the relevant part Regulation No. 18 and same reads thus:

18. Review:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months from the date of the final order either on his own motion or otherwise review the said order, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come or has been brought to his notice and pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit;

Provided that-

(i)If any enhanced penalty, which the Reviewing Authority propose to impose, is a major penalty specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) or (j) or Regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under Regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enq