JUDGMENT

anil L. Pansare, J. - Heard Dr.Renuka S. Sirpurkar, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. D.N. Mathur, learned advocate for the Respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The Petitioner who was lastly working as Senior Branch Manager with the Respondent-Bank, has retired on 31 May 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 16 November 2015, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, calling upon him to submit his comments on the lapses/irregularities allegedly committed by him while working as Senior Branch Manager, amravati Branch, during the period from 26 July 2009 to 31 May 2013. The Petitioner submitted his response/comments vide communication dated 8 august 2016 and denied all the allegations. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 13 July 2017 along with articles of Charge and statement of allegations came to be served upon the Petitioner, which admittedly has been served after more than four years of the date of superannuation. The said Memorandum of Charges has been impugned before us.

4. We have heard both the sides.

5. The primary contention of the Petitioner is that the Responde