JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench on 16.04.2021 in the writ petition being no. WPA 21237 of 2010.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Order the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition praying for reinstating the appellant/ writ petitioner in service with back wages and with all consequential benefits by cancelling the Order of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service.

3. The fact of the present case is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Bank of Baroda in the year 1980 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Junior Manager (Grade-I Officer) in the year 2006. On 05.05.2008 a show-cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner by the Dy. General Manager in-charge of the Zone of the said Bank alleging misappropriation of fund. The writ petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 07.07.2008 denying all the allegations. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued Memo. of charge-sheet on 25.08.2008 and the writ petitioner thereafter submitted a written statement against the charge-sheet denying all the allegations. After receipt of the written statement, the enquiry authority directed the writ petitioner to appear before it. On 31.03.2009 the Disciplinary Authority issued order of major penalty by way of dismissing the petitioner from his service with effect from the date of receipt of the said order. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was ultimately dismissed. As such, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner has submitted that the enquiry proceedings do not show that the Bank of Baroda sustained any monetary loss. He has further submitted that there is no iota of evidence to the effect that the appellant/writ petitioner has misappropriated fund or deceived anybody. He further submitted that at the highest the actions of the appellant/writ petitioner might be of irregularities in CBS transactions. He has further submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant/ writ petitioner is devoid of particulars and has been issued by incompetent authorities. As such, the punishment inflicted upon the appellant/writ petitioner is not at all sustainable.

5. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the charge-sheet dated 25.08.2008 was not approved by the competent authority at any stage. He has further submitted that Regulation 5(1) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 lays down that the Managing Director or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may institute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an officer/employee of the Bank, which has not taken place in the instant case. He has further submitted that as per service jurisprudence, departmental proceeding cannot be initiated in absence of a complaint or allegation and in the instant case there was no complaint or allegation against the appellant/ writ petitioner. It has also been contended that the disciplinary proceeding was not conducted in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that the allegations in respect of the irregularities in the CBS transactions mentioned in the Memorandum of Charge issued by the General Manager of the Bank are the same as those mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the Dy. General Manager of the Bank and both the aforesaid Memorandum of Charge and the Show Cause cannot be proceeded with simultaneously. It has also been submitted that the major penalty which has been inflicted upon the appellant/ writ petitioner ought not to have been imposed without holding a proper and complete enquiry. Banking upon the aforementioned submissions, Learned Counsel has prayed for allowing the instant appeal.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the