J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - a former Branch Manager of the Punjab National Bank, has prayed for the following reliefs:

"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.8.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 22.2.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 11.8.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 22.2.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief be granted as may be thought fit in the circumstances."

2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:

"2.1 The petitioner was serving as a Manager (Incumbent In-charge) at the Sanjivani Road Branch of the Punjab National Bank. While serving as the Manager, a departmental charge-sheet dated 17th May, 2006 was issued alleging that he had collected Rs. 10 lac in all in cash from the branch office of the Bank situated at the Shastri Park Branch and Mahalaxmi Branch respectively for the office use under the debit of remittance in the transit head. It is alleged that thereafter, he unauthorizedly absented himself from his duties without depositing the said amount at his branch. It is alleged that thereby he was guilty of the embezzlement of funds of the Bank.

2.2 The Inquiry Officer reached to the conclusion that the charge was established. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the Inquiry Officer, and after hearing the petitioner, passed an order of compulsory retirement dated 20th January, 2007 in terms of the Regulation 4(h) of the Punjab National Bank Office Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.

2.3 It appears that the petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority by way of filing the Special Civil Application No. 27232 of 2007 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22nd September, 2008 rejected the writ application.

2.4 Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 1223 of 2009 before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, vide order dated 14th September, 2009, allowed the same directing the Inquiry Officer to conduct a de novo inquiry from the stage of adducing the defence evidence. I may quote the order passed by the Division Bench referred to above:

"Appeal admitted.

Upon joint request by learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing as only a narrow question is involved.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Application No. 27232 of 2007 dated 22.9.2008.

The appellant was working as Branch Manager with the respondent Bank. It was noticed by the Bank that some misconduct is committed by the appellant and therefore he was departmentally proceeded against. In the departmental proceedings, the delinquent wanted to examine certain defence witnesses and produce certain documents. The Enquiry Officer refused to grant such permission on the ground that the documents and the witnesses were beyond the purview of the charge-sheet. Ultimately, the delinquent was held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him and was punished with dismissal from service.

The said order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged before the Appellate Authority where a plea was taken that prejudice is caused to the defence of the delinquent by not taking on record the documents and not permitting the delinquent to examine the witnesses to prove his defence. The Appellate Authority, however, reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement by order dated 20.1.2007. Against that order, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 27232 of 2