JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and further seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner on his original post and award him back wages from 16.09.2003, till the date of reinstatement.

2. The petitioner was serving as a Joint Manager in the respondent-Bank at Odhav Branch, Ahmedabad. He was suspended on 27.10.1997, in view of criminal and/or departmental proceedings contemplated against him. A criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner along with four other delinquent officers of the same Branch by the respondent-Bank before the Bank Security and Fraud Cell, Criminal Bureau of Investigation, Bombay on 11.11.1997.

2.1. On 16.07.1998, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner making certain allegations against him, to which, he replied on 14.08.1998. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 18.03.2000 was served upon the petitioner calling upon to tender his defence, however, the petitioner did not give any formal reply or file his defence statement.

2.2. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and accordingly, after holding the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held allegation Nos. 1, 2 and 11 as not proved, and allegation Nos. 5 and 6 were partly proved and allegation Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were fully proved. Thus, from the eleven charges; three were proved; two were partly proved and six were fully proved. After, the petitioner was given an opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 15(2) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"), imposed penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service vide order dated 26.08.2002.

2.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and after hearing the petitioner, on 18.06.2003, the order of dismissal was reduced to the punishment of removal from service instead of dismissal from the service.

2.4. The petitioner preferred a review application on 17.11.2003 before the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Bank, however the same was not entertained and was rejected.

2.5. On 10.05.2004, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition before the Chairman and Managing Director, however the same was also not entertained. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Sonal Vyas, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned order of removal is required to be set aside, since the inquiry has been held in violation of Regulation 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which envisages of holding common proceedings in case where two or more officers/employees are concerned. It is submitted by her that since there were other delinquents, the petitioner was singled out in the department proceedings and hence, the proceedings are required to be set aside.

3.1. It is submitted by her that the Senior Officer-Shri D.D. Trivedi, who was serving as a Senior Branch Manager was also issued a charge-sheet (Statement of Allegations) dated 18.03.2000 containing seven charges, has been imposed punishment of reduction of pay at 7 stages, however the petitioner has been removed from service.

3.2. She has further invited the attention of this Court to the various charges as well as findings of the Inquiry Officer vis-a-vis the charges for the statement of allegations issued to Shri D.D. Trivedi, who was serving as a Senior Branch Manager. She has further submitted that the charges are almost identical and hence, the petitioner could not have been imposed major penalty of removal. In support of her submissions on this issue, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow K.