JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. These appeals have been filed challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge in the respective appeals.

2. In Letters Patent Appeal No.147 of 2017, the order under challenge of the learned Single Judge is dated 30.10.2015. Since an application for review was filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2015 which was rejected by oral judgment dated 18.07.2016, Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 2017 has been filed against the order rejecting the review.

3. For the purposes of this judgment, facts in Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 2017 are considered.

4. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant who was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Review Application in the Special Civil Application No.5999 of 2002.

5. Facts in brief are that the appellant was the original petitioner who approached the learned Single Judge challenging the penalty order dated 28.06.2001 and the appellate order dated 24.10.2001 which confirmed the order of penalty passed by the respondent bank. By the order, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 28.02.1999, the date on which the appellant was due for superannuation.

6. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal and the petition read as under:

“3) The petitioner was appointed in the Bank of India in the year 1957 in the clerical cadre and on account of meritorious performance he was given promotions from time to time and lastly he was holding the post of General Manager. The entire service career of the petitioner is without blemish or stigma except the impugned departmental inquiry held against him which resulted in to penal order of dismissal.

4) The petitioner respectfully submits that he was posted as Executive Trustee on deputation to BOI Mutual Fund, a trust sponsored by the bank as Principal Trustee in June 1992 and subsequently when the BOI Management company Ltd., a wholly Asset owned subsidiary of Bank was formed in December 1993, he was designated as Managing Director of the said company. The petitioner continued in that capacity till he was brought back to the Bank of India in September 1996.

5) The petitioner respectfully submits was issued charge sheet under he Regulation-6 of the Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations" for the sake of brevity), in respect of acts of misconduct allegedly committed by him during his tenure of service during June 1992 to September 1996 35 Executive Trustee in the BOI Mutual Fund and as Managing Director of BOI Asset Management Company. Article of charges and statement of allegations in support thereof were given to the petitioner by Memorandum dated 9/12/98 by respondent No.1. Copy of the said Memorandum alongwith Article of charges and statement of allegations are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure "A" collectively.

6) The petitioner respectfully submits there were six allegations leveled against the petitioner as contained in the Articles of charges. It was alleged in Article-I that the petitioner had unduly accommodated the directors of M/s.Kedia Distilleries Ltd. and/or the brokers and caused wrongful loss to the BOI Mutual Fund. Allegation in Article-II is to the effect that the petitioner has showed undue favours to the directors of M/s.Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Ltd. and/or brokers and caused wrongful loss to the BOI Mutual Funds. Allegations in Article-III is to the effect that in disregard to the sound investment practices, the petitioner had indulged in investment- indiscreet, in 14 "B" group company's shares and the value of these shares having completely eroded in most of the cases, the BOI Mutual Fund incurred serious financial loss.

Allegation contained in Article-IV is to the effect that the petitioner h