IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice, record tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer, and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before recording its findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.1.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“8(A) Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PNB vs. Kunj Behari Mishra (1998 SCC (L&S) 1783), & considering the disinclination of the Appellate Authority of the Bank to decide the appeal dated 28/03/2013 of the petitioner and further considering the age of the petitioner (Date of Birth: 15/03/1933), & amp; the age of superannuation of the petitioner (March 1991), the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.1.2013 and the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the appellate authority at Annexure “G”.

8(AA) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th May, 2014 produced at “Annexure G” to the petition.”

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner, at the time of the merger of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., with Punjab National Bank (“PNB” for short) was working as an Assistant General Manager (AGM) with the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank, now merged with Punjab National Bank, and in the year 1987, the decision came to merge the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank with Punjab National Bank, issue arose of merging of the employees of both the banks. And there was a fear in the officers of the Punjab National Bank that the officers of the merging bank who are seniors to them may take away advantages that would otherwise have accrued to them. Consequentially, a large number of employees including all but one AGMs were not taken over by PNB alongwith all other employees of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd without following the due process of law either by PNB or HCB. The petitioner was one of the AGMs.

2.2. Therefore, the petitioner as well as other officer, employees of HCB had not taken over by PNB at the time of merger without following the process of law either by PNB or HCB, challenged such arbitrary action before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is cited in K.I.Shepherd Vs. Union of India. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct the respondent bank to allow such petitioners to join the respondent bank. Hence, after allowing the petitioners to join the respondent bank in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against all such employees including the present petitioner and removed them from the services of the bank, including the petitioner.

2.3 Since the respondent has removed the petitioner from the service and therefore, the petitioner had challenged the said order by way of preferring the Departmental Appeal. Against the decision of the Departmental Appeal, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application and the same was decided on 22.4.1988 whereby, Hon’ble Court after considering the prayer made in the petition observed that the inquiry proceedings proceeded further in 1989 and the Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry and the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order, against which, the petitioner had preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Banking Regulations Act.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application No.6645 of 1990, which was decided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.8.2012 wherein, the petitioner prayed for the following prayers :-

“(i) Your Lordship, may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of the respondent No.2-Bank without disqualificati