1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 29.3.2007 issued by the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Guwahati, imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner as well as the consequential orders passed thereunder, including the order dated 7.6.2008 forfeiting the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000 payable to the petitioner and the order dated 30.7.2008 issued by the authorities forfeiting the bank's contribution amounting to Rs. 1,77,000 towards Provident Fund (PF) account of the petitioner.

3. The brief factual matrix of this case, as projected through the pleadings, may be noticed as hereunder:

(a) The writ petitioner had initially joined the respondent No. 1 bank in the year 1971 as a Clerk and thereafter, he was promoted to the higher posts from time-to-time. During the year 1995 to 1998 the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager of Thana Chariali Branch at Dibrugarh when as many as 7 (seven) fake accounts were opened by some imposters with the criminal intent of en-cashing the refund orders of ITC Classic Finance Ltd. under the Home Saving Scheme (HSS). Having detected the fraud, the petitioner had lodged an FIR with the Dibrugarh Police Station on 27.6.1997, based on which, Dibrugarh P.S. case No. 369/1997 was registered under section 468/420, IPC.

(b) On 23.3.1999, an Office Memorandum bearing No. RO.UPAS.PRS: DAD:98-99:415 was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India (‘CBI’) calling upon him to furnish explanation as to how such fake accounts, impersonating the actual beneficiaries, could have been opened in his branch while the petitioner was the Branch Manager.

(c) On 26.5.1999, the petitioner had submitted a reply explaining his position, thereby clarifying that he had not given any false introduction in any of these cases. Thereafter, on 21.4.1999, the Regional Manager of the Bank, i.e., the respondent No. 4 had issued another memorandum to the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that by abusing his official position, the petitioner had sanctioned a DOD limit of Rs. 15 lakhs to M/s. Imsong Suppliers and that he had enhanced the Cash Credit Limit of M/s. Hill Timber Mart from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 6.20 lakhs on 3.11.1998, merely to cover up the overdue position of the account since there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,56,863 in the account as on 31.10.1998.

(d) In the memorandum dated 21.4.1999, it had further been alleged that the petitioner had allowed excess/ad hoc drawals in case of “Nectec Computers” beyond his delegated lending powers and that while functioning as Branch Manager, Thana Chariali Branch, the petitioner had allowed excess drawals on several occasions to a party, viz., M/s. Flavour & Liquor without having any power to do so.

(e) Responding to the OM dated 21.4.1999, the petitioner submitted his written reply denying the allegations levelled therein. However, despite the reply submitted by the petitioner, another memorandum dated 23.10.2000, containing similar allegations, was issued to the petitioner which was also replied by him on 30.11.2000 denying the allegations.

(f) Not being satisfied with the aforesaid replies submitted by the petitioner, a memorandum of charges dated 13.9.2001 was issued to him containing as many as 9 charges in contemplation of departmental proceeding to be drawn against the petitioner. On receipt of the charge memo dated 13.9.2001, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 17.10.2001 denying all the charges.

(g) Since there has been considerable delay in issuing the charge memo reckoned from the date of receipt of the replies filed by the petitioner, he had earlier approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 1869/2002, inter alia, challenging th