Mr. P.B. Bajanthri, J.: (Oral) - In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.03.1989 (Annexure P-5), charge sheet dated 03.02.1994 (Annexure P-9), punishment order dated 08.02.1995 (Annexure P-12), appellate authority’s order dated 01.07.1995 (Annexure P-13) and reviewing authority’s order dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure P-14).

2. Petitioner was posted in the respondent Bank at Panjab University Branch, Chandigarh as Assistant Manager (Cash) on 20.03.1989. He had protested posting him as Assistant Manager (Cash) on 30.06.1989 on the score that posting him with reference to holder of the post read with circular of the Bank, respondent bank cannot post petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager (Cash). Thereafter, he remained absent from 23.04.1989 till issuance of charge-sheet dated 03.02.1994. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing two charges. One charge is for disobeying the lawful orders of the bank and posting him as Assistant Manager (Cash) at Panjab University, Chandigarh Branch. Other charge is relating to remaining unauthorized absent from 23.04.1989. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply to the charge-memo. Respondent-Bank being dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply proceeded to hold inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The General Manager who has initiated disciplinary proceedings has formed an opinion that for the purpose of imposing a particular penalty of compulsory retirement is vested with the Chief General Manager (Appointing authority). Therefore, he transmitted the papers to the Chief General Manager on 24.01.1995 while assigning gist of the case from the date of initiation of charge memo till receipt of the inquiring officer’s report and petitioner’s reply on the inquiring officer’s report. On 24.01.1995 itself the Chief General Manager (Appointing authority) proceeded to pass order while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. Feeling aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority while exercising power under Rule 67 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules 1992 (for short ‘Rules, 1992’) modified the penalty from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service under Rule 67(g). Thereafter, petitioner preferred the review application before the reviewing authority. The reviewing authority affirmed the order of the appellate authority. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that disciplinary authority was not permitted to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement in view of Note II of Rule 67. It was further submitted that disciplinary authority has violated proviso II to Rule 68(i) so also proviso II to Rule 68 (7)(ii). Insofar as violation of Rule 68(7)(ii) he relied on Supreme Court decision reported in 2009(7)SLR 347 (para 2) titled as State Bank of India and others versus Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and another. It was also pointed out that disciplinary authority/appointing authority-Chief General Manager once he has exercised the power under Section 68(7) to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on 24.01.1995, he had exercised the power once again on 08.02.1995 imposing the very same penalty (Annexure P12). Thus, Chief General Manager exceeded his jurisdiction.

4. Appellate authority while modified the penalty of compulsory retirement to that of removal from service under Rule 67(g). Mandate of the Rule has not been followed to the extent that whenever appellate authority modifies the penalty or enhancing the penalty, employee or official of the respondent Bank is entitled to show cause notice under Rule 69(2) (ii). It was further submitted that reviewing authority has failed to appreciate the legal issues in para 4 of the review