JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J

This LPA is preferred by the employer-Punjab National Bank challenging the judgment dt.27.09.2017 of the learned Single Judge in CWP-6863-2010.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of an order dt.02.08.2008 (P-13) whereby punishment of compulsory retirement had been imposed on herby appellant No.4 vide order dt.11.10.2008 (P-15) of the appellate authority (appellant No.3) upholding the said punishment and also order dt. 30.11.2009 (P-16) of the reviewing authority (appellant No.2) dismissing her review petition.

3. The respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and had joined the Punjab National Bank (Appellant No.1) as a Clerk.

4. A charge sheet 21.11.2006 (P-6) was issued to the respondent levelling allegations with regard to discharge of her duties. The gist of the charges are as under:

Article 1:

She failed to maintain good conduct and provide good customer service to the customers and misbehaved with them. She also failed to maintain good conduct with her superiors, misbehaved and disobeyed their lawful orders.

Article 2:

She held the press conference in the branch without prior sanction of the higher authorities for vindication of her actions, which was defamatory in character and caused adverse criticism.

5. The respondent No.1 gave her reply to the same on 23.12.2006 denying the charges.

6. The respondent No.4 after considering the same, decided to hold a departmental inquiry and appointed an Inquiry Officer.

7. After holding inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dt.19.05.2008 (P-11) holding that charges no. 1(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i), and article of charge No.2 were proved and charge 1 (b) and (g) were partly proved. The inquiry report ran into 73 pages.

8. The Inquiry report was forwarded to the respondent No.1 for her objections/representation thereon. On 25.07.2008, the respondent No.1 submitted the detailed objections/representation (P-12) of 82 pages.

9. The respondent No.4, who is the disciplinary authority, then passed order of punishment (P-13) on 02.08.2008 of a mere 4 pages imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the PNB Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal Regulations), 1977. In the said order, he condensed the 82 page objections/representation submitted by the respondent to the inquiry report into 7 bullet points each of about 2-5 lines of length about a page, dealt with all of them in a single paragraph which states as under:

"The Enquiry Officer has given his findings after proper assessment of the evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings by the presenting officer as well as the defence. Therefore, the contention of the charged officer that the Enquiry officer was biased against her and that the charges in the charge sheet have been planted along with respective witnesses is not tenable. Further, her contentions that no investigation was ever got conducted for the allegations, no complaint was entered in the complaint register and that charge sheet was served upon her after lapse of seven months from issuance of tabular proforma has no relevance and do not in any way mitigate the lapse committed by her and therefore, devoid of merit. So far as her request for personal hearing is concerned, there is no provision in this regard in PNB Officer Employees(D & A) Regulations 1977. However, full opportunity and time was given to submit written submission as requested by her.

10. The respondent No.1 then preferred an Appeal against the same on 01.09.2008 (P-14) to the appellant No.3. The grounds of Appeal run into 60 pages.

11. The appellate authority rejected the Appeal vide (P-15) dt.11.10.2008. The appellate order runs into a mere