The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of 'gross misconduct' under the Bipartite Settlement, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high standards of honesty, integrity, and conduct by bank employees.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18th March, 2000 passed by the Asseral Manager, Syndicate Bank by which the petitioner has been removed from the services of the Bank with immediate effect without disqualification for future employment. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 15th September, 200,by which the appeal filed by the petitioner inst the aforesaid order of removal from service was dismissed by the General Manager of the Syndicate Bank. The consequential reliefs of salary, increments and other benefits to which the petitioner would have been entitled to, if he had not been removed from service have also been claimed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Meerut Cantt. Branch of the Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "bank" ). On 30th December, 1998 some burglars broke upon the strong room of the Bank in the night and burgled Rs. 7,30,000/- after murdering Sri Banwari Lal who was working as the Security Guard of the Bank. During the investigation of this incident by the police, it was found that the petitioner along with Sri Vijay Attender, Sri Manoj Kumar Water Boy, late Sri Banwari Lal Security Guard in the Bank and Sri Raj Kumar and another person known as "photographer" used to assemble after office hours as well as holidays and on Sundays in a room behind the premises of the Bank for drinking liquor and womanizing. The petitioner and others admitted participation in such activities during the course of police investigation. The petitioner was thereafter suspended by the order dated 21st December, 1998 in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.

( 3 ) A charge-sheet dated 1st February, 1999 was thereafter issued to the petitioner by the Bank mentioning therein that he had indulged in highly indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank and such action on his part, besides being seriously subversive of discipline, also tarnished and seriously impaired the image of the Bank in the eyes of public. The petitioner was, therefore, charged for committing gross misconduct of indecent behavior on the premises of the Bank under Clause 19. 5 (c) of the Bipartite Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the settlement") and also for committing gross misconduct by doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the Settlement. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 19th February, 1999 denying the charges levelled against him. The departmental enquiry was then held and the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report dated 9th October, 1999 which was sent to the petitioner by the communication dated 10th October, 1999 for his comments. The petitioner submitted his comments by the letter dated 30th November, 1999. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the entire records found that the inquiry had been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Settlement and that ample opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to defend his case. The Disciplinary Authority also found that there was overwhelming evidence in support of the charges and the Inquiry Officer had relied upon the evidence adduced in the enquiry in arriving at his conclusion that the petitioner was at guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, concurred and accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It also noticed that the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature and constituted gross misconduct under Clauses 19. 5 (c) and 19. 5 (j) of the Settlement. It also observed that for Financial Institutions its image was of paramount importance and anything done to impair its image had disastrous and far reaching consequences and that the conduct of employees who indulge in such activities should be viewed seriously. The Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the misconduct of the petitioner was of serious nature which had affected the image of the