The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following proper procedure, including the NABARD circular's guidelines, in disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness and uniformity in application of rules.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was a Cashier working with the respondent-Bank. On the basis of a complaint made by one Noor Mohammad on 29. 9. 1987, the respondent-Bank issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 22. 3. 1988. The charge against the petitioner was of temporary embezzlement of a certain amount which was said to have been handed over to the petitioner by the complainant and had been deposited by him, not on the date when it was handed over but, on a subsequent date. Relying on the enquiry report, on 19. 1. 1990, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 23. 4. 1990. Against the said orders, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 13242 of 1990. On the ground that while rejecting the appeal no reasons had been assigned by the appellate authority, this Court allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 17. 5. 1993. The matter was thus remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding the same afresh by a reasoned order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. By order dated 14. 2. 1994 the appellate authority again rejected the representation/appeal of the petitioner on the same grounds by which the earlier appeal had been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15263 of 1994. By judgment and order dated 26. 4. 2004, this Court again allowed the writ petition. After summarizing the contentions of the petitioner, for the second time, the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to be decided afresh. The relevant concluding paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 26. 4. 2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 15263 of 1994 are quoted below:

"it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated on the following grounds: (a) the complainant was not examined, as is mandatory under Circular dated 20th June, 1987 wherein it is provided that cross examination of the complainant is must (b) petitioner was permitted by the enquiry officer to cross examine the witness including witness MW-1 on the next date vide order dated 19thseptember, 1988 however on 26th October, 1988 when the petitioner refused to cross examine the MW-2 which according to the petitioner, is totally misconceived and contrary of the earlier order passed by the enquiry officer. The right of the petitioner to cross examine the witness MW-1 could not be taken away, (c) the 2nd notice before imposition of the penalty had not been issued to the petitioner, which is mandatory (d) the punishment imposed is not commensurate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the said questions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The matter is being remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh strictly in the light of the order of this Court dated 17th May, 1993 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after looking into the record in the presence of the petitioner. It is clarified that the contention raised by the petitioner, as noticed by this Court, shall necessarily be dealt with by the appellate authority while deciding the said appeal individually by means of the reasoned order. It will be open to the petitioner to raise such order pleas as he may be so advised. Since the matter is old, the said exercise may be undertaken by the appellate authority within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Board of Directors. With the observations, referred to above, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. "

( 2 ) AFTER the decision of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted his representation before the appellate authority, alongwith the copy of the judgment. By the letter dated 10. 9. 2004, the decision of the Board of Directors (appellate au