By the Court.—Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 30th January, 1999 placing the petitioner in next lower grade scale, appellate order dated 6th May, 1999 and revisional order dated 8th April, 2000 affirming punishment, the petitioner, Vinayak Prasad Awasthi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the said orders. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him promotion in Middle Management Grade Scale-III (hereinafter referred to as MMGS-III) with effect from 1.4.1997.

2. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the bank) is a nationalized bank and as such is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, was appointed as clerk on 23rd August, 1973 and confirmed on 28th February, 1974. He was promoted to officers cadre vide order dated 28th September, 1977, known as Junior Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as JMGS-I) and further promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as MMGS-II) vide order dated 5th May, 1984. The hierarchy of the officers of the bank is as under :

"(i) Scale - I : Rs. 4250-230-4940-350-529-230-8050

(ii) Scale - II : Rs. 6210-230-8740

(iii) Scale - III : Rs. 8050-230-9200-250-9700"

3. In order to remove stagnation, the petitioner was granted higher grade i.e. MMGS-III with effect from1st May, 1995 vide order dated 24th December, 1997. In the year 1996 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Naripura Branch, Agra. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office of the Bank, issued an order dated 6th May, 1996 placing him under suspension in a contemplated disciplinary enquiry. A charge-sheet was issued on 10.6.1996 and after holding departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction to next lower grade i.e. JMGS-I. It also provided that the period of suspension shall not be treated on duty and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any wages for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid. Aggrieved by the order of punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 6th May, 1999 and his review petition has been dismissed by the reviewing authority by order dated 8th April, 2000.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders on the following grounds :

(1) The charges levelled against him do not constitute any misconduct. Even otherwise the charges are vague and therefore on the said allegations the petitioner could not have been punished.

(2) Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officers, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) contemplates a detailed oral enquiry but no such enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer. Neither any evidence was adduced nor material was produced before enquiry officer and, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated in law.

(3) Regulation 4(g) of the Regulation provides reduction to a lower grade or post but the disciplinary authority has imposed three punishment upon the petitioner, namely, reduction to JMGS-I from MMGS-III; which has the effect of reducing pay scale by two grades; his period of suspension has been declared as not to be treated on duty for any purpose and full salary for the period of suspension has been denied.

(4) The amount of salary of the petitioner which was debited for recovery on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence of 136 days was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Moreover it was subsequently regularised by order dated 7th April, 1997 rendering entire act of debiting the said amount illegal. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any misconduct. In support of the aforesaid submission he placed reliance upon the decisions State Bank of