A. K. YOG AND UMESHWAR PANDEY, JJ.

( 1 ) SHRI S. K. Kakkar, advocate informs that this writ petition was decided in the past by this court, Respondents have taken away file from him and at present he has no instruction in the matter.

( 2 ) THE record shows that the matter went to the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment and order dated May 1, 1996. The Bank contested the matter in Supreme Court. It had a review petition wherein Apex Court passed order dated March 27, 2003, the relevant extract is reproduced: ". . . . . . The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order. . . . . . . . " we do not appreciate the conduct of the Respondent Bank.

( 3 ) IT was incumbent upon the Respondent Bank to have instructed Sri R. K. Kakkar, advocate or engaged another counsel (if so advised) immediately on the rendering of the aforesaid judgment and order dated March 27, 2003, if they were serious to contest the matter. The Bank has done nothing of the kind. Such practice is not uncommon, when a party is to gain by ensuring to delay the hearing of the case. It may be one of that kind of case.

( 4 ) WE, therefore, decline to adjourn the case. Proceed further with the hearing of the case more so because the petitioner has retired, and no detailed arguments are required to decide the question of quantum of punishment only on the basis of facts already ascertained by the Court while adjudicating and holding petitioner guilty of the charge.

( 5 ) HAVING perused the record of the case we wish to extract relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court which is as follows:

". . . . . . . . . The disciplinary authority found that some charges had been proved, i. e. , the appellant had not taken proper care in obtaining collateral security etc. However, there is no finding recorded by the authority that he has done this for his personal gain or with corrupt motive. It would mean that he was slack in the performance of the duty. For this, the major punishment of dismissal from service is not the appropriate remedy. On the fact and circumstances of the case, we think that the appropriate punishment would be stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The order of dismissal stands set aside. Instead, the authority is directed to calculate his pension and other benefits on the basis of the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. SD/. (K. RAMASWAMY, J.), (D. P. WADHWA, J.)"

New Delhi may 5, 1997

( 6 ) REVIEW Petition (C) No. 284/1998 filed against the aforesaid judgment was allowed by the supreme Court vide judgment and order dated March 2, 1998 which is as follows:

"heard both sides in the Review Petition. There is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order which has not been taken into account the settled position of law, as propounded by this Court in State Bank of India and Anr. v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Anr. 1994 (2) SCC 537 : 1994-I-LLJ-872. The impugned order is set aside and the Special Leave Petition shall be placed for consideration. In view of our order in the Review Petition, the contempt Petition is dismissed. "

( 7 ) AFTER review, the Apex Court again disposed of the appeal and made following observations:

". . . . . . In the background of what has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-consideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advance may have become irrec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document