Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—We have heard Sri M.S. Rana (the petitioner in person) and Ms. Shaili Saxena for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an Officer MMG/Scale S-3 in Bank of Baroda. He was inflicted with punishment of removal from service by order dated 5.8.2004, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 15.2.2005, against which the petitioner filed writ petition No. 30055 of 2005. The said writ petition was partly allowed, vide order dated 30.9.2010, to the extent that the removal order dated 5.8.2004 and the appellate order dated 15.2.2005 were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh punishment order in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

3. While allowing the writ petition No. 30055 of 2005, this Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority was not justified by taking into consideration allegations 1(d) and 1(e), made in the statement of allegations, as proved while imposing the punishment. It also observed that looking to the nature of the charges, which have been proved, the petitioner deserves a lesser punishment other than the punishment awarded to him.

4. On the date when the judgment was delivered in Writ Petition No. 30055 of 2005, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation which, according to the petitioner, was attained on 30.9.2009. Being conscious of the said position, the Court relying on the provisions of Regulations 20(3)(iii) of Bank of Baroda (Officers’ Service) Regulations, 1979 observed that if a bank officer attains the age of superannuation during the disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings shall be continued as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.

5. Pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 30.9.2010, the Disciplinary Authority re-examined the matter and by its order dated 30.12.2010, modified the penalty of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement, with a specific observation that the modified punishment would relate back to the earlier order of removal dated 5.8.2004. However, while passing the order dated 30.9.2010, the Disciplinary Authority again considered the allegations 1(d) and 1(e) as proved, even though they were found not proved by the Enquiry Officer.

6. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 30.9.2010 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 2.9.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the compulsory retirement order dated 30.12.2010. Against the orders dated 30.12.2010 and 2.9.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively, the peitioner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 62743 of 2011 before this Court. The said writ petition was partly allowed, vide order dated 2.3.2012, to the extent that the orders dated 30.12.2010 and 2.9.2011 were set aside and the Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass a fresh order, in the light of the observations made in the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 30055 of 2005, without taking into consideration the allegations 1(d) and 1(e).

7. The order dated 2.3.2012 passed in writ petition No. 62743 of 2011 attained finality and the net result, therefore, was that the Disciplinary Authority had to consider a punishment, albeit lesser than removal, for the petitioner without taking into consideration allegations 1(d) and 1(e) as mentioned in the statement of allegations.

8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2.3.2012, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 11.5.2012, even after excluding the allegations 1(d) and 1(e) from consideration, maintained the penalty of compulsory retirement with a specific observation that the order would relate back to the earlier order dated 5.8.2004 and would have force and effect from 5.8.2004 i.e. from the date of earlier removal order. It was also s