Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This petition challenges the legality and correctness of impugned orders dated 30.1.1995 and 10.10.1995 passed by the D.G.M., the disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3), and the General Manager, the appellate Authority of Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2), appended as Annexures 14 and 15 respectively to the petition. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat him with continuity of service and all consequential service benefits.

2. Factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was working as officer in Punjab National Bank in JMG Scale-1 since 16.9.1986. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 13.4.1992 for certain misconduct said to have been committed by him while working as an Accountant at Private Sector cell at Branch Office, C.L. Bulandshahr during the period 9.12.1989 to 24.5.1991. The two Articles of charges against him reads as under :

Article -I

He recommended loan proposals prompting reckless lending in connivance with borrowers/middlemen and with the purported suppliers by disregarding the prescribed pre-sanction appraisal and post-sanction control thereby faciliating misappropriation/mis-utilization of bank’s huge funds thus putting the bank’s interests to jeopardy as also tarnishing the image of the bank.

Article-II

He defaulted in discharge of his primary responsibility, disobeyed the express instructions of higher authorities and misreported the facts in order to his connivance with manager/borrowers/purported suppliers thus jeopardizing Bank’s interest.

He thus, failed to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and committed misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 (1) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employee (conduct) Amendment Regulation, 1989.

The statement of amputation of charges in support of the charges in details for providing his misconduct and allegations are given in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by him on 25.6.1992. Thereafter inquiry was instituted in the matter on 9.11.1992. Sri C.S. Pasricha (Sr. Manager) and Mr. Gochawar (Manager Regional Office) were appointed as the inquiry officer and presenting officer respectively.

3. Since a common enquiry was set up into the truth of amputation of lapses against Sri R. P. Singh, Manager and Sri L. K. Jain the petitioner, who were both under suspension, the department decided to conduct their enquiries separately vide order dated 5.12.1992. The enquiry against the petitioner commenced on 30.4.1994 when he was called upon by the inquiry officer to attend the proceedings at Branch Office, Bulandshahr.

4. The petitioner claimed that he was not charged for any connivance with Sri R.P. Singh hence fresh charge-sheet ought to have been issued but no fresh charge-sheet was issued to him. On 8.11.1993 Sri Ramesh Vijh, Chief Manager was to be examined as management witness of which the petitioner had not been informed, he was provided with photocopies of a number of documents which were not legible and a list of witnesses as the original documents were in the custody of the CBI. In the circumstances, he prayed for adjournment so that he could have find list of the documents to prepare his defence but the Enquiry Officer denied his request. Therefore, the petitioner reserved his right to produce any other documents/witnesses on his behalf before closure of presentation of his case.

5. Before noting the contention of the counsel for the parties the proceedings of enquiry may be referred to as averred in the writ petition in the background of which submissions have been made by the counsel for the petitioner. On 4.6.1993, the petitioner was compelled to attend the enquiry proceedings at CBI Office, 5, Tej Bahadur Marg, Dehradun as the management had referred the matter for CBI enquiry which had neither found the petitioner guil