The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in determining the correctness of charges and the limitations of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has come up before this Court on C.M. Application No. 43533 of 2010 moved by the petitioner for interim relief.

3. Further, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the opposite parties are proceeding to take final decision. Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the above prayer.

4. In view of the the above facts with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties present writ petition is heard finally and disposed of today.

5. The factual matrix of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in Bank of India, Aishbagh branch, Lucknow(hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') by opposite party no.2 on 24.9.1975, confirmed on 24.3.1976. Further, the petitioner while working and discharging his duties received a telegram that his sister who was residing at Muscat had suffered serious illness so in order to go to Muscat to look after her, he applied for leave w.e.f. 9.11.1982 for a period of two months to the Manager of the Bank and had left for Muscat on 24.11.1982.

6. Later on, the petitioner returned back to India in the year 1985 and submitted his joining before opposite party no. 3 on 31.1.1985 but was not allowed to join his duty in spite of the repeated requests and reminders made by him. Having no other appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2824 (S/S) of 1991, Syed Mohd. Khalid Vs. Bank of India and others and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.6.2009 with the following directions:-

"For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.03.1991 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition and the notice, letter/order dated 18.07.1983 and the letter dated 19.7.1975 as contained in Annexure Nos.A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be forthwith reinstated in service. However, the opposite parties shall pass a fresh order regarding payment of back wages after hearing the petitioner. It will be open to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. In case the opposite parties take a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the said proceedings shall be initiated within a month from today and subject to the cooperation of the petitioner, the same shall be completed within a further period of six months."

7. Further, the petitioner having not satisfied with the order dated 12.6.2009 passed in Writ Petition no. 2824 (S/S) of 1991, filed a Special Appeal ( Special Appeal no. 450 of 2009, S.M. Khalid Vs. Bank of India and others) the same was dismissed on 20.7.2009 with the following directions:-

" Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, appearing for the appellant, prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to any other remedy in respect of fresh cause of action.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid".

8. Thereafter, Assistant General Manager, Lucknow Zonal Office & Disciplinary Authority had issued a charge sheet dated 26.6.2009 to the petitioner, according to him the charges which were levelled by the charge sheet dated 26.6.2009 are vague in nature and relates to the incident which took place in the year 1982, so at a belated stage the same cannot be levelled on him as the action on the part of concerned respondent in issuing the chargesheet is contrary to law.

9. In view of the above said fact, the petitioner again approached the authority concerned and when no heed was paid in the matter in question, he filed Writ Petition No. 4513 (S