By the Court.—Heard Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner Shamsher Bahadur, working as an officer in Farrukhabad Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Bank’) was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.5.1992 passed by Chairman of Bank in its capacity as Disciplinary Authority. A charge-sheet dated 28.10.1993 was served upon him containing allegations of certain irregularities alleged to be committed by him during period he worked as Manager, Kanpur Branch of Bank from 23.7.1987 to 27.1.1992. Two charges were levelled upon petitioner regarding misconduct under Regulation 19 and 30(1) of Farrukhabad Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations 1981”).

3. Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 27.10.1996 and according to petitioner his information is that he was exonerated in both charges. Chairman/Disciplinary Authority however passed an order dated 30.12.2000 questioning enquiry proceedings conducted pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 28.10.1993 and directing to hold de-novo enquiry on the basis of fresh documentary/oral evidence which according to him were not placed before Enquiry Officer earlier. Fresh enquiry was conducted by one Gore Lal, appointed by Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 19.1.2001 and he submitted report dated 28.6.2002. Enquiry Officer had held first charge as partly proved and in second charge there were five allegations out of which three were held proved and two unproved. Copy of enquiry report was furnished to petitioner requiring him to submit his representation, if any, which he submitted on 5.8.2002.

4. Disciplinary Authority ultimately passed order of punishment dated 20.1.2003 imposing punishment of withholding of three increments under Regulation 30(1)(e) and Removal under Regulation 30(1)(e). Petitioner preferred appeal but the same has also been rejected by Board of Director. Hence this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed aforesaid order of punishment and appellate authority contending that;

(I) Regulations 1981, do not permit de-novo enquiry hence de-novo enquiry culminating in impugned order of punishment is wholly illegal and void-ab-initio. Reliance is placed on K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447.

(ii) When Disciplinary Authority order for de-novo enquiry then it was incumbent to furnish fresh charge-sheet. Oral hearing could not have been conducted de-novo on the basis of old charge-sheet and this vitiates entire proceedings.

(iii) Looking to the charges proved against petitioner and nature of seriousness as thereof, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed any serious misconduct and therefore punishment imposed upon him is grossly disproportionate, arbitrary, excessive and illegal.

6. Regulation 30 of 1981 Regulations deals with penalties which may be imposed upon staff of Bank. If he is found guilty of displaying negligence, inefficiency or indolence or commits breach of the Regulations or knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions or commits breach of discipline or is guilty of misconduct. It also prescribes the procedure to be followed before imposing punishment and reads as under, Regulation 30 (1) (2) (3) relevant for our purpose are quoted hereunder :

“30 (1)- Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, shall be liable to the following penalties-

(a) reprimand;

(b) delay or stoppage of increments or promotion;

(c) degradation to a lower post or grade of to a lower stage in his incremental scale;

(d) recovery from pay of the whole o