JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Since both the writ petitions involves similar controversy, they are being decided collectively by this common judgment and Writ-A No. 2000700 of 2003 is being treated as leading case.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) a writ of certiorari or a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” as contained in Letter No. H.O. PER(DAD) 2291 (Annexure-1) passed by A.G.M. (Personal), Head Office, New Delhi, dated September 21, 2002.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Appellate Authority opposite party no. 3 as contained in letter no. H.O.PER (DAD) 620 dated February 3/4 2003 (Annexure 2), upholding the punishment imposed by opposite party no. 1 vide his letter dated 21/9/2002.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 4 to continue to treat the petitioner in service with consequential benefits treating the order passed by opposite party no. 1 removing the petitioner from service vide (Annexure-1) and the order of the Appellate Authority, opposite party no. 3 upholding vide letter H.O. PER(DAD) 620, (Annexure-2) the order of removal against the petitioner passed by opposite party no. 1 as void abinitio.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 5 to deem the mandatory statutory provision of consultation provided under Section 19 of the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1980 as not having taken place to the extent there is no express provision as to an Officer (petitioner) not to be subjected to the imposition of a major penalty like removal from service by an authority lower in rank and grade then the appointing authority in regulation 3(g) of Oriental Bank of commerce Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1982 as provided in 68 (II) of the State Bank of India Officers service regulation.

(v) A writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 6 to deem the mandatory provision of previous sanction as not having been accorded in framing the Discipline & Appeal Regulations of Oriental Bank of Commerce to the extent regulation 3(g) of the said regulations does not expressly provide that a major penalty like removal from service imposed upon the petitioner cannot be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of appointing authority of the petitioner, as it is provided in regulation 68(II) of service regulation applicable to officers of State Bank of India.

(vi) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vii) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.

4. By means of Writ-A No. 2000699 of 2003, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” as contained in Letter No. H.O. PER (DAD): 2292 (Annexure-1) passed by A.G.M. (Personnel), Head Office, New Delhi, dated September 21, 2002.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Appellate Authority opposite party no. 3 as contained in letter no. H.O. PER (DAD): 620 dated February 3/4, 2003 (Annexure-2) upholding the punishment imposed by opposite party no. 1 vide his letter dated 21.9.2002.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party n