JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by opposite party no. 4 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2008 passed by opposite party no. 5 contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2007 (so far as it relates to the imposition of punishments) passed by opposite party no. 3 contained as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to remove/delete the censure entry given to the petitioner in his service book vide impugned order dated 23/05/2007 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), within specified time.

(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant full arrears of salary and other allowances due during the period of suspension with interest as applicable till the date of actual payment, within specified time.

(vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide/grant one increment with all consequential benefits due to the petitioner which was held back vide impugned order dated 23.05.2007 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), within specified time."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an employee of respondent no. 2 Bank. The petitioner had been proceeded against departmentally and a punishment order dated 23.05.2007, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, had been passed whereby following punishments were awarded namely:

(a) an adverse entry and

(b) stoppage of one increment cumulatively.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected vide the order dated 15.02.2008, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, on the ground of the same having been filed beyond time. The petitioner claims that subsequent thereto he continued to represent to the respondents and also claims to have filed a review on 12.03.2008. After repeated representations, the said review has been decided vide the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. The review has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the service rules for filing of a review after the appeal has been decided.

5. Raising a challenge to all three orders namely the order dated 18.04.2023, the order dated 15.02.2008 as well as the punishment order dated 23.05.2007, the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the writ petition is barred by laches and delay in as much as simply because the authorities have proceeded to pass an order dated 18.04.2023 whereby it has been indicated that there is no power of review under the service rules for entertaining of a review and the said review filed by the petitioner has been rejected, the same would not give rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the stale orders of the years 2007 and 2008 and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

7. Replying to the aforesaid, the argument of Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs Union of India and others reported in 1995 (5) SCC 628 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 (8) SCC 648 the