****

ROHIT KAPOOR , J.

The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-24885-2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner against the order of disciplinary authority imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 09.04.2014 and against orders rejecting his appeal and review, has been allowed. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement remitted the matter back before the disciplinary authority to look into all the issues and take an informed decision as to what penalty, if any, requires to be visited upon the respondent-petitioner. All other issues, including consequential benefits and the manner in which the respondent- petitioner’s suspension period is to be treated, were also to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority. Further directions were given that the exercise should be concluded expeditiously and not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

2. Facts as noticed by the learned Single Judge in its decision dated11.12.2020, are as under:-

“The petitioner entered the service of the Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier on 01.05.1989. He was promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I) in May, 2005, and as a Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II) in April, 2009. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under charge-sheet dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that he had failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity; utmost devotion and diligence; that he had failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank; and had acted otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of official duties. The charge-sheet recorded that the memoranda dated 17.12.2012 and 17.01.2013 issued to the petitioner would form part of the statement of allegations. The list of documents and the list of witnesses proposed to be pressed into service for substantiating the charges were appended therewith.

Upon completion of the inquiry, by his Report dated 20.12.2013, the Inquiring Authority held that the petitioner was guilty of making unauthorized debits and delayed/partial adjustments, which indicated misappropriation of the Bank's funds. The petitioner submitted representation dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) to the Disciplinary Authority in the context of the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority. Thereupon, the impugned order of punishment dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-4) came to be passed, visiting upon the petitioner the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service.

It may however be noted at this stage that even before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the chargesheet dated 30.07.2013, the Deputy General Manager of the Nodal Regional Office of the Bank at Chandigarh addressed letter dated 18.06.2013 to the Assistant General Manager, Central Vigilance Department, of the Central Office of the Bank at Mumbai. Therein, he referred to various documents, which were also appended as annexures, and while recommending initiation of minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner, he asked for First Stage Advice. Again, by letter dated 28.06.2013, the Deputy General Manager of the Nodal Regional Office of the Bank at Chandigarh addressed the Assistant General Manager, Central Vigilance Department, of the Central Office of the Bank at Mumbai, wherein he reiterated his recommendation for initiation of minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner, indicating the proposed punishment as stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, by letter dated 12.07.2013, the Deputy General Manager, Central Vigilance Department, of the Central Office of the Bank informed the Deputy General Manager of its Nodal Regional Office at Chandigarh that, upon