M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 Annexure-7 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing respondents not to dispense with the service and working of the petitioner and to pay regular monthly salary to him.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Manager, Allahabad Bank, Karwi Branch, Chitrakoot. It is alleged that due to personal bias respondent No. 2 issued charge-sheet against the petitioner on which enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 24.12.1997, in which most of the charges were found proved. As a result the respondent No. 2 awarded major punishment of lowering down of the basic pay of the petitioner by nine stage vide order dated 2.3.1998, Annexure-1 to the petition. It is alleged that the aforesaid order awarding punishment was passed under Regulation 4 (e) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The petitioner's appeal against that order was rejected on 14.12.1998.
4. In para 11 of the petition it is alleged that thereupon a show cause notice dated 5.4.1999 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why penalty be not enhanced. True copy of the said show cause notice is Annexure-3. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this notice, which was disposed of on 4.5.1999 with a direction that appropriate order be passed by the concerned authority vide Annexure-4. Consequently the respondent No. 1 passed order dated 9.2.2001 and approved the order of respondent No. 2 under Regulation 4(e) of the Regulations. True copy of the order dated 9.2.2001 is Annexure-5. The petitioner alleged that he has already been punished and hence he cannot be given double punishment. After passing the order dated 9.2.2001 the petitioner submitted a representation under Regulation 4 (e) that the punishment awarded to him cannot continue beyond 3 years. True copy of the representation is Annexure-6. In reply to this representation, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 31.5.2001 stating that the punishment awarded against the petitioner may be treated as punishment under Regulation 4 (f) instead of Regulation 4 (e). It is alleged in para 18 of the petition that the punishment under Regulation 4 (f) is a major punishment whereas the punishment under Regulation 4 (e) is a minor punishment which was awarded by order dated 2.3.1998 and had become final.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and we have perused the same. The allegations of mala fide have been denied. It is alleged that the petition has been filed on misconceived facts. It is alleged that the answering respondent is a Public Sector Bank and Government of India Undertaking and there is no scope for discrimination on the basis of caste or religion as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to serve the respondent bank with utmost honestly and integrity and his acts of omission and commission amounted to misconduct under Regulation 24 of the Regulations for which he has been awarded the major punishment. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that the Enquiry Officer held an enquiry and submitted his finding vide its letter dated 31.12.1997. Copy of enquiry report and findings were submitted to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.1.1998 giving him an opportunity to make a representation against the same and the petitioner submitted his representation vide letter dated 19.2.1998 which was duly considered but the concerned authority did not find any force in the same. The misconducts committed by the petitioner are of serious nature and accordingly it was decided to deal with the case sternly in terms of Regulations of 1976 and accordingly the authority imposed major penalty of lowering down of the basic pay of the petitioner by nine stages. It is alleged in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that the order imposing punishment of major penalty was passed in the interim period between the date of publication of the amended Regulations in the Gazette of India and the date of its circularization. As such the Regulation pertinent to the penalty awarded was mentioned as 4 (e) instead of 4 (f). The said amendment was sent to the Government of India Press for publication in Gazette of India and it was published on 13.12.1997 in the Gazette of India. However, due to some printing mistake in the notification in the Gazette, the legal department of the bank vide letter dated 16.3.1998 requested the Manager, Government of India Press for issuance of a corrigendum rectifying the mistake. The Bank received the Gazette of India dated 11.4.1998 containing publication of the amended Regulation which was sent to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for laying the same before Parliament, as required under Section 19(4) of the Banking Companies (Transfer and Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Thus, it was only after completion of all the above requirements under law that the said Regulation can be said to have taken effect only when it was circulated vide Circular dated 26.10.1998 Annexure-2 to the petition. Photostat copy of the letter dated 27.5.1998 sent to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for laying the notification before the Parliament is Annexure-C.A.-2. In para 11C of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in view of the above sequence of events it is clear that the Gazette notification of the amendment of the Regulation 4 was completed by way of the publication of its corrigendum in the Gazette of India dated 11.4.1998 and not by way of the publication of the notification in the Gazette of India dated 13.12.1997. The latter had some vital mistakes and hence had to be corrected. However, the field functionaries such as respondent No. 2 could come to know about the said amendment in Regulation 4 only after, the said amendment was circulated vide circular dated 26.19.1998, Annexure-2 to the petition. Hence, the disciplinary authority respondent No. 2 passed his final order dated 2.3.1998 imposing penalty in terms of the then existing provisions of Regulation 4. It is stated in para 18 that the petitioner is under misconception that the punishment awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority is a minor punishment and it was under this misconception that a representation dated 8.3.2001 was made by him. Accordingly a clarification dated 31.5.2001 was issued by the respondent No. 2.
6. On the facts of the case, we find no merit in this writ petition.
7. The petitioner was charge-sheeted inter alia for act of forgery by impersonating the signature of the Phool Chand abusing his official authority in the bank inasmuch as he made an advance of Rs. 10,000 himself against his own N.S.C's. for which he had no discretion and he concealed this fact from the competent authority. He also disbursed/ sanctioned loan in a most reckless and negligent manner. It may be mentioned that Regulation 4 provides for two types of penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons, namely, Minor penalties and Major penalties. Regulation 8 provides the procedure for imposing minor penalties, whereas Regulation 6 provides the procedure for imposing major penalties. Admittedly in the case of the petitioner the procedure prescribed for major penalty in accordance with Regulation 6 was followed. The disciplinary authority after completion of the major penalty proceedings imposed major punishment vide order dated 2.3.1998. However, the acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner were of a serious nature and accordingly he decided to deal with the case sternly and imposed a major penalty of lowering down the basic pay by nine stages. Thus, the disciplinary authority amply clarified the quantum of punishment vis-a-vis the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was also considered and found commensurate by the appellate authority. The reviewing authority was proposing to impose upon the petitioner the enhanced penalty of dismissal from the service as the bank had lost its confidence on him for his acts. The order dated 2.3.1998 imposing punishment of major penalty was passed in the interim period between the date of publication of the amended Regulations, 1976 in the Gazette of India and the date of its circulation, i.e., 26.10.1998 by the respondent bank and as such the Regulation pertinent to the penalty awarded was mentioned as 4 (e) instead of 4 (f) in the order dated 2,3.1998 of the disciplinary authority. However, in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority has amply clarified the quantum of punishment vis-a-vis the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and the punishment was also considered and found commensurate by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority in our opinion the request of the petitioner for restoration of stages of basic pay brought down has no merit.
8. It is evident from the facts that the Gazette notification of the amendment to Regulation 4 was completed by way of publication of its corrigendum in the Gazette of India dated 11.4.1998 and not by way of the publication of the notification in the Gazette of India dated 13.12.1997 bearing some vital mistakes therein. The petitioner is under misconception that he was awarded minor punishment or his punishment is being enhanced. Thus, there is no force in this petition the writ petition is dismissed.