N.M. JAIN Vs. VIJAYA BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consequent upon a departmental inquiry, punishment of Dismissal from Service was inflicted upon petitioner, which was challenged by him. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had succeeded in the writ petition filed by him. The operative portion of order of 27th February, 2015 (Annexure P-19) passed in the writ petition, reads as under:-

(2.) Respondent-bank had preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order of 23rd March, 2016 (Annexure P-20) by holding as under:-

(3.) Since the respondent-Bank was given liberty to pass a fresh order on the basis of Inquiry Report against petitioner, therefore, respondent-Bank had given a Notice on 12th November, 2016 (Annexure P-22) to petitioner for personal hearing. In response to the said Notice of 12th November, 2016 (Annexure P-22), petitioner had submitted a Reply on 14th December, 2016 (Annexure P-23), wherein Regulations 12 (4) and 12(5) of Discipline and Appeal Regulations and Regulation 46 of Pension Regulations, were quoted and provisional pension was sought from 1st January, 2003 in terms of Regulation 46 of PNB Employees' Pension Regulations. It is a matter of record that petitioner did not appear for personal hearing despite opportunity given because the provisional pension was not released to him. However, respondent-Bank vide order of 6th January, 2017 (Annexure P-26) has imposed penalty of "Removal from Service" upon petitioner.