(1.) Background:
(2.) In R.P. No. 857 of 2015, the petitioner is the guarantor, and the respondents 4 and 5 are the principal borrowers; whereas the first respondent is the creditor Bank. In both the cases, the principal borrowers, having been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, were made to retire compulsorily.
(3.) Since both the review petitions raise the same questions of law and fact, this Court has decided to dispose of them together through a common order. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into consideration the facts in R.P. No. 856 of 2015.