RAM MILAN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri H.G.S.Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Parishar, Advocate and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for making formal amendment in the prayer Clause 1 which is not opposed by Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The prayer is allowed. Let the said amendment be incorporated during the course of the day.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Deputy General Manager of the Bank of Baroda i.e respondent no. 2 by which finding that the second inquiry report submitted against the petitioner cannot be considered and making the de novo reference as meaningless, the disciplinary authority on the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CVO"), has directed for conducting the inquiry de novo and without any delay.

(3.) Upon filing of the present petition, this Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 30.06.2014. In pursuance thereof, the inquiry proceedings were not conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner also claims to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2017. The said statement is not opposed by Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.