(1.) THE petitioner is a very senior officer of the respondent, Bank of India. He has filed the instant writ petition after a show-cause notice was issued to him on 22nd November, 1999 under the proviso to Regulation 11 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, calling upon him to show cause why the major penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed against him under Regulation 4 (j) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, since there was a judicial finding recorded by a competent Court of law that he had committed acts of sexual molestation against two female Japanese employees of the Bank and of rape against one female Japanese employee of the Bank. As a result of the said finding recorded by a competent Court of law in Japan, the petitioner and the Bank have been held jointly liable for payment of damages and costs. Another notice was issued to the petitioner on the same day, informing him that the financial loss caused to the Bank would be recovered from him both on grounds of reimbursement and contribution. It was also clarified to him that the Bank would exercise its right of general lien and set off in respect of any amount lying with the Bank in his name. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition praying that this Court may declare that part of Regulation No. 11 is unconstitutional, inoperative, void and illegal, and the respondents be directed not to adhere to Regulation No. 11 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. It was further prayed that this Court may hold and declare that the action on the part of the Bank in freezing the account of the petitioner is wholly without any authority, illegal and bad in law.
(2.) AT the admission stage itself, the parties have been heard at length. Affidavits-in-reply as well as Affidavits-in-rejoinder have been filed. After hearing parties, we now proceed to dispose of this writ petition itself.
(3.) THE facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant, may be succinctly stated thus :---