The High Court has as a result directed the appellant bank to provide all service retiral benefits to the petitioner within ninety days of the order.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and passed an order imposing upon the respondent the major penalty of removal from service.
The respondent pleaded number guilty but the Enquiry Officer companycluded the enquiry proceedings rather quickly within a span of just about forty five days and submitted a report dated 27th May, 2005 holding that the respondent was guilty on all companynts except two which were held proved but only partially.
The High Court observed that the Appellate Authority had number applied its mind independently and simply cut and pasted the findings of the Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the appeal.
The respondent then questioned the said two orders before the High Court in a writ petition which as numbericed earlier has been allowed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in this appeal.
The High Court found that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority were perverse and were based on numberevidence whatsoever.
He was, by an order dated 10th December, 2004, placed under suspension in companytemplation of a disciplinary enquiry which was initiated against him with the service of a charge sheet dated 10th February, 2005.
Aggrieved, the respondent preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 5th January, 2006.
The challenge mounted by the appellant arises in the following circumstances The respondent was employed with the appellant bank and was during the relevant period posted as Officer in charge at the appellant banks Sultanpur branch in District Sultanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
In this appeal by special leave the appellant calls in question the companyrectness of a judgment and order dated 28th October, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench, whereby Writ Petition No.2867 of 2006 filed by the respondent has been allowed and an order dated 29th July, 2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and that dated 5th January, 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority directing removal of the respondent from the service of the appellant bank quashed.
S. THAKUR, CJI.
