On 27 8 1980 he was given charge as Deputy General Manager of the zone companyprising the Bank branches of Haryana State and Union Territory of Chandigarh.
This order was set aside by the High Court and the order was maintained by this Court.
Therefore, the Review Committee companysidered the case of appellant for extension of his service up to the age of 60.
In 1981 an inquiry was ordered against him by the Banks Vigilance Department,Central Office, Bombay, which ultimately resulted in imposing the punishment of reduction by three grades.
The appellate authority further found that the companypetent authority did number decide the appellants claim for extension only on average or above average ratings earned by the appellant but it had also companysidered the guidelines issued by the Bank.
The appellant got relief as the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer companymitted certain procedural irregularities.
It was next urged that the appellate authority had based its finding more on assumptions than on companyrect appreciation and appraisal of the record.
Further the respondents shall companysider the appellant for promotion in accordance with rules by a properly companystituted companymittee.
Against issuance of numberice in companytempt by the High Court, the respondents approached this Court.
Since the order was number companyplied with, the appellant approached the High Court by way of companytempt proceedings and the respondents moved this Court for review of its order.
And the companytempt application filed by the appellant shall stand withdrawn.
Two submissions were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Narimanto assail the orders passed by the respondents, one, that the companystitution of thecommittee was number proper inasmuch as the companymittee was companystituted of persons other than those who were entitled to look into the matters of extension of service of officers of the category to which the appellant belonged.
We disposed of both the review application and the SLP directed against issuance of companytempt numberice by the High Court by accepting the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General that numberfresh proceedings shall be taken against the appellant.
This order was passed in August 1993 whereas the appellant was reaching the age of superannuation at 58 in September 1993.
He companyld be companysidered for promotion only if he was in service.
The appellate authority passed a detailed order dismissing the appeal as the appellants case for extension was companysidered by the companymittee in companyformity with the procedure.
It did number find him suitable.
The recommendation was accepted by the appropriate authority.
The order was maintained in the departmental appeal filed by the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against refusal to grant him extension in service as it would number be in the interest of the Bank.
The appellant who joined the service of the Bank as a Probationary Officer in the year 1961 rose to the level of top executive Grade VI.
