SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) FACTS which are essential to dispose of this writ petition, briefly stated are as follows: the petitioner joined service of Indian Overseas Bank as Probationary Officer on 3-11-1969. After having had various assignments and prestigious trainingprogrammes in the country and abroad he was promoted to erstwhile B grade witheffect from 1-7-1974. He was further promoted to middle management - Scale-Illwith effect from 1-7-1979. He headed the prestigious branches of the Bank atjullundur, Bhatinda, Ludhiana, Nehru Place, New Delhi and Alkapuri in Baroda. ( 2 ) THE service conditions of the Officer-Employees of Indian Overseas Bank are governed by Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' Conduct and (Disciplineand Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (for short 'regulations' ). ( 3 ) DURING July 1984 the charge-sheet dated 18-7-1984 was served on the petitioner referring to certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by thepetitioner during the period June 1977 to December 1979. The petitioner gave adetailed defence statement dated 23-8-1984 vide Annexure-B running into about100 pages, to the charge-sheet Annexure-A which runs into 33 pages. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the reply, the disciplinary authority realising that the charges could not be sustained, by its order dated 2-2-1985 posted the petitioner asmanager of Free School Street Branch, Calcutta, which was an exceptional branchand thus restored his earlier position of heading a scale IV branch. Even before thepetitioner could take charge of the said branch at Calcutta he was transferred toballygung Branch as Manager. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to take chargeof Alkapuri Branch at Baroda vide order dated 21-3-1985. The petitioner contendsthat he showed tremendous progress at Alkapuri Branch and got the branch acoveted distinction of a model branch. The Bank announced promotion to scale-IVand the petitioner was eligible as per the promotion policy of the Bank. However, hewas denied promotion on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The petitionerclaims that though he was in scale-Ill, had been continuously heading extra-largebranches at Ludhiana, Nehru place, New Delhi and Alkapuri at Baroda almostcontinuously from January 1980 onwards discharging duties of scale-IV post Inspite of this, promotion to scale-IV was denied to the petitioner from 1-1-1986although his juniors were promoted. The petitioner gave a representation videannexure-C seeking justice in the matter of promotion. The petitioner gave a representation videannexure-C seeking justice in the matter of promotion. The Bank authorities insteadof considering his case suddenly transferred him to Zonal Office, Hyderabad by theorder dated 22-3-1986 as Manager which was subsequently cancelled and he wasposted to Administrative Office at Bangalore as mere officer vide order dated29-4-1986. ( 5 ) HAVING raked up stale and concluded matters after a lapse of 41/2 years from the period of alleged commission of irregularities and after a further period of threeyears which had the effect of abandoning the enquiry, the disciplinary authorityadministered a warning vide Annexure-D, dated 25-11-1987. Not satisfied with thisthe respondent-Bank advised the Regional Manager, Bangalore and Zonal Officehyderabad by the letter dated 3-12-1987 that the petitioner should not be posted asbranch manager for two years as per Annexure-D1. ( 6 ) THE Disciplinary Authority again issued a fresh charge-sheet Annexure-E, dated 30-6-1988. The petitioner contends that this second charge-sheet on the verysame charges as contained in Annexure-A is issued. He replied to the said charge-sheetas per Annexure-F contending that the second charge-sheet issued was withoutjurisdiction and illegal. Having seen Annexure-F, the disciplinary authorityaddressed a letter dated 19-7-1988, Annexure-G to the petitioner stating thatannexure-A was not a charge-sheet and Annexure-D was not an order of punishmentand further that no punishment was imposed debarring him from holding the post ofmanager for two years. Inspite of this the disciplinary authority appointed the 2ndrespondent as per Annexure-J to hold enquiry into the charges covered by the secondcharge-sheet dated 30-6-1988. The disciplinary authority further issued an additionalcharge-sheet as per Annexure-K in respect of some irregularity alleged to havecommitted on 5-12-1981. The petitioner replied to this additional charge-sheet alsoas per Annexure-L. The petitioner having received notice of enquiry dated 16-9-1988 as per Annexure-M has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the actions of the Bank with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30-6-1988, (Annexure-E) additional charge-sheet dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure-K); for a writ of mandamus to declare the letter dated 25-11-1987 (Annexure-D); letter dated 3-12-1987 (Annexure-Dl) as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and also for a declaration that the notice of Annexure-M as illegal, void and without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT-1 has filed the detailed objection statement denying the material averments made in the writ petition inter alia contending that Annexure-A, dated 18-7-1974 issued by the Zonal Office was only a letter calling for explanation of the petitioner as the petitioner was working under the administrative control of the zonal Manager and it was not a charge-sheet as such. The irregularities committed by the petitioner were grave in nature, issuing of letter dated 25-11-1987 as per annexure-D was only an administrative warning and not a punishment inasmuch as administrative warning is neither a minor nor a major penalty as contemplated under regulation 4 of the Regulations. Further Annexure-Dl a direction issued not to post the petitioner as a Branch Manager for two years is not a punishment at all. The officers of the cadre of the petitioner could be posted either to a branch or to an administrative office. Respondent-1 further contends that the charge-sheet dated 30-6-1988 was result of investigation conducted by the Bank as well as by the C. B. I. Chandigarh. The result of the investigation conducted by the C. B. I. , resulted in the following:"1) Prosecution of four private persons for cheating Bhatinda Branch of respondent-Bank; 2) Taking suitable action as deemed fit against the petitioner herein". ( 8 ) AS to the claim of the petitioner for promotion, respondent 1 contends that the competent authority considered his case for promotion and found him unsuitable. In the circumstances respondent 1 submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and as such the same may be dismissed with costs. ( 9 ) SRI R. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that:a) Annexure-A issued by the Zonal Manager runs into 33 pages, graphic details of the alleged irregularities are given in Annexure-A. b) The Deputy General Manager of the Bank having issued warning Annexure-D, dated 25-11-1987, after careful consideration of the reply given by the petitioner, cannot now turn round and say that Annexure-A was only issued by the Zonal Manager in administrative capacity as a mere superior officer to the petitioner. c) He also contended that when the petitioner represented for his case to be considered for promotion as per Annexure-C the so-called charge-sheet dated 30-6-1988 is issued. d) He submitted that there is no particular form as to how a charge-sheet should be. c) He also contended that when the petitioner represented for his case to be considered for promotion as per Annexure-C the so-called charge-sheet dated 30-6-1988 is issued. d) He submitted that there is no particular form as to how a charge-sheet should be. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Krishna chandra Tandon v The Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1589 . Annexure-A gave a clear indication about the allegations-charges levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner having understood them as charges, has given a detailed reply. It cannot be said that Annexure-A was not a charge-sheet. He submitted as observed in para 15 of the said decision of the Supreme court, there is no magic in the word 'charge-sheet'. e) He also contended that commencement of the second disciplinary proceedings in respect of the same charges would not be justified unless rules governing disciplinary proceedings, expressly provided for issuinga second charge-sheet, having received the explanation from the petitioner keeping quiet for long period and thereafter having issued warning giving an impression that the disciplinary proceedings were completed or abandoned, it is not open to respondent-1 to issue a second charge-sheet In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of P. Andrews v District Educational Officer and Another, 1966 (2) mys. L. J. 324. In the said decision it is observed thus at page 326:"the Grst disciplinary proceeding was commenced on October 10,1961 and two of the charges brought against the petitioner on that occasion are the charges which are now brought against him. The petitioner showed cause on October 24, 1961, through his explanation, in the course of which he submitted that he had made no misrepresentation to anyone and that be was under the impression that his success in the Upper Primary Examination constituted the required eligibility for taking the S. S. L. C. Examination. He pointed out that he had produced the upper Primary Examination certificate before the Inspector of Schools and that that Inspector shared the belief of the petitioner that there was the required eligibility. If, after the production of this explanation, the disciplinary proceeding was not continued, what should reasonably follow is that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the explanation and dropped the charges. . If, after the production of this explanation, the disciplinary proceeding was not continued, what should reasonably follow is that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the explanation and dropped the charges. . The strength of that inference receives reinforcement from the fact that it was only after a period of 31/2 years that the charges were once again revived. The great and inordinate delay in the revival of those charges and the antecedent discontinuance of the earlier disciplinary proceeding over a long tract of time, can have no other meaning than that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner on October 24, 1961 and that in consequence the proceedings against him were discontinued and abandoned. If that was how the earlier disciplinary proceeding terminated, it was not within the competence of tiie disciplinary authority to exhume those charges and to make them the subject-matter of another disciplinary proceeding, as late as in the year 1964" (emphasis supplied) f) He placed reliance on the decision in the case of The State of Assam and another v J. N. Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277 , for the proposition that a second enquiry cannot be re-started in the absence of specific power to review or revise, vested by rules in some authority. ( 10 ) SRI N. G. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 contended that annexure-A cannot be said to be a charge-sheet as it was not in conformity with regulation 6 (3) of the Regulations. Moreover Annexure-A was issued only in the administrative capacity by the Zonal Manager as the petitioner was under his administrative control. Further Annexure-D clearly shows that only a warning is administered. Further a warning is not either a minor or a major penalty. However, respondent 1 Bank after investigation and in consultation with the Central Vigilance commission has issued the charge-sheet Annexure-E, dated 30-6-1988 and that the deputy General Manager was not a disciplinary authority so as to impose any penalty. ( 11 ) THAT cumulative effect of all the facts shall be taken into consideration in order to gather the intention as to whether Annexure-A was a charge-sheet leading to issuing of Annexure-D an administrative warning and whether it can be taken as a conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. ( 11 ) THAT cumulative effect of all the facts shall be taken into consideration in order to gather the intention as to whether Annexure-A was a charge-sheet leading to issuing of Annexure-D an administrative warning and whether it can be taken as a conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner after all what is now proposed, is to hold enquiry, into the charges against the petitioner giving him all the opportunities to put forth his case. Thus no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if he participates in the proposed enquiry. On these grounds he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the light of these rival contentions the only point that arises for determination in this case is: whether it is open to respondent 1 to conduct and continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner at this stage having issued Annexure-D? ( 13 ) THE last two paragraphs in Annexure-A read thus:"we will also be issuing some more charges shortly to you. In the meantime, please let us have your point-war explanation to all the lapses/irregularities pointed out above within one month of receipt of this letter. If we do not get your reply in time or your explanation is not convincing we shall take such disciplinary actions as we may deem fit," (emphasis supplied) the use of the underlined words in the penultimate paragraph of Annexure-A, asking the explanation of the petitioner having given the details of allegations, stating that if explanation is not convincing disciplinary action as deemed fit would be taken, clearly indicate that it is nothing but a charge-sheet that too in the absence of any prescribed form of charge-sheet. ( 14 ) THE petitioner has also clearly understood Annexure-A as charge-sheet and in the last page of bis reply Annexure-B he slates as follows:"sir, you will agree that you have taken about 6 months to frame these charges and hence not fair to say that the exercise is not yet completed and 'some more charges to follow' thereby keeping a Democle's Sword over my head which is unheard of and against the set principles of justice. "thereafter Annexure-D was issued by the Deputy General Manager being fully aware of the charges levelled against the petitioner. "thereafter Annexure-D was issued by the Deputy General Manager being fully aware of the charges levelled against the petitioner. If these things are taken into consideration the cumulative effect of them would be that Annexurc-A was a charge-sheet though it is not styled as a charge-sheet. As staled in the decision in the case of Krishna Chandra Tandon aforesaid, there is no magic in the word charge-sheet. In a given situation necessary conclusion is to be arrived at taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case and the material brought on record. In view of the schedule appended to the Regulations, Deputy General Manager is a disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner. Annexure-D was issued by the deputy General Manager. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent 1 was unable to point out any Regulations which empower or enable the disciplinary authority to review or revise the earlier disciplinary proceedings. In view of the decision in the case of State of Assam v Roy biswas it is not open to respondent 1 either to issue a second charge-sheet or to conduct enquiry again. Further the decision of this Court in the case of P. Andrews referred to above fully supports the case of the petitioner on hand. ( 16 ) AT the hearing when I specifically asked the learned counsel for respondent-1 whether any loss is caused to the Bank, the reply was that no loss is caused to the bank and some recovery proceedings with regard to the amount due to the Bank from third parties are in progress. ( 17 ) BUT on facts of this case, I have come to the unhesitating conclusion that Annexure-A was in the nature of a charge-sheet. Annexure-B was statement of defence and the competent Disciplinary Authority has in its wisdom thought it fit only to issue an administrative warning as per Annexure-D. ( 18 ) THE decision 1985 Lab. IC 1359 cited by the learned counsel for respondent 1 is not of any assistance to him on the facts of this case. Apart from this, the proposed enquiry at this stage in respect of the alleged omissions and commissions for the period between June 1977 to December 1977 and in respect of issuing of certificate dated 5-12-1981 have become stale. Apart from this, the proposed enquiry at this stage in respect of the alleged omissions and commissions for the period between June 1977 to December 1977 and in respect of issuing of certificate dated 5-12-1981 have become stale. In my considered opinion and in the light of what is stated above, rcspondent-1 cannot be permitted to exhume the charges and to hold disciplinary proceedings as late in the year 1988. ( 19 ) THE prayer of the petitioner seeking declaration of Anncxure-D as illegal cannot be granted as it is on the basis of Annexure-D, the petitioner contends that already the disciplinary proceedings were concluded resulting in a sort of punishment of an administrative warning and as such the second enquiry is not permissible. If that be so, he cannot seek for relief of declaration that Annexure-D is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Under Annexure-D1 it cannot be said that any penalty is imposed on the petitioner. It is clear from the statement of objections filed by respondent 1 that petitioner and the officers similarly situated may be posted either as branch Managers or as officers in the administrative office. It is also made clear in the objection statement that by such a posting, the service conditions of the petitioner were not affected in any way. This being the position I do not find any justification to declare that Annexure-D1 is either illegal or void. ( 20 ) IN the result, the following order is passed: i) Writ petition is partly allowed; ii)The impugned charge-sheets dated 30-6-1988 and 8-8-1988 vide Annexurcs-E and K respectively are quashed; iii) In view of the quashing of Annexures-E and K, declaration as sought for by the petitioner in respect of Annexure-M, dated 16-9-1988 has become unnecessary; iv) The prayer of the petitioner in respect of Annexures-D and D-1, dated 25-11-1987 and 3-12-1987 respectively is rejected; v) No costs. --- *** --- .