JUDGMENT 1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions of facts and law and have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/1985, petitioner Rajesh Bhargave entered the services of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') in November, 1978 as Clerk-cum-Godown-Keeper. He was confirmed in the services of Bank on May 9, 1979.In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 428/1985, Y.K. Sharma v. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Another, petitioner Y.K. Sharma entered the services of the Bank on December 1, 1973, and was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum- Typist. He was confirmed in the services of the Bank on June 1, 1974. 3. Both the petitioners appeared at the Associate-Examination in May, 1982, held by the Indian Institute of Bankers, Bombay (for short the Institute). It is the admitted position that the said Institute found that both the petitioners had indulged in copying while answering question papers and as a consequence of that both of them were debarred from appearing at the Institute's Examination for two years, as would be evident from Annexure 1, filed in both the writ petitions. 4. It appears that the Notified Disciplinary Authority in both the cases of the view that the two petitioners had committed acts of gross misconduct in terms of para 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement 1966. In both the cases, the Notified Disciplinary Authority served show cause notices, asking them to show case as to why disciplinary action may not be taken against the concerned petitioner for the aforesaid act of gross misconduct. It appears that in both the cases the petitioners filed replies to the said show cause notices. The Notified Disciplinary Authority subsequently arrived at the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct did not amount to 'major misconduct' but was a minor misconduct and, therefore, in supersession of the previous Show Cause Notices, the said Authority issued fresh notices to both the petitioners, in almost identical terms, asking them as follows:- "Considering all aspects of the case, it has been decided to impose upon you the punishment of censure in terms of para 19.8(a) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66, as mentioned by the Settlement 31.10.1979. You are hereby given an opportunity to make such written statement of defence as you may wish to submit against the aforesaid proposal. If you fail to submit such statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of this letter, it would be presumed that you have no written statement of defence to submit/representation to make and a final order would be liable to be passed against you exparte on the basis of the facts before me." 5. It appears that both the petitioners submitted appropriate replies. The Notified Disciplinary Authority, vide identical orders dated 5th September, 1984, inter alia passed the following order:- "3. Accordingly, you are hereby censured for the lapses and warned to desist from adopting unfair practice in Institute Examination in future. please also note that in terms of the extant instructions, you will also not be eligible for promotion for a period of one year from the date of this letter if you are already eligible or for one year from the date you become eligible for promotion." 6. It appears that in both the cases the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Disciplinary Appellate Authority in October, 1984. However, the petitioners did not receive any decision from the Appellate Authority. It is stated at the Bar that till now the Appellate Authority has not passed any order. 7. The case of the petitioners is that after the conclusion of the May 1982 Examination, General Manager (Operation) of the respondent Bank, issued Circular No. P&C/22/82 dated 23.6.1082. By this Circular, the General Manager issued directions that the employees, who were charged with the action of adopting unfair means at the examination, punishment of warning, censure or adverse remarks shall be imposed and he shall also not be eligible for a year or from the date he becomes eligible for promotion. The case of the petitioners is that the General Manager (Operation) of the respondent Bank could not have issued such a circular because the Bipartite Settlement referred to above defines gross misconduct as also minor misconduct and General Manager (Operation) did not have the authority to amend the terms of Bipartite Settlement, which is a statutory settlement and therefore, no disciplinary action could have been initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid circular. It was pleaded that the relevant clause of Bipartite Settlement at the relevant time did not contain any clause which might declare copying at the Institute's Examination as a misconduct, whether major or minor. It is submitted that the Institute is an independent autonomous body, which holds examination independently of the authority of the respondent bank. It was pleaded that both the petitioners had already been punished by the Institute by debarring them from appearing at specific subsequent examinations of the Institute. Hence the Notified Disciplinary Authority could not have punished the petitioners by censuring further or by withholding their promotions. 8. It is further pleaded that the order of punishment was beyond the scope of the show cause notices issued to the two petitioners, whereby earlier notices had been supersed by the Notified Disciplinary Authority. 9. In Y.K. Sharma's case, the petitioner has pleaded that he appeared at the promotional test held by the respondent Bank in the year 1984. He was successful in the written test and to the best of his knowledge, he was successful in the interview also but the petitioner has been deprived of his promotion, to which, he was entitled by virtue of having passed the promotional examination held in the year 1984. 10. It may here be noted that this petitioner filed a stay petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 340/85, Yugal Kishore Sharma v. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Another, wherein by order dated 15.3.1985, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to appear at the promotional test which was to be held on March 17, 1985. It appears that the petitioner was allowed to take the examination as directed by order dated 1.11.1985, and also appeared in the interview held in consequence of this examination. However, he has not been ptomoted as the result of the interview has not been declared.By order dated 1.11.1985, following directions were given:- "I consider it fit to direct respondent No. 1 to declare the result of the petitioner for the promotional test held on March 17, 1985, and the interview held on July 13, 1985. Respondent No. 1 is further directed that if the petitioner is found suitable, he be appointed as officer, Junior Management Grade I." 11. Respondent No. 1 is further directed that if the petitioner is found suitable, he be appointed as officer, Junior Management Grade I." 11. The case of this petitioner is that respondent No. 1 be directed to declare the result of the interview pertaining to promotional test held on 10.1.1984 and in case the petitioner is found to have qualified in that interview, respondent No. 1 be directed to promote him w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted as a consequence of the examination held on 10.1.1984 and the interview conducted pursuant thereof. It has been pleaded that the Notified Disciplinary Authority was not at all competent to inflict the punishment either of censure or of withholding promotion of this petitioner because the definition of misconduct, which inter alia included copying at examination of the Institute, was introduced much later i.e. vide settlement dated 17.12.1984. 12. So far as the case of Rajesh Bhargava is concerned, it is pleaded that the petitioner appeared at the promotional test for the year 1983-84 and he qualified at the said written test. It was further pleaded that he presumed that he had secured good marks in the interview but was not romoted on account of contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry against him. It was further pleaded that another promotional test was held in the year 1984, and the petitioner appeared at the said test and was also successful in the written test as also the interview but the promotion was withheld on account of earlier circular of the Bank dated June 13, 1983. 13. In case of this petitioner, as stay petition was filed and it appears that this Court directed the respondent No. 1 to declare the result of the petitioner for the promotional test held in 1984 and the respondent No. 1 was further directed that if the petitioner was found suitable to be appointed as Junior Management Grade I, he may be so appointed. This petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent Bank could not have punished the petitioner for a conduct, which was not included in the definition of gross misconduct or minor misconduct on the date the alleged act of misconduct is said to have taken place. This petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent Bank could not have punished the petitioner for a conduct, which was not included in the definition of gross misconduct or minor misconduct on the date the alleged act of misconduct is said to have taken place. In this case also the petitioner prays that result of the interview held in pursuance of the promotional test be declared and in case it is found that the petitioner had qualified at the interview, then he may be appointed from the date his juniors have been appointed in pursuance to the examination at which this petitioner qualified at interview on the earlier date. 14. In both cases, the writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the respondent Bank. It has been urged that the act of the two petitioners in indulging in cheating at the Institute's Examination was a gravely reprehensible act and was an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank because it was an act of acquiring higher qualification of banking to secure undue promotion on the bank on that basis, even if the person was not upto the ability required for such promotion. It was pleaded that by doing so a person inferior in ability, will be able to secure promotion on a post, which was meant for a person of a higher ability and will injure the interests of the Bank. It was, however, admitted that it was only by way of abundant precaution that on 17.9.1984, the unfair practice of any nature whatsoever in any examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers was specifically and separately added as a gross misconduct and, therefore, both the petitioners were rightly punished for the grave and gross misconduct committed by them. His further contention is that the conduct of the petitioners was highly reprehensible, and, therefore, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, should not interfere and reject these writ petitions. 15. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, copying at a test held by an Institution entirely alien to the respondents, was not included in the definition of 'gross misconduct' as it stood at the relevant time. The expression "gross misconduct" was defined in Bipartite Settlement as follows : "19.5. 15. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, copying at a test held by an Institution entirely alien to the respondents, was not included in the definition of 'gross misconduct' as it stood at the relevant time. The expression "gross misconduct" was defined in Bipartite Settlement as follows : "19.5. By the expression "gross misconduct" shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part of an employee:- (a) engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his duties except with the written permission of the bank; (b) unauthorised disclosure of information regarding the affairs of the bank or any of its customers or any other person concerned with the business of the bank which is confidential or the disclosure of which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank; (c) drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank; (d) wilful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers; (e) wilful insubordinate or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a superior; (f) habitual doing of any act which amounts to "minor misconduct" as defined below "habitual" meaning a course of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions censure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remark has been entered against him; (g) wilful slowing down in performance of work; (h) gambling or betting on the premises of the bank; (i) speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any commodity whether on his account or that of any other persons; (j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss; (k) giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from a customer or an employee of the bank; (l) abatement or instigation of any of the acts or omissions above mentioned." 16. A bare perusal of this clause goes to show that by no stretch of imagination, the action of the petitioners could amount to gross misconduct as defined by the aforesaid clauses. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has tried to stretch the meaning of sub-clause (j) as noticed earlier. A bare perusal of this clause goes to show that by no stretch of imagination, the action of the petitioners could amount to gross misconduct as defined by the aforesaid clauses. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has tried to stretch the meaning of sub-clause (j) as noticed earlier. In my opinion, the act of cheating at the Examination held by the Institute could not by any stretch of imagination be said to be an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or act which involved the Bank in serious loss. The act of cheating at the Examination was at best grave misconduct vis-a-vis the Institute holding the examination and the Institute was competent to inflict such punishment upon the petitioners as it thought fit; in fact the institution had inflicted the punishment on both the petitioners by debarring them from appearing at the subsequent specified examinations of the Institute. 18. It would not be out of place to mention that the promotional test held by the respondent Bank has nothing to do with the examinations conducted by the Institute. Promotional test is a test held by the respondent Bank as an employer for the purposes of judging the competence of its subordinates for promotion to higher posts. Copying at the examination of the Institute, could by no stretch of imagination affect the result of the promotional test held by the Bank as an employer. 19. The act of the petitioners could not be termed even as minor misconduct vis-a-vis the Bank.Clause 19.7 of the Bipartite Settlement defines minor misconduct as follows:- "19.7. Copying at the examination of the Institute, could by no stretch of imagination affect the result of the promotional test held by the Bank as an employer. 19. The act of the petitioners could not be termed even as minor misconduct vis-a-vis the Bank.Clause 19.7 of the Bipartite Settlement defines minor misconduct as follows:- "19.7. By the expression "minor misconduct" shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part of the employee : (a) absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds; (b) unpunctual or irregular attendance; (c) neglect of work, negligence in performing duties; (d) breach of any rule of business of the Bank or instruction for the running of any department; (e) committing nuisance on the premises of the Bank; (f) entering or leave the premises of the Bank, except by an entrance provided for the purpose; (g) attempt to collect or collecting monies within the premises of the bank without the previous permission of the management or except as allowed by any rule or law for the time being in force; (h) holding or attempting to hold or attending any meeting on the premises of the Bank without the previous permission of the management or except in accordance with the provisions of any rule or law for the time being in force; (i) canvassing for union membership or collection of union dues or subscriptions within the premises of the Bank without the previous permission of the management or except in accordance with the provisions of any rule or law for the time being in force; (j) failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or attention towards officers, customers or other employees of the bank, unseemly or unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty; (k) marked disregard or ordinary requirements of decency and cleanliness in person or dress; (l) incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive." 20. I have gone through the relevant sub-clause of the said clause and I find that copying at examination of an alien Institute does not fall within any of the sub-clauses mentioned above. 21. The Bank itself appears to have been cognizant of this fact and that is why an amendment was made in the Bipartite Settlement, whereby copying at examination was included in the term "misconduct" later on as noticed above. 21. The Bank itself appears to have been cognizant of this fact and that is why an amendment was made in the Bipartite Settlement, whereby copying at examination was included in the term "misconduct" later on as noticed above. This amendment came into force on 17th September, 1984, and it added sub- clause (m) to Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement. The amendment reads as follows:- "(m) Resorting to unfair practice of any nature whatsoever in any examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers or by or on behalf of the Bank in cases not covered by sub-clause (n) in the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19th October, 1966 as amended and sub-clause (o) in Sastry Award as amended as applicable to State Bank of India under Gross Misconduct and where a report to that effect has been received by the Bank from the concerned authority and the employee accepts the charge." 22. It is trite law that the amendment could not have been retrospective and the Notified Disciplinary Authority could not have punished the petitioners for an alleged misconduct which took place prior to the amendment of the Bipartite Settlement dated September 17, 1984. I, therefore, find that the Notified Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to punish the petitioners in any way on the basis of the amended charge sheet served on them. Even the punishment of censure has to fall on this ground, what to say of the punishment of withholding promotion. 23. It is interesting to note that the amended show cause notice did not speak of punishment of withholding promotion. Annexure 3 in both the writ petitions would go to show that the proposed punishment was restricted to censure. The Notified Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on the petitioners, which was not even contemplated by Annexure 3 and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained at all. 24. Mr. D.K. Soral, for respondent Bank, vehemently contended that this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction should not interfere with the punishments imposed by the Notified Disciplinary Authority. I regret my inability to accept this contention. Punishment inflicted by disciplinary authority entails civil consequences. Punishment can be imposed upon an employee by an employer only in accordance with the rules and regulations governing such punishments. I regret my inability to accept this contention. Punishment inflicted by disciplinary authority entails civil consequences. Punishment can be imposed upon an employee by an employer only in accordance with the rules and regulations governing such punishments. If an order is passed which is violative of the relevant rules, the punishment is void altogether and for all practical purposes is nonest in the eyes of law. Moreover, the Institute itself as noticed earlier punished the petitioner by debarring them from further examination of the Institute. 25. No other point was urged before me. 26. In view of what I have stated above both the Writ Petitions deserve to succeed. 27. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/1985, Rajesh Bhargava v. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Another, it is directed that in case the petitioner had qualified at the written test for the year 1983-84, and had also succeeded at the interview, he shall be appointed to the Junior Management Grade I, with effect from the date his juniors were appointed in pursuance of the said examination and shall be granted all consequential benefits. However, if the Bank finds that this petitioner had failed to qualify at the interview of the said test but had passed the promotional test for the year 1984, and had qualified at the interview, in pursuance of the said test, he shall then be appointed with effect from the date his juniors were promoted/appointed to the post of Junior Management Grade I, in pursuance of the examination held in the year 1984. Interim order passed by this Court shall stand modified accordingly. 28. So far as the case of Yugal Kishore Sharma in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 428/1985 is concerned, if the respondent Bank finds that the petitioner had passed promotional test of 1984 and had also succeeded at the interview in pursuance of the said test, he may be promoted to the post of Officer Junior Management Grade I, with effect from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 29. The aforesaid exercise in both the cases shall be done within a period of six months from today. 29. The aforesaid exercise in both the cases shall be done within a period of six months from today. If the aforesaid exercise is not completed within a period of six months from today and all consequential benefits are not granted to the petitioners, they shall be paid their dues with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. In the circumstances case, the costs are made easy.Petition allowed. *******