DEV KANT TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions have been preferred by Sri Shamsher Singh, erstwhile branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, against his employer. By means of the first writ petition, the petitioner challnged his compulsory retirement from service of Punjab and Sind Bank, and the second writ petition was preferred by the petitioner assailing the denial of pensionary benefits consequent on his compulsory retirement from service. ( 2 ) SINCE both the writ petitions are interconnected the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was put under suspension by the order of the Regional manager on November 24, 1992. He was served with the statement of allegations. A copy of the charge sheet, however, was not supplied to the petitioner inspite of the request having been made. Sri S. K. Bahal, Manager, was appointed as enquiring Authority who submitted his enquiry report on August 28, 1993. Zonal Manager, acting in the capacity of disciplinary authority, accepted the enquiry report and ordered dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Bank. Against this order of dismissal passed on March 20, 1994 an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the joint General Manager. This appeal was, however decided by the Deputy General. Manager (Personnel) by means of his order dated May 3, 1995 substituting the penalty of dismissal from service with the penalty of compulsory retirement. A review petition was made by the petitioner to the General Manager. The review petition was dismissed by the general Manager (Personnel) by means of his order dated June 30, 1996. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 14446 of 1996 wherein no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the averments of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. ( 4 ) THE petitioner then filed the second writ Petition No. 37230 of 1998 claiming that he was entitled to pensionary benefits consequent upon his compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank but the same were denied to him inspite of the repeated representations made to the bank and the respondents failed to pay the retirement benefits. ( 4 ) THE petitioner then filed the second writ Petition No. 37230 of 1998 claiming that he was entitled to pensionary benefits consequent upon his compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank but the same were denied to him inspite of the repeated representations made to the bank and the respondents failed to pay the retirement benefits. The respondents denied the retirement benefits on the ground that the bank was not in a position to consider the petitioners case for pension as the petitioner had not opted for pension by July 22, 1996 which was the last date for giving option for pension. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the bank dated January 28, 1997 declining to grant pension to him. The Bank also declined to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner by means of the order dated January 20, 1998 alleging that the Rules did not permit payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the employees who are compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The petitioner, therefore, also prayed for the quashing of the order dated January 28, 1997 and January 20, 1998 declining to grant pension, gratuity and leave encashment. ( 5 ) IN their counter affidavit filed in the second writ petition the respondents admitted that the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from service was substituted by the order of compulsory retirement and averred that according to the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations which were notified on September 29, 1995 the options were invited up to January 27, 1996 and the Zonal Offices were instructed to intimate the Pension Scheme to all the retired employees. The petitioner was supposed to send option to the Bank upto January 27, 1996 but the option was given only on August 16, 1996. According to the Bank since the option for pension on retirement was not submitted prior to January 27, 1996, the Bank rightly withheld the pension and, therefore, the Bank was under no obligation to pay any pension to the petitioner. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions. According to the Bank since the option for pension on retirement was not submitted prior to January 27, 1996, the Bank rightly withheld the pension and, therefore, the Bank was under no obligation to pay any pension to the petitioner. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions. The main grievance of the petitioner before the Court is that he was awarded punishment of dismissal by the Zonal Manager and not by the Deputy general Manager (Personnel) who is the disciplinary authority of the Junior management Grade Scale-I Officer to which category the petitioner belonged. ( 7 ) PUNJAB and Sind Bank Officers employees (Discipline and Appeal)regulations, 1981, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 by the board of Directors of Punjab and Sind Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central government, are admittedly applicable to the case before us. In the Regulation disciplinary authority has been defined as the authority specified in the Schedule which is competent to impose on an officer-employee any of the penalties specified in the Regulation 4. The schedule attached to the aforesaid Regulations shows that the disciplinary authority of the petitioner who was in the Junior Management grade, Scale-I was Deputy General Manager (Personnel ). It is worth noting that the regulation 4 (f) provides that compulsory retirement is one of the major punishments and Regulation 4 provides that the dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment is major penalty. The major penalties could have been awarded only by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel ). However, in the present case, it is evident that the penalty of dismissal from service was awarded by Sri P. S. Brinda, zonal Manager, purporting to act as disciplinary authority. The Zonal Manager was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner as has been stated above. It is specifically provided that the disciplinary authority of a Junior Management Grade scale-I Officer to which category the petitioner belonged was the Deputy General manager (Personnel ). Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by an officer who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and was not empowered to award the said penalty. It is specifically provided that the disciplinary authority of a Junior Management Grade scale-I Officer to which category the petitioner belonged was the Deputy General manager (Personnel ). Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by an officer who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and was not empowered to award the said penalty. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, the appellate authority of the petitioner was Joint General Manager/ deputy General Manager as per the provisions of the Schedule attached to the regulations. The appeal was, therefore, addressed by the petitioner to the Joint general Manager but the same was decided by deputy General Manager (Personnel)purporting to act as appellate authority. The penalty of compulsory retirement was awarded by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) in appeal and was not awarded by the Joint General Manager/deputy General manager who was the appellate authority in the case of the petitioner and was, therefore, passed by an authority who was not competent to do so. ( 9 ) THE Reviewing Authority in the case of the petitioner as prescribed in the schedule to the aforesaid Regulations was the General manager of the Bank. The petitioner, therefore, addressed his review petition to the general Manager of the Bank. The said review petition was, however, decided by General manager (Personnel) who was not the reviewing Authority of the petitioner. Thus the review Petition was also not decided by the competent authority. ( 10 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service was not passed by the appropriate disciplinary authority prescribed in the schedule appended to the Regulations. It is also evident that the petitioners appeal was not decided by the competent appellate authority as prescribed in the Schedule appended to the regulations. Similarly, the review petition was not decided by the General Manager, the reviewing Authority prescribed in the schedule appended to the Regulations. Thus, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was awarded by the authority other than those prescribed in the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer employees (Discipline and Appeal)regulations, 1981. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not imposed by the prescribed authority and therefore, cannot be upheld. Thus, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was awarded by the authority other than those prescribed in the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer employees (Discipline and Appeal)regulations, 1981. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not imposed by the prescribed authority and therefore, cannot be upheld. ( 11 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he had specifically taken the plea in his appeal that the Zonal Manager was not his Disciplinary Authority nor was the appointing authority of the petitioner and was lower in rank to the appointing authority. The alleged appellate authority did not address itself to this averment in the appeal. The said question was not considered by the Reviewing authority as well. ( 12 ) THUS, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is violative of the specific provisions made in the punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 and the same is bound to be quashed. ( 13 ) SINCE penalty initially imposed by the authority purporting to be the disciplinary authority was not passed by the rightful authority and the petition succeeds on the sole ground of competency of disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority we refrain from entering into the question whether an enquiry was instituted by the rightful authority and the question as to whether the disciplinary enquiry was held by a competent person. We also refrain from entering into the merits of the statement of the accusation and so also the question whether the penalty was commensurate with the guilt. ( 14 ) THE Writ Petition No. 14446 of 1996 is, therefore, allowed. The order dated March 29, 1994, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and communicated to the petitioner by means of a letter, a copy of which is containedinannexure-2, theorderdatedmay 3, 1995 passed in appeal, a copy of which is contained as Annexure-4 and so also the order datedmarch30, 1996passedinreview, acopy ofwhichiscontainedasannexure-7arehereby quashed. In the result the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits. It will, however, be open to the Bank to proceed against the petitioner by serving a fresh chargesheet and after holding enquiry in accordance with punjab Sind Bank Officer Employees (Disciplineandappeal)Rules, 1981. In the result the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits. It will, however, be open to the Bank to proceed against the petitioner by serving a fresh chargesheet and after holding enquiry in accordance with punjab Sind Bank Officer Employees (Disciplineandappeal)Rules, 1981. ( 15 ) SINCE the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been set aside on merits, the subsequent Writ Petition No. 37230 of 1998 has become redundant. We, however, think it appropriate to indicate that ground taken by the Bank for denial of pension is highly unjustified as it was not open to a dismissed officer to have known about the date by which the option was to be exercised nor could he have known of the pension scheme which, admittedly, came to be introduced after dismissal of the petitioner. ( 16 ) SINCE the petition has become redundant, it requires no orders. ( 17 ) THE Writ Petition No. 37230 of 1998 is, therefore, dismissed as redundant. .