JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.C. Misra, J.—Sri Triloki Nath learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Singhal learned counsel for the respondents-bank, are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order-dated 12.11.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 and order-dated 6.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition). 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondents-bank and appointed as Clerk by the Regional Development Manager at Mathura and was subsequently promoted to the post of Special Assistant in the year 1987 and was posted under the respondent No. 4 Syndicate Bank, Mathura. On 10.12.1994 he was issued a charge-sheet with the allegation that in a firm M/s Kamal Textiles a partnership firm consisting of petitioner’s father, wife and two relatives availed cash credit limit of Rs. one lakh and documents of bills discounts of Rs. 3 lakhs from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mathura and the petitioner without prior permission of the respondent-bank signed the cash credit limit document as co-obligator to the cash credit limit. When the liabilities were not cleared the Oriental Bank of Commerce filed a recovery suit against the partners of the said firm including the petitioner. Later on the said suit was dismissed. On the basis of the said allegation that the petitioner had failed to obtain prior permission from the competent authority as per the circular of the respondent-bank before taking over the onus of the co-obligant against any transaction within or outside the Bank, the petitioner was held to have committed misconduct as defined under Clause 19.5 (J) of the Bi-Partite. After an inquiry was instituted the respondent-bank imposed on the petitioner major punishment of compulsory retirement under Clause 19.6 of the Bi-Partite Rules. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said punishment filed a departmental appeal before the appellate authority, which too was dismissed on 12.11.1999, annexure-1 to the writ petition. After an inquiry was instituted the respondent-bank imposed on the petitioner major punishment of compulsory retirement under Clause 19.6 of the Bi-Partite Rules. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said punishment filed a departmental appeal before the appellate authority, which too was dismissed on 12.11.1999, annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 12.11.1999 issued by the General Manager Personnel-respondent No. 2 and order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Assistant General Manager-respondent No. 3, Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition on the grounds inter alia, that even if the allegation in the charge-sheet is taken to be correct, no punishment can be imposed upon the petitioner inasmuch as the said act is not a misconduct. The petitioner is employed in the Syndicate Bank and is not an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce. The petitioner’s employer Syndicate Bank was not in any manner prejudiced by the act of the petitioner nor was any loss caused to the Syndicate Bank. The act of the applicant is not covered under the definition of gross misconduct. The punishment which can be awarded against an employee have been enumerated in Clause 19.6 of the Bipartite settlement. The punishment of compulsory retirement is not one of the punishment which could be awarded therein and also since the respondent-Bank was not in any manner prejudiced by the said act of the petitioner. More so, that the quantum of punishment was excessive as major punishment was awarded for an act, which had not affected the Bank in any manner whatsoever. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and looked into the record of the case and find that the respondents-bank as aforesaid acted illegally and exceeded its authority while imposing the major punishment by way of compulsory retirement since it was not prejudiced at all in any manner whatsoever by the act of the petitioner for acting as co-obligator/guarantor against the cash credit limits in a firm in which his family members were the partners to another Bank. More so also, since the said money recovery suit filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce had already been dismissed and the respondent-bank had not been fasten with any liability, which could have affected the respondent-bank in any manner. 6. More so also, since the said money recovery suit filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce had already been dismissed and the respondent-bank had not been fasten with any liability, which could have affected the respondent-bank in any manner. 6. In the above said circumstances, the order dated 12.11.1999 passed by the General Manager (Personnel)-respondent No. 2 and the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 3-Assistant General Manager Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity in service along with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———