ORDER : This is a third round of writ petition petitioner has filed. The petitioner is challenging in the present writ petition the order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the first respondent – appellate authority confirming the penalty order dated 6.6.2013 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Karnataka Zone & Disciplinary Authority, by which order major penalty of “compulsory Retirement” is imposed on the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case to be stated in brief are as follows: (i) The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the respondent Bank in 1981 and later he was promoted as Officer ScaleI. On 5.7.2007 petitioner was issued with articles of charge alleging unauthorized absence from duty for 169 days from 18.9.2006 to 5.3.2007 and left the place of working – Mysore without prior permission from the competent authority. Secondly, the petitioner was alleged to have issued cheques in his S B Account without maintaining sufficient funds in the Account. Thus petitioner was charged for breach of regulation 13(1) and 3(1) of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations’ for short. (ii) The petitioner has denied the charges alleged against him and therefore departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Authority held that both the charges are proved against the petitioner, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. (iii) Initially the penalty order was challenged by the petitioner in W P No.2192/2009 (SR) which came to be dismissed by the order dated 8.9.2011. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred W.A No.17996/2011 (SR). By the order dated 3.7.2012 the Division Bench of this Court found that the Inquiry Authority submitted the inquiry report without issuing notice to the Charge Sheeted Officer and when there was a change in the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue notice to the officer facing the inquiry. Thereby the penalty order was set aside giving liberty to the Bank to proceed with the inquiry from the stage at which it was interrupted, as per the Bank’s Regulations. (iv) After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Authority submitted its findings dated 25.3.2013 concluding that both the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Thereby the penalty order was set aside giving liberty to the Bank to proceed with the inquiry from the stage at which it was interrupted, as per the Bank’s Regulations. (iv) After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Authority submitted its findings dated 25.3.2013 concluding that both the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The Disciplinary Authority not agreeing with the representation made by the petitioner concurred with the report of the Inquiry Authority and imposed punishment of ‘Compulsory Retirement’ as per Regulation 4(h) of the Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 by the order dated 6.6.2013. (v) The petitioner challenging the above order of punishment filed W P No.24015/2013 before this Court and this court by the order dated 8.8.2013 disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed appeal before the General Manager (HR) and appellate authority. By the order dated 18.9.2013 the appellate authority confirmed the penalty order dated 6.6.2013. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the petitioner party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The petitioner party-in-person has raised the following contentions in support of the writ petition. (i) The inquiry is not conducted in terms of the direction made by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal. It was directed to continue the enquiry from the stage at which it was interrupted. But the management conducted a fresh enquiry. (ii) The inquiry on account of unauthorized absence comes only when the authority empowered to sanction leave declines to grant leave. The said authority has not declined to grant leave so far and therefore the very inquiry conducted is impermissible and could not have been conducted. (iii) Though the petitioner was reinstated after the order passed by the Division Bench, back wages and consequential benefits were not paid though regulation prescribes conducting of further enquiry only after payment of the back wages. (iv) When fresh inquiry is conducted, the delinquent employee should be paid subsistence allowance up to the date of reinstatement, which the Management has failed to comply. (v) The competent authority has not passed the order of punishment. (vi) Sufficient opportunity to examine defence witnesses was not extended. Though Smt. Nirmala was examined, Sri A A Badsha was not examined. (iv) When fresh inquiry is conducted, the delinquent employee should be paid subsistence allowance up to the date of reinstatement, which the Management has failed to comply. (v) The competent authority has not passed the order of punishment. (vi) Sufficient opportunity to examine defence witnesses was not extended. Though Smt. Nirmala was examined, Sri A A Badsha was not examined. The Inquiry Authority instead of adjourning the matter for the said purpose, concluded the inquiry on 28.2.2013 itself. (vii) The inquiry officer who is a liaison officer for SC/ST was under the direct supervision of the officer who passed the penalty order. Findings of the inquiry officer were prepared by the Zonal Authorities for which Inquiry Officer has sponsored his signature. (viii) The Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the materials placed on record and further the Disciplinary Authority has failed to exercise the discretion while deciding to punish the petitioner which ought to be commensurate with the gravity of the charges. (ix) The charge No.2 is vague as no loss is caused to the Bank by the act of the petitioner in allowing cheques to dishonour which does not fit into Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations. (x) As far as Regulation 13(1) is concerned, petitioner has submitted leave application, salary is paid to the petitioner for the said period, intimation of illness is forwarded from the hospital through fax/telegram and competent authority was intimated about the illness over phone, submitting of leave application later is permissible and the competent authority has not declined to grant leave, which are at his credit and therefore Charge No.1 no more survives, and could not have been framed against the petitioner. Thus the petitioner party-in-person contends that there is mala fide exercise of power, petitioner is victimized and therefore he prays for quashing the penalty order and reinstate him with full back wages. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions: (i) Petitioner has alternative remedy of review and therefore the writ petition filed the petitioner is not maintainable. (ii) Inquiry Authority only prepared the report which is affixed with the seal of the disciplinary authority in order to attach authenticity after it is submitted to it and it does not mean that disciplinary authority prepared the report which is signed by the Inquiry Authority. (ii) Inquiry Authority only prepared the report which is affixed with the seal of the disciplinary authority in order to attach authenticity after it is submitted to it and it does not mean that disciplinary authority prepared the report which is signed by the Inquiry Authority. (iii) There is no regulation prescribing payment of back wages in order to proceed with the enquiry. (iv) There is no fresh enquiry as sought to be contended. The inquiry was proceeded from the stage it was interrupted. (v) Sri Sudhir S Jade, the then Assistant General Manager & Deputy Zonal Manager posted at the Zonal Office was the competent authority to act as the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the contention that the competent authority has not passed the penalty order is not correct. (vi) The petitioner could have sought for adjournment and pressed for securing Sri A A Badsha for deposition and without doing so, denial of examination of defence witness cannot be accepted. (vii) As per Annexure J to the writ petition, any authority higher than the one specified as disciplinary authority can exercise the powers of disciplinary authority. Therefore, there is no illegality in the penalty order. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the point that arises for my consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to relief prayed for in the writ petition? My answer would be as follows for the following reasons. 7. The admitted facts are that the petitioner remained absent which is unauthorized for 169 days and the cheques issued by him are also dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. So far as the first charge is concerned, it is necessary to extract Regulation 13(1) of the Regulations, which is as under: “13. Absence from duty: (1) No officer employee shall absent himself from his duty or be late in attending office or leave the station without having first obtained the permission of the competent authority : Provided that in the case of unavoidable circumstances, where availing of prior permission is not possible or is difficult, such permission may be obtained later, subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority that such a permission could not have been obtained.” 8. It is the case of the petitioner that he received telephone call that his brother was sick, thereby informing the Deputy Manager (Cr.) he left the station. It is not the case of the petitioner that he obtained permission to leave the head quarter and left the place. As per his own say, the petitioner has submitted his leave application only on 06.03.2007. So from 18.9.2006 to 6.3.2007 the petitioner has to establish that he was prevented from submitting his leave application supported by medical documents, since it is his case that he was admitted to the hospital, due to reasons beyond his control. It is not his case that nobody was there to assist him to see that the leave application is filed within a reasonable time. It is his case that he was admitted to the hospital on the date of his leaving from the bank on 18.9.2006 till he resumes duty. Though it is presumed to be true, long gap of more than five months cannot be construed as a reasonable period to submit his leave application taking further note of the fact that he was intimated his illness over phone. This shows indifferent attitude on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is not diligent in discharging his duties. Therefore, rightly the disciplinary authority has not condoned the same, which cannot be interfered by this Court. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that only on competent authority declining to sanction leave, the employee can be proceeded with for the unauthorized absence cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has failed to establish that he was prevented for the reason beyond his control for the entire period to send his leave application supported by documents. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that charge No.2 is vague as far as it does not fit into the relevant regulation No.3(1) of the Regulations, which reads as follows: “3(1) Every officer employee shall at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer”. 10. It is admitted by the petitioner himself, not one time, but several times, the cheques have been dishonoured which were issued by him. 10. It is admitted by the petitioner himself, not one time, but several times, the cheques have been dishonoured which were issued by him. As an officer of the Bank it is expected of him that he has to be fair in his dealings and cannot issue cheques without maintaining sufficient balance at his credit. The explanation sought to be made by the petitioner that cheques were dishonoured due to nonpayment of salary to him was not accepted by the Inquiry Authority as it is found that even after his reporting for duty, cheques were returned. This charge the petitioner has understood properly and participated in the inquiry proceedings. Now his contention as to its vagueness cannot be accepted. This charge No.2 relates to his dishonesty and rightly fit into the above regulation. 11. The petitioner submits that the inquiry report is prepared by the Zonal Authority and the Inquiry Authority has only sponsored his signature cannot be accepted. It is the case of the respondents that when the inquiry report was submitted, in order to attach authenticity, seal of the disciplinary authority is affixed, that does not mean that the report was prepared by the disciplinary authority itself. In the absence of proper materials, the above contention of the petitioner cannot be upheld. 12. The admitted case of the petitioner itself speaks volumes and he has failed to prove the reasonable cause for not submitting the leave application for the entire leave period and petitioner has not taken proper steps to stop dishonour of cheques which were admittedly issued by him. Therefore non consideration of specific individual evidence either oral or documentary has not resulted in miscarriage of justice. 13. The petitioner contends that fresh inquiry is conducted which is not in terms of the direction issued in the writ appeal. I have considered the said submission with reference to the materials made available and I do not think the bank has conducted a fresh enquiry. It has only proceeded with the further enquiry. 14. The petitioner submits that the penalty order is passed by the Zonal Authority which is not the competent authority to function as Disciplinary Authority, but it is an authority which can appoint the disciplinary authority. It has only proceeded with the further enquiry. 14. The petitioner submits that the penalty order is passed by the Zonal Authority which is not the competent authority to function as Disciplinary Authority, but it is an authority which can appoint the disciplinary authority. It is provided in AnnexureJ that any authority higher than the one specified in columns (iii), (iv) and (v) in the said Schedule is empowered to exercise the powers of Disciplinary Authority or Appellate or Reviewing Authority. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner also fails and cannot be accepted. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of review as against the order passed by the appellate authority. As against the officers in Scale I & II, The Reviewing Authority is General Manager. The General Manager himself has passed the order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be entertained. 16. The petitioner contends that after the order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, he was reinstated into service but full subsistence allowance and pay has not been paid thereby there is violation of Regulation 12(4) of Bank of India (Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner was not under suspension when the order was passed. Therefore, the said regulation cannot be applied to the petitioner. 17. The petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer who is a liason officer is under the control of Disciplinary Authority and therefore the report is not impartial. Always Inquiry Officer would be under the control of Disciplinary Authority which does not mean that he would submit the report at the direction of the Disciplinary Authority and such a contention cannot be entertained without proper materials. 18. As regards, denial of examination of defence witness, the petitioner ought to have sought for time or insisted for examination of the said witness. Without doing that, such a grievance cannot be made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 19. The petitioner might be right when he submits that the Disciplinary Authority has not exercised the discretion when it comes to imposing penalty which should be commensurate to the gravity of the charges. It is for the respondents to consider the same. Without doing that, such a grievance cannot be made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 19. The petitioner might be right when he submits that the Disciplinary Authority has not exercised the discretion when it comes to imposing penalty which should be commensurate to the gravity of the charges. It is for the respondents to consider the same. If such a representation is made by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the respondents are directed to consider the same and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.