JUDGMENT : G.Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant in this intra court appeal is the petitioner and he is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.60030/2011 dated: 16.03.2017. 2. The facts in brief are that, the appellant was the employee of the 4th respondent-bank. That, an order of transfer came to be issued by the employer and the appellant failed to obey the same and report to duty. Thereafter, notice came to be issued on 22.03.2003 but the same was not replied to. Thereafter, a show cause notice also came to be issued on 13.05.2003 and final notice came to be issued on 13.06.2003. Admittedly, the appellant has failed to respond to any of the notices. Hence, the Competent Authority invoking provisions under Regulation 45 of the Regulations regarding Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Actions and Other Service Conditions of the Employees of PCA and RD Banks, 1992, was pleased to compulsorily retire the appellant from his service. 3. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the compulsory retirement is a major punishment in terms of Regulation 55(1) and that as per the provisions of Regulation 58, the procedure stipulated therein for imposing major penalties has not been followed and that the failure to follow the procedure stipulated amounts to a material irregularity vitiating the imposition of the punishment. 4. In the instant case, there is no denial of the fact that the appellant has neither replied to the notice or show cause notice or final notice nor has he denied the fact of his insubordination. That being the admitted position, the question of invoking the provisions of Regulation 58 does not arise, as there is no denial of the misconduct alleged against the appellant. Regulation 45A(i) reads as under: 45. Compulsory Retirement (a) Any employee of the Bank who has completed 15 years of service or 50 years of age can be made to retire compulsory for the following reasons : (i) Proved gross negligence of duties by such employee. 5. Admittedly, the fact remains that the appellant was visited with an order of transfer, which he has deliberately disobeyed. Compulsory Retirement (a) Any employee of the Bank who has completed 15 years of service or 50 years of age can be made to retire compulsory for the following reasons : (i) Proved gross negligence of duties by such employee. 5. Admittedly, the fact remains that the appellant was visited with an order of transfer, which he has deliberately disobeyed. He was subsequently put on notice and the same was followed by show cause notice and final notice, none of which have been replied by the appellant and hence, the learned single judge has rightly concluded that the petitioner/appellant herein has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is also a settled law that any employee under an order of transfer is required to report to the place of duty in obedience to the order of transfer and thereafter call it in question as provided under law. 6. In the instant case, there is no dichotomy in the facts and there is a clear violation of the service conditions and the regulations. In that view of the matter also, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner/appellant has long since retired from service and has also attained the age of superannuation, we do not consider it necessary to examine the aspect of applicability of Regulation 58 of the Regulations. As rightly observed by the learned single judge, the employer has adopted a lenient attitude towards the appellant keeping in view his long service. It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner/appellant herein has been negligent in seeking redressal of his grievance and the learned Single Judge has been pleased to observe that the writ petition stands vitiated on account of delay and laches also. 7. In that view of the matter, the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge is cogent and in consonance with the settled principles of law hence, we do not find any ground which warrants interference. Accordingly, writ appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits also. 8. In view of the above order, no purpose would be served in condoning the delay by allowing I.A.No.2/2017. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2017 stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands rejected. In view of the above order, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.