Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 895 (GUJ)

SHAIKH TASNIMUDDIN ILMUDDIN v. PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA

2022-07-22

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. By the way of this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018 by which the appellate Authority has confirmed the order of dismissal dated 23.06.2000. 2. Facts in brief as set out in the earlier rounds of litigation at the hands of the Petitioner have been elicited in one of the Oral Order dated 24.8.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1085 of 2017 by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore to avoid duplicity, the Order dated 24.8.2018 is reproduced hereunder: “1. The present letters patent appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 19.6.2017 passed in the captioned writ petition. The short issue which arises for consideration by this court is whether the impugned order dated 4.3.2017 passed by the respondent-appellate authority meets the requirements of Regulation 31(2) of the Vadodara Grameen Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) and the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 242 and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 . The appellant has appeared as party-in-person and has invited the attention of the court to the impugned order dated 4.3.2017. It is asserted by the appellant that the aforesaid order being a non-speaking one is required to be quashed and set aside. 2. Before adverting to the submissions of the appellant, this court deems it appropriate to incorporate necessary facts. 3. The appellant was serving as a Branch Manager and he was confirmed on the said post on 25.10.1990. Thereafter, he was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments vide order dated 11.3.1997 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 6.7.1995. Second charge sheet dated 14.7.1997 was served upon him for the act of omission and commission and was also awarded lowering down of basic pay by three increments vide order dated 20.3.1998. The aforesaid penalties were challenged by the appellant before the Board and thereafter he has accepted the same as it was not challenged before any court of law. Thereafter, third charge sheet dated 20.8.1998 was issued against him which culminated into punishment of dismissal from the bank’s services vide order dated 23.6.2000. The aforesaid penalties were challenged by the appellant before the Board and thereafter he has accepted the same as it was not challenged before any court of law. Thereafter, third charge sheet dated 20.8.1998 was issued against him which culminated into punishment of dismissal from the bank’s services vide order dated 23.6.2000. The appellant thereafter preferred appeal before the Board on 13.7.2000 against the aforesaid order of dismissal. It is asserted by the appellant that his appeal dated 13.07.2000 till today remains undecided. 4. The appellant challenged the dismissal order in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 before this court. The same was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2012 on merits. It was also observed that the petition was premature since the an alternative remedy of appeal under Regulation 31(1) was also available. Against the said order Letters Patent Appeal No. 501 of 2013 was preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench. The same was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 8.4.2013 since the appellant wanted to file review on the order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the learned single judge. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench had recorded the statement of the appellant that the departmental appeal filed by him was still pending. Thereafter, the appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1815 of 2014 for Review. By the order dated 04.07.2014, the learned single judge allowed the review application and recalled the order dated 03.02.2012 and modified the order to the extent by treating the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 as withdrawn to enable the appellant to purse the representation made before the Board with respect. Thus, the entire writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn. 5. Since the aforesaid appeal remained undecided the appellant was constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 15117 of 2015 praying that the respondents be directed to decide the appeal filed against the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him pursuant to the third charge sheet. By the order dated 14.12.2016, the writ petition was disposed of by observing as under: “7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner would furnish the copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 to the respondent and the said copy of petition be treated as part of the appeal already preferred. By the order dated 14.12.2016, the writ petition was disposed of by observing as under: “7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner would furnish the copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 to the respondent and the said copy of petition be treated as part of the appeal already preferred. There can be no exception to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner produces a copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 with the respondent No. 1, the same shall be treated as part of the appeal. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the appeal questioning the punitive dismissal order shall be decided by respondent within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court, in accordance with law. It is made clear that there is no question of rendering any decision on the challenge to the charge sheet made by the petitioner on 06.12.1999. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case.” 6. Thereafter, vide communication dated 4.3.2017 the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment of dismissal from service which was challenged by the appellant in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10559 of 2017. By the order dated 19.6.2017 the learned Single Judge dismissed the captioned writ petition by observing thus: “4.6 Considering the submission made by learned advocate and material on record, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities have not committed any error while passing the impugned order. So far examining the merits of the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the same was already done by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment quoted above. This Court has also taken into consideration the material on record and no infirmity is found therein. No second view needs to be taken in the matter. Considering the totality, this petition is required to be dismissed.” The appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the Coordinate Bench of this court had already decided the matter on merits. No second view needs to be taken in the matter. Considering the totality, this petition is required to be dismissed.” The appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the Coordinate Bench of this court had already decided the matter on merits. He has earnestly pointed out that the learned Judge should have considered that subsequently, the judgment dated 3.2.2012 was recalled and the entire writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn in order to pursue his appeal. Hence, there was no need of examining the same again on merits. The appellant has urged that the appeal filed by him before the appellate authority has been rejected by the impugned order dated 4.3.2017 without recording his contention raised in the appeal as well as the contentions raised in Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000. He has submitted that though neither the appellate authority has referred to his appeal, nor any reason has been assigned in the order dated 4.3.2017 or in the minutes attached to the order. In this view of the matter he has submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is illegal and a non-speaking one. Hence, the same needs to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand learned advocate Ms. Nalini S. Lodha appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities has contended that the order passed by the appellate authority does not require any interference since it specifically records that the same is passed after detailed deliberation and discussion by the Board on the agenda before it. She has submitted that the minutes attached to the order dated 4.3.2017 reflects that the Board has carefully gone through the contents of Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 along with annexure and enclosures submitted by the appellant. She has also invited the attention of the court to the charge sheets and the punishment awarded to the present appellant prior to the order of dismissal from service from 23.6.2000. In view of the aforesaid submissions she has urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 8. This court has examined the Regulations of the respondent-Bank, more particularly, Regulation 31 which provides for an appeal filed by the delinquent before the appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid submissions she has urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 8. This court has examined the Regulations of the respondent-Bank, more particularly, Regulation 31 which provides for an appeal filed by the delinquent before the appellate authority. The said regulation reads as under: “31(1) An officer or employee shall have a right of appeal against any order passed by an authority which injuriously affects his interest. (2) The appeal shall be preferred to the appellate authority mentioned in regulation 32 within 30 days of the date of service of the order appealed against. The appellate authority shall consider weather (sic. whether) the findings of the disciplinary authority are justified and whether the penalty imposed is adequate and pass suitable orders as early as possible.” 9. A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid regulation indicates that the appellate authority is required to consider the findings of the disciplinary authority as to whether they are justified and whether the penalty imposed upon the delinquent is adequate and accordingly suitable orders are required to be passed. In paragraph 17 of the decision in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) the Apex Court has held that: “17........Undoubtedly, the statutory authorities are under the legal obligation to decide the appeal and revision dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal/revision etc. otherwise it would be a case of non-application of mind.” In the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. Madhusudhan Rao (supra) the Apex Court has observed thus: “19........No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. Unfortunately, even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service. 20. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service. 20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 10. The afore-noted decisions of the Apex Court clearly indicate that the appellate authority or revisional authority is required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum. A perusal of the order dated 4.3.2017 passed by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the appellant reveals that the appellate authority, except recording that “After detailed deliberations and on going through the order of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat dated 15.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 15117 of 2015, your representation dated 21.12.2016 along with copy of Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000, all the relevant papers, documents placed before the Board in respect of your appeal and taking into consideration the grounds raised in the appeal/Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000, keeping in view the gravity of charges proved and considering the prima facie and extenuating circumstances, the Board came to the conclusion that the punishment of “dismissal from Bank’s service with effect from 23.6.2000” imposed upon you by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.6.2000 is quite appropriate and the Board did not see any reason to interfere with the said order of the Disciplinary Authority.” has not recorded any findings dealing with the findings of the disciplinary authority. 11. It is not disputed by the respondents that the appeal filed by the appellant still remains to be undecided. The order dated 4.3.2017 is bereft of any reasons for confirming the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has not even referred to the appeal of the appellant filed on 13.7.2000. 11. It is not disputed by the respondents that the appeal filed by the appellant still remains to be undecided. The order dated 4.3.2017 is bereft of any reasons for confirming the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has not even referred to the appeal of the appellant filed on 13.7.2000. The contentions raised by him in his appeal before the appellate authority or the contentions raised in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 have not been referred at all. This court has also examined the papers of Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000. The writ petition contains detailed facts of the departmental inquiry which was initiated against the appellant as well as various grounds and contentions raised therein assailing the same. None of the aforesaid contentions are dealt with by the appellate authority. It was imperative upon the appellate authority to deal with all the contentions raised in the appeal and the writ petition since in the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15117 of 2015, this court had directed the respondent-authorities to treat the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 as part of the appeal. It was further directed to the respondent authorities to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four months. Except a bare reference of the aforesaid judgment as well as the number of the writ petition, the appellate authority has not dealt with any of the contentions raised therein. In the considered opinion of this court, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 4.3.2017 and the minutes do not meet with the requirements of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court as well as the Regulations of the respondent Bank and the same suffer from the non-application of mind. As reflectible from the minutes, it appears that the appellate authority was influenced with the imposition of the past penalties on the appellant. Thus, the appellate order being a non-speaking order deserves to be quashed. 12. As reflectible from the minutes, it appears that the appellate authority was influenced with the imposition of the past penalties on the appellant. Thus, the appellate order being a non-speaking order deserves to be quashed. 12. Reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the observations made in the judgment and order dated 03.02.2012 dismissing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 filed by the appellant was uncalled for since the same was subsequently recalled vide order dated 04.07.2014 passed in review application No. 1815 of 2014, and the entire writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn in order to enable the appellant to pursue his representation/appeal. Significantly, one of the reasons that influenced the learned Singe Judge while dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 was non filing of an appeal under Regulation 31(1) The fact of pendency of the appeal dated 13.07.2000 was not pointed out at the time of passing of the judgment dated 03.02.2012, and the attention was only drawn in the review application. When the same was pointed out, the learned single judge recalled the judgment dated 03.02.2012. Thus, with profound respect, the learned Single Judge while deciding the captioned writ petition fell in error in considering the observations made in the judgment dated 03.02.2012 in wake of the fact that the same was subsequently recalled and the appeal of the appellant was still pending. 13. As a consequence, the present letters patent appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10559 of 2017 is allowed to the following extent only. The impugned order dated 4.3.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the appeal dated 13.07.2000 preferred by the appellant along with the grounds raised in Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 and pass a reasoned order dealing with the same within the period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the present order. 14. Since the letters patent appeal is disposed the civil application does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.” Order in Speaking to Minutes: “1. The present Note for Speaking to Minutes has been filed for correcting following typographical errors crept in the judgment dated 2.8.2018: (i) On Page 2, paragraph 1, line 6, the words Vadodara Grameen Bank were stated instead of Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank. The same stands disposed of accordingly.” Order in Speaking to Minutes: “1. The present Note for Speaking to Minutes has been filed for correcting following typographical errors crept in the judgment dated 2.8.2018: (i) On Page 2, paragraph 1, line 6, the words Vadodara Grameen Bank were stated instead of Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank. (ii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 5, the date 20.3.1998 was written instead of 20.01.1998. (iii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 8, the date 20.8.1998 was written instead of 24.8.1998. (iv) On page 4, paragraph 4, line 4, the word ‘purse’ was written instead of pursue. (v) On page 4, paragraph 5, line 12, the date 14.12.2016 was stated instead of 15.12.2016. 2. Due to inadvertence, the said mistakes have occurred in the judgment, hence the same are rectified as below. Hence the present judgment shall read as thus: (i) On Page 2, paragraph 1, line 6, the words Vadodara Grameen Bank be read as Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank. (ii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 5, the date 20.3.1998 be read as 20.01.1998. (iii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 8, the date 20.8.1998 be read as 24.8.1998. (iv) On page 4, paragraph 4, line 4, the word ‘purse’ be read as pursue. (v) On page 4, paragraph 5, line 12, the date 14.12.2016 be read as 15.12.2016. 3. The Speaking to Minutes is disposed of accordingly.” 3. What is evident from reading the aforesaid order is that the Division Bench quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and directed the Bank to hear the Appeal afresh. It is after this order dated 2.8.2018 that the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order. 4. Mr. Shaikh has appeared as Party-In-Person and has challenged the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority on the following amongst other grounds: (a) He would submit that the Appellate Authority has passed the order without taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the case of the Petitioner. He would submit that though there was a direction to consider the memo of the Petition and the grounds raised therein in Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 the order when read indicates that the Appellate authority has not taken the same into consideration. He would submit that though there was a direction to consider the memo of the Petition and the grounds raised therein in Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 the order when read indicates that the Appellate authority has not taken the same into consideration. (b) The petitioner would submit that the order is unjust and improper and the rule which requires the Bank while deciding the Appeal that there should not be injustice has been violated in as much as that the order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed without application of mind. (c) The Petitioner would submit that in his service career the probation was extended in colourable exercise of power and the Appellate Authority had become a prosecutor. (d) The Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner had suffered a grave accident while in service and as a result of the accident had suffered incapacity and therefore the absence was justified and it was a case of victimisation that even on the earlier counts two charge sheets were issued to him for remaining unauthorizedly absent resulting into illegal penalties. He would submit that the absence was justified as the petitioner’s physical condition was compromised due to the accident and at times during the course of discharge of his duties the petitioner needed to rest for sometime and that was taken as an act of indiscipline. (e) The Petitioner would further take the court through the orders passed by this Court in the earlier round on 15.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 15117 of 2015 and submit that the Court had issued specific directions to hear the Appeal taking into consideration the Memo of the Petition which was not done. (f) He would submit that despite the physical problems the petitioner had to the best of his abilities discharged his duties and by two earlier charge-sheets the Petitioner was victimized. He would submit that the Petitioner’s dismissal from service was on account of victimisation repeatedly. (g) The Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner had to approach this Court, the court initially did not interfere with the orders of the appellate authority and the dismissal order however his appeal was allowed with a direction to decide the same in accordance with the Regulations of the Bank which was not done hence the present Petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018. (h) The Petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority under the Regulations was bound to review or change the decision of the disciplinary authority and while passing the order reiterating that they agreed with the order of penalty was exercise which was arbitrary and unjust. (i) Mr. Shaikh - Party-in-Person would further submit that the Bank had committed gross irregularity in dismissing the Appeal when the Inquiry was carried out by an Inquiry Officer Shri Chauhan as the cadre officer equal in rank of the Petitioner. Request to the Inquiry Officer to furnish documents was also not entertained and the same therefore resulted in passing an order which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. (k) The Petitioner would with tendering a separate synopsis submit that the true spirit of the order by which the appellate authority was expected to decide the appeal in consonance with the directions of the Division Bench was not followed resulting into grave injustice to the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Ms Nalini Lodha for the respondent Bank. He would make the following submissions: (a) Mr. Pandya would submit that the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the disciplinary authority dated 23.6.2000 is just and proper. It is a reasoned order where not only the Appeal in the form of the letter as referred to in the order of this Court in SCA No. 15117 of 2015 but the memo and the grounds taken in SCA 6093 of 2000 as directed by the Division Bench are taken into consideration. (b) Mr. Pandya would take the Court through the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Bank and submit that each and every ground raised in the Memo of SCA was considered and a separate Annexure to the Appeal setting out the ground raised and the response of the Appellate Authority set out would indicate that there has been a compliance and there has been total application of mind by the Appellate Authority in passing the order in Appeal. The order is a reasoned order and therefore this Court in its exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India ought not to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority when it is not the case of the Petitioner that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order is a reasoned order and therefore this Court in its exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India ought not to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority when it is not the case of the Petitioner that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He would submit that the scope for interfering with the order of a disciplinary authority based on departmental proceedings carried out by the employer in consonance with the procedure and thereafter when the order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority the jurisdiction of the Court is restricted and no such grounds so as to suggest any violation of procedural laws or violation of principles of natural justice has been suggested by the Petitioner to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India. (c) Mr. Pandya would submit that sufficient play in the joints was given the Petitioner in as much as on two occasions charge sheets were issued to the Petitioner for unauthorized absence and on two occasions the Petitioner when imposed a penalty was told to show improvement in his conduct which he did not as a result of which when he repeated the same nature of misconduct there was no alternative for the Bank but to impose a Penalty of dismissal from service by an order dated 23.6.2000. (d) Mr. Pandya would invite the Court’s attention to the chronology of dates filed to take an overview of the Petitioner’s conduct and litigation before this court where even his challenge to the Charge Sheet and then to the order of dismissal and appellate order had failed and the Division Bench had given a limited scope of considering the Appeal after taking into consideration the memo of the Petition and then pass a fresh order which the Appellate Authority had passed and which was just and proper. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the Party-in-Person and Mr. Pandya learned Senior Advocate for the Bank, before I go into the justification of passing of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018 which is under challenge, the synopsis of the Bank tendered before this Court would give a brief idea and the direction to the Court in the course it needs to traverse into: S. No. Date Particulars 1. 25.04.1988 The appellant joined the bank as an officer and worked in various branches of the bank 2. 06.07.1995 Appellant was charge sheeted for the first time for not being punctual in his office timing and being guilty of absenteeism 3. 11.03.1997 All the charges leveled against the appellant were proved in the department enquiry and punishment was imposed upon the appellant by stoppage of 4 increments by order dated 11.03.1997 4. 14.07.1997 Appellant was charge sheeted for the second time for absenteeism and late coming 5. 20.01.1998 The appellant admitted all charges leveled against him in the hearing held on 27.09.1997 and again before the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority in the hearing held on 20.01.1998 and appellant was imposed with the punishment of lowering down of the basic pay by 3 increments by order dated 20.01.1998 During the course of proposed punishment hearing, the appellant requested to give one more opportunity to improve and assured for non-recurrence of irregularities. The appellant assured to stay at Head Quarter and to work with sincerity and dedication. 6. 14.07.1998 Appellant was suspended from service w.e.f. 14.07.1998 for gross insubordination, indecent and disorderly behavior 7. 24/28.08.1998 Appellant was charge sheeted third time due to persistent disobedience of the instructions of the higher authorities and non-observance of punctuality of timing and remaining frequently absent from duty unauthorizedly 8. 23.06.2000 Appellant was dismissed from service Instead of preferring Appeal against the order of dismissal, before the Board of Directors as per prevailing Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Officers Employers Service Regulations, the appellant filed Special Civil Application no. 6093/2000 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.06.2000 9. 03.02.2012 The SCA 6093/2000 was dismissed by order dated 03.02.2012 10. 08.04.2013 LPA 466/2013 against order dated 03.02.2012 was filed by the appellant with Civil Application for Condonation of Delay No. 3358/2013 seeking Condonation of delay of 375 days caused in filing LPA. The said LPA was withdrawn being not pressed by order dated 08.04.2013 MCA 1815/2014 for recall of the order dated 03.02.2012 passed in SCA on the ground that the petitioner had preferred an Appeal dated 06.12.1999 before the Appellant Authority which is pending adjudication. The so-called Appeal dated 06.12.1999 was filed after the 3rd charge sheet was issued but before passing the order of dismissal/termination dated 23.06.2000 11. 04.07.2014 Misc. The so-called Appeal dated 06.12.1999 was filed after the 3rd charge sheet was issued but before passing the order of dismissal/termination dated 23.06.2000 11. 04.07.2014 Misc. Civil Application 1815/2014 in SCA 6093 of 2000 with Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay no. 7458/2013) was filed by the appellant in SCA 6093/2000 so as to pursue the so-called Appeal dated 06.12.1999 pending before the respondent bank. Order dated 03.02.2012 was recalled and modified to the extent the SCA 6093 of 2000 shall be treated to have been disposed as withdrawn so as to enable the appellant to pursue the representation with respect to third charge sheet framed against the appellant 12. 31.12.2014 By communication dated 31.12.2014, the decision of the Board was conveyed to the appellant with respect to the Appeal dated 06.12.1999 stated to have been pending. It was stated that the Board did not see any merit to interfere in the decision of the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority Since the appellant failed to prefer Appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days 13. September, 2015 The appellant filed SCA 15117/2015 before this Hon’ble Court seeking direction to the respondent bank to decide the Appeal dated 13.07.2000 and to hear the Appeal dated 06.12.1999 on merits 14. 15.12.2016 SCA 15117/2015 was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court with a direction to the respondent inter-alia to treat the copy of Memo of SCA 6093/2000 as part of Appeal and the same be decided within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Court made it clear that there is no question of rendering any decision on the challenge to the charge sheet dated 06.12.1999 15. The Hon’ble Court made it clear that there is no question of rendering any decision on the challenge to the charge sheet dated 06.12.1999 15. 04.03.2017 The respondent bank by communication dated 04.03.2017 conveyed to the appellant inter-alia as under: “The Board discussed the agenda at length after detailed deliberations and on going through the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble High curt of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15.12.2016, your representation dated 21.12.2016 along with copy of SCA 6093/2000 all the relevant papers/documents placed before the Board in respect of your appeal and taking into consideration the grounds raised in the appeal/SCA No. 6043/2000, keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved and considering the prima facie and extenuating circumstances the Board came to the conclusion that the punishment of “Dismissal from Bank’s services w.e.f. 23.06.2000” imposed upon you by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.06.2000 is quite appropriate and by Board did not see any reason to interfere in the said order of the Disciplinary Authority. The certified copy of the minutes of the relevant agenda of the Board meeting dated 23.02.2017 is enclosed herewith for your information.” 16. 19.06.2017 The Ld. Single Judge by order dated 19.06.2017 dismissed the SCA 10559/2017 challenging the decision dated 23.02.2017 taken in the meeting and communication/order dated 04.03.2017 17. 02.08.2018 to 24.08.2018 LPA 1085/2017 preferred against the order dated 19.06.2017 passed in SCA 1059/2017, was allowed by order dated 02.08.2018 with modification vide order dated 24.08.2018 whereby the order dated 04.03.2017 was quashed and set aside and the respondent BGGB was directed to decide the appeal dated 13.07.2000 alongwith the grounds raised in SCA 6093/2000 and pass a reasoned order dealing with the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order 18. 26.11.2018 to 04.12.2018 The Board by order dated 26.11.2018 unanimously resolved to uphold the decision of the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of imposing punishment of “dismissal from bank’s service w.e.f. 23.06.2000” upon Mr. T.I. Shaikh by order dated 23.06.2000 and the Board rejected the appeal preferred by Mr. T.I. Shaikh, the petitioner by a reasoned order dated 26.11.2018 which was communicated to the petitioner on 04.12.2018 19. 26.03.2019 This Hon’ble Court issued notice returnable on 22.04.2019 in respect of captioned SCA No. 5965/2019 and affidavit in reply to the same has been filed by the respondent 20. 16.04.2019 Misc. T.I. Shaikh, the petitioner by a reasoned order dated 26.11.2018 which was communicated to the petitioner on 04.12.2018 19. 26.03.2019 This Hon’ble Court issued notice returnable on 22.04.2019 in respect of captioned SCA No. 5965/2019 and affidavit in reply to the same has been filed by the respondent 20. 16.04.2019 Misc. Civil Application (Contempt) 11/2019 filed by the petitioner against the respondent was disposed of with the following observations: “In view of the above, we are not inclined to proceed further with the present application filed under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, it will be open for the applicant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if any grievance still exists, except the contempt proceedings.” 21. 09.06.2021 LPA 446/2021 in SCA 5965/2019 filed by the petitioner against the order of Ld. Single Judge for placing the matter for hearing after physical hearing commences, was disposed of with clarification that it would be open for the appellant to request the Ld. Single Judge for listing of matters after July, 2021 by filing a fresh application with such a request 22. 30.11.2021 Civil Application 1/2020 filed by the petitioner in the captioned SCA was disposed of as not pressed 23. 30.11.2021 CA 1/2021 in the captioned SCA was allowed and main matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 04.02.2022 7. Reading the synopsis would indicate that initially the Petitioner was charge-sheeted on 6.7.1995 for the ground of being absent and not being punctual in his office timings. The Charges levelled against him were proved and the petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of 4 increments by an order dated 11.3.1997. 8. A second charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 14.7.1997 for absenteeism and late coming. The Petitioner admitted all the charges and in hearing held on 27.09.1997 and after hearing him on 20.1.1998 a penalty of lowering down the basic pay by 3 increments was imposed by an order dated 20.1.1998. 9. Both these orders imposing the penalties attained finality as they were not a subject matter of challenge before any of the forums, namely either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court. That observation has also been made by this Court in the proceedings filed by the Petitioner on the earlier occasions before this Court. 9. Both these orders imposing the penalties attained finality as they were not a subject matter of challenge before any of the forums, namely either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court. That observation has also been made by this Court in the proceedings filed by the Petitioner on the earlier occasions before this Court. When these penalties were imposed the Petitioner had assured the Bank that if given a chance to improve he would stay at the headquarter and work with sincerity and dedication. 10. Having failed to keep his promise and when he continued to be irregular the Petitioner had to be suspended by the Bank by an order dated 14.7.1998 for gross insubordination, indecent and disorderly behaviour. A charge sheet was issued to him on 24/28.08.1998. 11. Reading the Charge Sheet would indicate that the Petitioner was not staying at the Headquarters when he was transferred from Shankerpura Branch to Limbdi and on several occasions he was reminded to remain at the headquarters. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly for a period from 14.3.1998 to 17.3.1998, 23.3.1998 to 2.4.1998 without submitting any leave applications though he was a Branch Manager. He continued to remain absent from 2.4.1998 and again remained absent on 13.4.1998 and on 15.4.1998. Reading the charge indicates that the Petitioner came to the Bank on 14.4.1998 which was a public holiday and on 15.4.1998 again he had left the Bank immediately after coming and then had returned at 2.00 pm and when asked to submit a leave application the Petitioner refused to do so. One of the other charge was also of indecent and disorderly behaviour when on 23.6.1998 though the Manager was present the Petitioner left the Bank at the opening hours by informing the Branch Manager that he was going for tea and then returned at 1.30 pm and when asked to submit a leave report he refused to do so and made an unworthy statement. Similar indecent behaviour has been set out in the charge sheet dated 24/28.08.1998 which apparently indicates that, though having let-off on two earlier occasions with penalties of stoppage of increments, the Petitioner made no effort to mend his ways and continued to remain on unauthorized leave to warrant disciplinary action. 12. Similar indecent behaviour has been set out in the charge sheet dated 24/28.08.1998 which apparently indicates that, though having let-off on two earlier occasions with penalties of stoppage of increments, the Petitioner made no effort to mend his ways and continued to remain on unauthorized leave to warrant disciplinary action. 12. After a detailed inquiry and based on a report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 13.3.2000, the Petitioner was imposed a penalty dated 23.6.2000 of dismissal from service. 13. It is hereafter that the Petitioner started to engage the Bank in litigation where he filed the first Petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.6.2000. 14. On 3.2.2012, this Court dismissed the Petition being SCA No. 6093 of 2000. The order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court reads as under: “1. The petitioner, Shaikh Tasnimuddin Ilmuddin, challenges the decision of the respondent-Bank vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service on 23rd June, 2000, by the Chairman of the respondent-Bank. 2. Facts of this case are that petitioner was appointed, by way of direct selection, by the Banking Services Recruitment Board on 25th April, 1988 to the post of Officer and was, initially, posted as an officer at village, Rampatel-Na-Muvada. Thereafter, he worked at different branches of the respondent-Bank and his last posting was as an Officer in Limdi branch at Jhalod. He was confirmed to the post of Branch Manager on 25th October, 1990. 3. As per petitioner, he has been issued three charge-sheets i.e. dated 06.07.1995, 14.07.1997 and final charge-sheet on 24.08.1998, which is the subject-matter of this writ-petition, as a result of which he has been removed from the service. 4. It is, further, his case that after the receipt of 3rd charge-sheet, dated 24.08.1998, he submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet. However, the Bank did not accept his reply and initiated departmental inquiry at Godhra and one Mr. P.M. Chauhan, who was an officer, at the relevant point of time, in the same cadre of the petitioner, was appointed as inquiry officer. 5. Inquiry officer submitted his findings vide report dated 13.03.2000, holding all the charges having been proved. Thereafter, a copy of the findings contained in the report of the inquiry officer was supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner made representation against the proposed punishment. 5. Inquiry officer submitted his findings vide report dated 13.03.2000, holding all the charges having been proved. Thereafter, a copy of the findings contained in the report of the inquiry officer was supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner made representation against the proposed punishment. However, keeping in view the nature of charges, the defence and other circumstances including his past conduct, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at various stages the petitioner made representations to the respondent-Bank regarding the difficulties being faced by him. However, no favourable action was taken. It is submitted that in pursuance of the first charge-sheet, he submitted the detailed reply wherein the fact regarding the accident and difficulties in travelling were mentioned. However, the respondent authorities considering the petitioner to be deliberately abstaining from his duties, arbitrarily imposed punishment of withholding of four increments. It is, further, submitted that even the findings of the inquiry officer were baseless and the detailed representation of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-Bank. While referring to the inquiry with regard to the third charge-sheet it was submitted that the punishing authority has bypassed the principles of natural justice. The Chairman's order dated 16th June, 2000, as a whole, is devoid of any such reason, except, mechanical statement that has agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner was not conversant with the 'Gujarati' language and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer on the basis of evidence in Gujarati language, has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. While relying upon these averments, it has been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has repeated the arguments and has contended that after supplying the first charge-sheet to the petitioner, the evidence were recorded. The petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings and taking into account the material on record, inquiry report was submitted. He, further, submitted that the Chairman and the disciplinary authority, while taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, have imposed the punishment, which is well reasoned and justifiable in this case. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. He, further, submitted that the Chairman and the disciplinary authority, while taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, have imposed the punishment, which is well reasoned and justifiable in this case. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. By way of this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the punishments imposed upon him by way of two departmental inquiries conducted earlier. However, the same cannot be discussed, herein, in view of the fact that no appeal or revision has been filed against those findings, which has been accepted by the petitioner and which have become final way back in the year 1995-1997. Even otherwise, the petitioner seems to have admitted his guilty and a lenient view has been taken, while awarding punishment in earlier two inquiries. As far as third inquiry i.e. dated 24th August, 1998, is concerned, the petitioner has been issued the charge-sheet and the relevant documents relied upon by the respondent-Bank. The contention of the petitioner regarding non-supply of the documents is baseless, in view of the inquiry proceedings dated 19.12.1998, wherein the two copies of the all the relevant documents were supplied to the presenting officer and out of the two sets of copies, one set of copies was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was, further, provided with an opportunity of examining the original documents, the copies of which were duly given to him. It is, further, clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents that after proposing the punishment, the petitioner submitted his representation, and thereafter, final order has been passed. 9. The arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not conversant with the Gujarati language and his right has been prejudiced, once again, is devoid of any force, in view of the fact that, at the time of entering into service, the petitioner had filled-up an application, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that apart from English and Hindi, the petitioner knows to read and write Gujarati language. Otherwise also, he participated in the previous inquiries in the year 1995 and 1997 and during those inquiries, he never raised objection with regard to language. The past conduct of the petitioner, though, may not be the basis of his removal from service. Otherwise also, he participated in the previous inquiries in the year 1995 and 1997 and during those inquiries, he never raised objection with regard to language. The past conduct of the petitioner, though, may not be the basis of his removal from service. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in pursuance to the earlier inquiries the proposal for removal from service was moved. However, later on, taking a lenient view his punishment was reduced and order regarding stoppage of four increments was passed. 10. Coming to the Court, by the petitioner, by way of present writ-petition also seems to be premature in view of Regulation-31(1) and 32 of the Staff Service Regulations (Amendment), 1982. As per the Regulation-31(1) “An officer or employee shall have a right of appeal against any order passed by an authority which injuriously affects his interest.” The appeal is required to be preferred to the appellate authority mentioned in Regulation-32, within 30 days from the date of service of the order, appealed against. Further, Regulation-32 deals with an appeal for which an officer or an employee of the Bank is entitled to. Otherwise also, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal in disciplinary proceedings of the respondent-Bank, where no infirmity of irregularity in conducting of inquiry has been established or proved by the petitioner. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this writ-petition must fail and is DISMISSED, accordingly. Rule is discharged.” 15. The Court in Para-8 of the order has taken note of the fact that earlier the proposals were moved for dismissal of the Petitioner but however taking a lenient view his punishment was reduced and order of stoppage of increments was passed. The Petition was dismissed as premature as there was a remedy by way of an Appeal. 16. The Petitioner filed an Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2013 against the order dated 3.2.2012. The LPA was withdrawn on 8.4.2013. 17. What is evident on reading the synopsis produced by the Bank that the Petitioner preferred Review and other proceedings which may not be worth consideration as far as the present controversy is concerned. 18. 16. The Petitioner filed an Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2013 against the order dated 3.2.2012. The LPA was withdrawn on 8.4.2013. 17. What is evident on reading the synopsis produced by the Bank that the Petitioner preferred Review and other proceedings which may not be worth consideration as far as the present controversy is concerned. 18. The Petitioner then filed SCA No. 15117 of 2015 before this Court wherein this Court by an order dated 15.12.2016 directed the Bank to decide the Appeal filed challenging the order dated 23.6.2000 by treating the Memo of SCA 6093 of 2000 as grounds of Appeal. The Court made it clear that there was no purpose of deciding the Appeal dated 6.12.1999 which was filed against the charge-sheet. 19. The order dated 15.12.2016 passed by this Court in SCA No. 15117 of 2015 reads as under: “Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the petition and the arguments made before this Court, it is deemed fit to decide this petition at admission stage. 2. The petitioner was a Branch Manager of respondent No. 1Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, which was earlier known as Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank. Three different charge-sheets alleging unauthorized absenteeism and the impunctuality of the petitioner were served upon the petitioner for different periods and he was proceeded against in three different departmental inquiries. He was eventually found guilty of the alleged misconduct and was visited with the three different penalties in the said three proceedings. The petitioner accepted the punishment imposed upon him during the first two inquiries by not challenging the same in departmental appeal. So far as the third inquiry is concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal on 06.12.1999 challenging the issuance of charge-sheet to him. The said appeal was not decided; but eventually during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was communicated that the said appeal being beyond the specified period of 30 days under the relevant regulations, has not been entertained. The petitioner demanded the order rejecting his appeal which was not made available to him, but the respondent insisted that the communication was sufficient disposal of the appeal. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to counter the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that no appeal against the charge-sheet is contemplated under the relevant regulations. The petitioner demanded the order rejecting his appeal which was not made available to him, but the respondent insisted that the communication was sufficient disposal of the appeal. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to counter the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that no appeal against the charge-sheet is contemplated under the relevant regulations. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner asking the respondent to decide the appeal filed against the third charge-sheet cannot be granted. The same is, therefore, declined. 3. It appears that the petitioner in the third charge-sheet was visited with the penalty of dismissal on 23.06.2000 which came to be challenged before this Court in SCA No. 6093 of 2000. Eventually, after preferring LPA No. 501 of 2013 and after withdrawal of the same, with a view to move an application for review of the order dated 23.06.2000 passed in SCA No. 6093 of 2000, the said appeal was permitted to be withdrawn with a view to pursue pending departmental appeal. Such an appeal was filed by the petitioner as indicated on page No. 80 of this petition which reads thus: “Board of Directors Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank H.O. Godhra Re: Prayer for relief Ref. Prayer for relief u/s 32 of socalled PVGB Staff Rules and Regulations dated 06/12/1999. Special Civil Application No. 6093, dated 26.06.2000. Dear Sirs: I had humbly prayed for relief vide Para (T), serial nos. 01 to 14 by my prayer dated 06.12.1999. In addition to this, I had prayed before the Lordships of High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad vide Para (a) to (e) in Special Civil Application No. 6093 dated 26.06.2000. A copy of which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and considerations. Therefore, I humbly request you to provide relief as stated earlier vide my prayer dated 06/12/1999 and hereinabove vide Para (a) to (e) of SCA 6093 as early as possible. The decision regarding it may be communicated to me in writing. Hoping for an early relief. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Shaikh Tasnim) Date: 13.07.2000 Place: Ahmedabad Encl. SCA No. 6093 dated 26.06.2000.” 4. The decision regarding it may be communicated to me in writing. Hoping for an early relief. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Shaikh Tasnim) Date: 13.07.2000 Place: Ahmedabad Encl. SCA No. 6093 dated 26.06.2000.” 4. It would appear that the said writing of the petitioner is more in the nature of letters than an appeal, but substantially it can be seen that the prayer made by the petitioner are those made by him in SCA No. 6093 of 2000; even, as the petitioner has clearly stated that he is interested in pressing for the prayers as made in clause (a) to (e) of SCA No. 6093 of 2000, in the departmental appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner confines his arguments only to the aspect of not deciding the appeal aforestated i.e. appeal against the order of dismissal in the third inquiry only. 6. There can be no denial to the fact that it is obligatory for the respondent to decide the appeal; even though it may not be in the required format, as the subject matter of the appeal is made clear by the petitioner in the said appeal memo itself. Therefore, interest of justice would be served by directing the respondent to decide the appeal as indicated herein above within a specified time. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner would furnish the copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 to the respondent and the said copy of petition be treated as part of the appeal already preferred. There can be no exception to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner produces a copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 with the respondent No. 1, the same shall be treated as part of the appeal. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the appeal questioning the punitive dismissal order shall be decided by respondent within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court, in accordance with law. It is made clear that there is no question of rendering any decision on the challenge to the charge-sheet made by the petitioner on 06.12.1999. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. 9. It is made clear that there is no question of rendering any decision on the challenge to the charge-sheet made by the petitioner on 06.12.1999. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. 9. In the aforesaid terms, this petition is disposed of.” 20. By an order dated 4.3.2017 the Appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been quoted in the synopsis and the same reads as under: 15. 04.03.2017 The respondent bank by communication dated 04.03.2017 conveyed to the appellant inter-alia as under: “The Board discussed the agenda at length after detailed deliberations and on going through the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble High curt of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15.12.2016, your representation dated 21.12.2016 along with copy of SCA 6093/2000 all the relevant papers/documents placed before the Board in respect of your appeal and taking into consideration the grounds raised in the appeal/SCA no. 6043/2000, keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved and considering the prima facie and extenuating circumstances the Board came to the conclusion that the punishment of “Dismissal from Bank’s services w.e.f. 23.06.2000” imposed upon you by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.06.2000 is quite appropriate and by Board did not see any reason to interfere in the said order of the Disciplinary Authority. The certified copy of the minutes of the relevant agenda of the Board meeting dated 23.02.2017 is enclosed herewith for your information.” 21. The order of the appellate authority was challenged by filing SCA No. 10559 of 2017 which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 19.06.2017 and the order reads as under: “1. Amendment is granted. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the decision of the Appellate Authority as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 04.03.2017, confirming the order of punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service vide order dated 23.06.2000. 3. Mr. Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has not recorded any reason, while rejecting the appeal against the order of punishment. For that purpose, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of letter dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure-A, Page-28) Learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier round of litigation. For that purpose, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of letter dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure-A, Page-28) Learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier round of litigation. It is submitted that this petition be entertained. 4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 The petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.06.2000 after departmental inquiry. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000. 4.2 The said petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.02.2012 and that is how the dismissal order stood confirmed on merits. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under: “6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at various stages the petitioner made representations to the respondent-Bank regarding the difficulties being faced by him. However, no favorable action was taken. It is submitted that in pursuance of the first charge-sheet, he submitted the detailed reply wherein the fact regarding the accident and difficulties in travelling were mentioned. However, the respondent authorities considering the petitioner to be deliberately abstaining from his duties, arbitrarily imposed punishment of withholding of four increments. It is, further, submitted that even the findings of the inquiry officer were baseless and the detailed representation of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-Bank. While referring to the inquiry with regard to the third charge-sheet it was submitted that the punishing authority has bypassed the principles of natural justice. The Chairman's order dated 16th June, 2000, as a whole, is devoid of any such reason, except, mechanical statement that has agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner was not conversant with the ‘Gujarati’ language and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer on the basis of evidence in Gujarati language, has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. While relying upon these averments, it has been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has repeated the arguments and has contended that after supplying the first charge-sheet to the petitioner, the evidence were recorded. While relying upon these averments, it has been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has repeated the arguments and has contended that after supplying the first charge-sheet to the petitioner, the evidence were recorded. The petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings and taking into account the material on record, inquiry report was submitted. He, further, submitted that the Chairman and the disciplinary authority, while taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, have imposed the punishment, which is well reasoned and justifiable in this case. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. By way of this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the punishments imposed upon him by way of two departmental inquiries conducted earlier. However, the same cannot be discussed, herein, in view of the fact that no appeal or revision has been filed against those findings, which has been accepted by the petitioner and which have become final way back in the year 1995-1997. Even otherwise, the petitioner seems to have admitted his guilty and a lenient view has been taken, while awarding punishment in earlier two inquiries. As far as third inquiry i.e. dated 24th August, 1998, is concerned, the petitioner has been issued the charge-sheet and the relevant documents relied upon by the respondent-Bank. The contention of the petitioner regarding non-supply of the documents is baseless, in view of the inquiry proceedings dated 19.12.1998, wherein the two copies of the all the relevant documents were supplied to the presenting officer and out of the two sets of copies, one set of copies was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was, further, provided with an opportunity of examining the original documents, the copies of which were duly given to him. It is, further, clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents that after proposing the punishment, the petitioner submitted his representation, and thereafter, final order has been passed. 9. The petitioner was, further, provided with an opportunity of examining the original documents, the copies of which were duly given to him. It is, further, clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents that after proposing the punishment, the petitioner submitted his representation, and thereafter, final order has been passed. 9. The arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not conversant with the Gujarati language and his right has been prejudiced, once again, is devoid of any force, in view of the fact that, at the time of entering into service, the petitioner had filled-up an application, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that apart from English and Hindi, the petitioner knows to read and write Gujarati language. Otherwise also, he participated in the previous inquiries in the year 1995 and 1997 and during those inquiries, he never raised objection with regard to language. The past conduct of the petitioner, though, may not be the basis of his removal from service. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in pursuance to the earlier inquiries the proposal for removal from service was moved. However, later on, taking a lenient view his punishment was reduced and order regarding stoppage of four increments was passed. 10. Coming to the Court, by the petitioner, by way of present writ petition also seems to be premature in view of Regulation-31(1) and 32 of the Staff Service Regulations (Amendment), 1982. As per the Regulation-31(1) “An officer or employee shall have a right of appeal against any order passed by an authority which injuriously affects his interest.” The appeal is required to be preferred to the appellate authority mentioned in Regulation-32, within 30 days from the date of service of the order, appealed against. Further, Regulation-32 deals with an appeal for which an officer or an employee of the Bank is entitled to. Otherwise also, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal in disciplinary proceedings of the respondent-Bank, where no infirmity of irregularity in conducting of inquiry has been established or proved by the petitioner. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this writ-petition must fail and is DISMISSED, accordingly. Rule is discharged.” 4.3 Against the said judgment dated 03.02.2012, Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2013 was filed. The said appeal was withdrawn on 08.04.2013 to move review application in the main petition. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this writ-petition must fail and is DISMISSED, accordingly. Rule is discharged.” 4.3 Against the said judgment dated 03.02.2012, Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2013 was filed. The said appeal was withdrawn on 08.04.2013 to move review application in the main petition. 4.4 Petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1815 of 2014 for recalling of the judgment dated 03.02.2012, so as to enable him to withdraw the petition as he wanted to pursue the appeal. Said application was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2014. 4.5 Thereafter the petitioner had again moved this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 15117 of 2015, which was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2016 directing that the appeal questioning dismissal of the petitioner be decided by the respondent within a period of four months, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, appeal has been decided by the respondent Bank by passing the order dated 04.03.2017. Relevant part of the said order reads as under: “As directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the entire matter with copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 alongwith annexure/enclosures was put before the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors of our Bank in its meeting held on 23.02.2017 for taking appropriate view/decision on your appeal/SCA No. 6093 of 2000. The Board discussed the agenda at length. After detailed deliberations and on going through the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15.12.2016, your representation dated 21.12.2016 alongwith copy of SCA No. 6093 of 2000, all the relevant papers/documents placed before the Board in respect of your appeal and in view of gravity of charges proved and considering the prima facie and extenuating circumstances, the Board came to the conclusion that the punishment of “Dismissal from Bank’s Services w.e.f. 23.06.2000” imposed upon you by the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.06.2000 is quite appropriate and the Board is not see any reason to interfere in the said order of Disciplinary Authority.” 4.6 Considering the submission made by learned advocate and material on record, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities have not committed any error while passing the impugned order. So far examining the merits of the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the same was already done by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment quoted above. This Court has also taken into consideration the material on record and no infirmity is found therein. No second view needs to be taken in the matter. Considering the totality, this petition is required to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed.” 22. It is when this Order of the Court which was challenged that the Division Bench vide its order dated 2.08.2018 remanded the matter to decide the Appeal afresh and that resulted in passing the impugned order which is under challenge in this Petition. 23. The order of the Division Bench dated 2.08.2018 has already been quoted in the earlier part of this Order when considering facts. 24. What emerges from the litigative pursuit of the Petitioner is that he has at multiple times approached this Court and assailed the action of the Bank in dismissing him from service and ultimately in the final analysis achieved a limited relief of having his Appeal decided by considering the memo of the Petition namely SCA 6093 of 2000. 25. Mr. Shaikh Party-in-Person during the course of submissions had relied upon a judgment produced with his synopsis, in the case of, The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board versus C. Muddaiah dated 07.09.2007. He had read out Para-32 of the judgment and submitted that the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law while granting a relief particularly when ex-facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. The Court, he laid emphasis, may nay must take into account the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. He would therefore submit that what is evident from the orders passed by this court and the circumstances under which the Petitioner was issued a Charge-Sheet would indicate that the absence for which the Petitioner has been penalized was justified looking to the accident that had occurred resulting in his physical incapacity. 26. Reading the current charge-sheet under challenge would itself indicate that to quote as under: “During your tenure as an officer at Limbdi Branch of the Bank from 9.1.1998, reportedly you committed acts of omission and commission of a serious nature warranting your suspension from bank’s services w.e.f. 14.7.1998. 26. Reading the current charge-sheet under challenge would itself indicate that to quote as under: “During your tenure as an officer at Limbdi Branch of the Bank from 9.1.1998, reportedly you committed acts of omission and commission of a serious nature warranting your suspension from bank’s services w.e.f. 14.7.1998. You have continued to commit acts of omission and commission by remaining absent unauthorized from duty frequently not observing punctuality of timings, disobeying instructions of higher authorities, not taking initiative for development of the business of the branch etc. Earlier, disciplinary proceedings were instituted twice against you. In respect of the charge-sheet dated 16.7.1995, all the charges levelled against you were found proved in the enquiry whereas in respect of the charge-sheet dated 14.7.1997 you had admitted all the charges levelled against you in the hearing held on 29.9.1997.You had again admitted all the charges before the undersigned in the hearing held on 20.1.1998. You had further requested the undersigned during the course of proposed punishment hearing held on 20.1.98 to give you one more opportunity to improve and assured for non recurrence of irregularities and that you would work with sincerity and dedication. You have however committed breach of assurance given by you and persisted in disobeying instructions of higher authorities, non observance of punctuality of timings, remaining frequently absent from duty unauthorizedly, not taking initiatives in the development of the branch business etc. You have failed to fulfil the assurance given by you, on which by putting trust and considering your future, the bank had taken a lenient view to build-up your successful future career in the bank. You however failed to retain the trust that the bank had put in you and persisted in indulging as per your own will by putting aside the interest of the institution.” 27. The portion of the Charge-Sheet in bold indicates the extent of the leeway that the Bank had given to the Petitioner in the earlier years when he had remained absent, despite which there was no improvement in his conduct as the perusal of the imputations of the present episode which led to his dismissal from service occurred. 28. Even when the present enquiry proceedings are perused, the enquiry officer has specifically recorded that the Petitioner has not submitted any defence in response to the charges levelled against him. 29. 28. Even when the present enquiry proceedings are perused, the enquiry officer has specifically recorded that the Petitioner has not submitted any defence in response to the charges levelled against him. 29. These circumstances do indicate that the contentions extensively raised by the Party-in-Person, who may not have been adept at making pleadings on facts and legal submissions at this stage, when examined in light of extensive grounds set out in the bulk of pleadings, which to a certain extent are and were irrelevant, when the crux of the issue is examined, what emerges is that, the Petitioner, was a Bank employee, who on earlier two occasions had faced disciplinary proceedings for being absent and not being punctual and was warned not to repeat the same to which he had so assured and having repeated the same misconduct for which he did not offer any contest before the Inquiry Officer, the Bank was left with no option but to pass an order of dismissal from service on 23.6.2000. 30. From the restrictive nature of submissions made by the Party-In-Person before me restricting it to the compliance of the manner and the method of deciding the Appeal and emphasizing the same obviously being aware of the limited space and scope to argue after repeated rounds of litigation, Mr. Pandya learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission that the scope to carry out an exercise in the nature of appeal, by a writ court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the Petitioner. 31. Having perused the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018, the tabular chart with the Appellate Order would indicate that, in the left column the pleadings/grounds set out in SCA No. 6093 of 2000 have been set out and in the right column reasons are assigned by the Appellate Authority which is the Board to disagree with such submissions on merits. The Annexure setting out reasons reproducing the ground of challenge and the reasons therefor run into 7 pages which have been read by the Court. The stand of the Party-in-Person that there is no compliance of considering the grounds as raised in the Memo of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 are misconceived and an attempt to catch the last straw after continuously pursuing the litigation and challenging the order of dismissal which was passed way back in the Year 2000. The stand of the Party-in-Person that there is no compliance of considering the grounds as raised in the Memo of SCA No. 6093 of 2000 are misconceived and an attempt to catch the last straw after continuously pursuing the litigation and challenging the order of dismissal which was passed way back in the Year 2000. 32. Extensive examination of the order of dismissal in light of the misconduct has been at more than one time examined by this Court. Even if it is not then too when there is no pleading or a ground to hold the dismissal to be bad on account of any procedural irregularities, as is well settled, the Court cannot look into and re-examine the charges and the report as if sitting in appeal over the decision. 33. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition deserved to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.