JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri M.S. Rana the writ petitioner/appellant in person, Sri Pankaj Rai and Sri Namit Srivastava learned Advocates appearing for the respondent bank. 2. This special appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.27947 of 2018 (M.S. Rana v. Union of India & others) filed by the appellant/petitioner namely MS. Rana. Sri MS. Rana, the appellant has appeared in person to argue the appeal. Shri Pankaj Rai and Sri Namit Srivastava have appeared for the respondent-bank. The writ petition, out of which the instant appeal has arisen, was filed with various reliefs amongst other as under:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to fix the last drawn salary of the petitioner for fixation of basic pension and other terminal dues after its' fitment in revised pay scale effective from 01-11-2007 instead of 01-11-1997 as the services of petitioner was allowed to be continued till the date of superannuation i.e. 30-09-2009 by this Hon'ble court on decision WP no.562/2013 on 30-09- 2013, placed at Annexure-1 and accordingly payment of the pension, arrear of pension and other retiral benefits with 24% per annum with compound interest: due to culpable delay after adjusting the amount paid by respondent to petitioner. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to fix basic pension after adding FPA and PQP as per rules in revised last pay drawn. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.21.20 lakhs which has been recovered by respondent without complying the directions given by this Hon'ble court in review petition no. 101363/2016 dated 11-12-2017 for passing the final order by competent authority regarding recovery of losses. (v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to pay difference amount of interest the PF/VPF from 01-10- 2004 to 18.8.2018 which is approximately 1.98 Lacs with interest of culpable delay. (vi) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to pay the difference amount of subsistence allowance from 1.11.2002 to 5.8.2004 (22 months) on account of wage revision effective from 01.11.2002 with 24% compound interest due to culpable delay. (vi) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to pay the difference amount of subsistence allowance from 1.11.2002 to 5.8.2004 (22 months) on account of wage revision effective from 01.11.2002 with 24% compound interest due to culpable delay. (vii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to refund excess amount of interest Rs. 15869/- wrongly charged on amount of 56% from 27-11-2009 to 30-04-2018 instead of 11-12-2010 to 30-04-2018 with interest of culpable delay." 3. Besides the above, prayer was made for issuance of mandamus for award of interest on the arrears of pension and gratuity at the rate of 24% (compound interest) as also to award damages to the writ petitioner on account of culpable delay and harassment caused to him. 4. This case has a chequered history. The facts, in brief, relevant to decide the matter at hand are that the appellant/petitioner was suspended while working as an officer MMG Scale-III in Bank of Baroda. The charge sheet was served on him on 06.06.2002 and a order of removal of the appellant from service of the bank had been passed by the disciplinary authority on 05.08.2004. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 15.02.2005 passed by the departmental appellate authority. The appellant herein had preferred a Writ Petition No.30055 of 2005. During pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2009. The said writ petition was decided vide judgement and order dated 30.09.2010, partly allowing the writ petition setting aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority dated 05.08.2004 and 15.02.2005; respectively, noticing that the enquiry officer in his report had held that the allegations in charge No.1(d) and 1(e) were not proved as the Presenting Officer himself was convinced that those charges could not be proved. However, in the order dated 06.07.2004, the disciplinary authority had held charges No.1(d) and 1(e) proved without adverting to the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer, which was the basis for finding of the enquiry officer. However, in the order dated 06.07.2004, the disciplinary authority had held charges No.1(d) and 1(e) proved without adverting to the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer, which was the basis for finding of the enquiry officer. It was observed by this Court that the Presenting officer was appointed to prove the charges on behalf of the disciplinary authority, and when he himself did not prove the aforesaid charges, disciplinary authority could not have come to the finding that charges were proved, specifically when it did not advert to the finding of the Presenting Officer. The finding of the disciplinary authority on the allegations in charge No.1(d) and 1(e), was set aside on the ground that it cannot be sustained. Another glaring error committed by the disciplinary authority in returning its findings on the charge which was not included in the charge memo, was also taken note of by this Court and it was observed that the said findings being beyond the charges could not be sustained. The order of removal dated 05.08.2004, being based on the substituted findings as noticed above, with regard to the allegation in charge No.1(d) and 1(e) had been held to be unsustainable and as such the order of the punishment had been set aside. Liberty was however, granted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh punishment order on remaining proved charges, with the expression of an opinion by this Court that looking to the nature of the charges which have been found proved, it was of the view that the writ petitioner deserved lesser punishment then the punishment which had been awarded by the order dated 05.08.2004. Noticing that the writ petition has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, it was further observed by this Court that the proceedings shall continue as if the writ petitioner was in service until they were concluded and final order was passed. 5. A fresh punishment order dated 30.12.2010 had been passed to compulsorily retire the writ petitioner instead of removal order, with a specific observation that modified punishment would relate back to the earlier order of removal dated 05.08.2004. The appellate authority vide order dated 02.09.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the compulsory retirement order dated 30.12.2010. 5. A fresh punishment order dated 30.12.2010 had been passed to compulsorily retire the writ petitioner instead of removal order, with a specific observation that modified punishment would relate back to the earlier order of removal dated 05.08.2004. The appellate authority vide order dated 02.09.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the compulsory retirement order dated 30.12.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 62743 of 2011 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 2.3.2012. The writ court while setting aside the orders dated 30.12.2010 and 02.09.2011, passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority; respectively, had directed to pass a fresh order, in light of the observations made in the judgement of this Court in the first writ petition namely Writ Petition No.30055 of 2005, without taking into consideration the allegations in charge No.1(d) and 1(e). 6. Pursuant to the judgement and order of this Court dated 02.03.2012, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 11.5.2012, even after excluding the allegations in charge No.1(d) and 1(e) from consideration, maintained the penalty of compulsory retirement with a specific observation that the punishment order would relate back to the earlier order dated 05.08.2004 and would have force and effect from 05.08.2004, i.e. the date of earlier removal order. It was specifically observed that the period of suspension, w.e.f 19.06.2002 to 05.08.2004, shall be treated as period not spend on duty. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner yet again, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2012. A Writ-A No. 562 of 2013 had then been filed wherein the writ petitioner had agitated that the imposition of order of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of removal order dated 05.08.2004, virtually had the same consequences as there would have been in the case of removal from service. The entire exercise of passing of fresh punishment order, allegedly lower than the previous punishment was just an eye wash and was in violation of true spirit of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by this Court, which provided for imposition of a lower penalty. 7. The entire exercise of passing of fresh punishment order, allegedly lower than the previous punishment was just an eye wash and was in violation of true spirit of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by this Court, which provided for imposition of a lower penalty. 7. This Court while deciding the Writ-A No. 562 of 2013, vide judgement and order dated 30.9.2013, posed a question to itself;- (i) As to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the writ petitioner, was against the spirit of the directions given by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No.30055 of 2005 or not? (ii) And if so, to what relief the petitioner was entitled to? 8. While answering these questions, this Court has carefully examined the allegations upon which the order of punishment had been founded. It was noted that allegation Nos.1(a), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i) and 2 were found proved by the enquiry officer and the finding was affirmed by the disciplinary authority. It was further noted that allegation 1(f), though found not proved by the enquiry officer but was held proved by the disciplinary authority and this finding was not disturbed by this Court in earlier writ petition. The allegation No.1(f) was to the effect that in many cases the back-end subsidy was credited even after the payment of bank loan, which was against the provision of the scheme. The enquiry officer found the allegation 1(f) not proved for the reason that the related vouchers was prepared by the then Manager (Credit) posted at the branch and further, the amount of G/L subsidy could be reversed even at that point of time. 9. Taking note of the findings returned by the enquiry officer and the opinion drawn by the disciplinary authority on the allegation 1(f) as proved, it was concluded by this Court in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 that even if the said allegation was held as proved, the writ petitioner was attributable to his lack of supervisory skills as a Senior Manager of the branch. It was opined by this Court that from a careful perusal of the record, neither the proven allegations, nor the charges inferable therefrom imputed any dishonest motive or ill motive to the writ petitioner in the various acts of motion attributed to him. It was opined by this Court that from a careful perusal of the record, neither the proven allegations, nor the charges inferable therefrom imputed any dishonest motive or ill motive to the writ petitioner in the various acts of motion attributed to him. The proven allegations also did not disclose that by his acts, the petitioner has favoured any particular customer of the bank or has himself gained, in any manner. In the above background, this Court has proceeded to consider the observation in Writ Petition No. 30055 of 2005, which reads as under:- "However, looking to the nature of the charges, which have been found to be proved, we are of the view that the petitioner deserves lesser punishment which has been awarded by order dated 05.08.2004." 10. This Court has further proceeded to consider the findings of the enquiry report as well as the disciplinary authority on each of the allegations noted above, proven against the writ petitioner and reached at the conclusion in paragraph Nos. 29, 30 & 31 as under:- "29. Having considered the entire material on record, we find that the following allegations, proven or not proven, against the petitioner are conspicuous by their absence :- (i) a dishonest motive on the part of the CSO (the petitioner) either to cause unlawful gain to oneself or to someone; and (ii) lack of jurisdiction in making advances. 30. Further, from the concluding paragraph (xviii) of the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority what transpires is that there is a finding to the effect that the petitioner lacked capability to effectively monitor the affairs of the branch as its Head and for that reason he was found to be untrustworthy of holding any responsibility in the Bank. 31. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty terminating his service, by way of compulsory retirement, was unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. More so, this Court, in the first round of litigation, while partly allowing Writ Petition No. 30055 of 2005, had observed that looking to the nature of the charges, which have been found proved, the petitioner deserved lesser punishment other than the punishment of removal awarded by order dated 05.08.2004. Although, technically speaking a punishment of compulsory retirement is lower than removal, which was earlier awarded to the petitioner. Although, technically speaking a punishment of compulsory retirement is lower than removal, which was earlier awarded to the petitioner. But whether the punishment of compulsory retirement, in the manner in which it has been awarded, works out to be lower than removal needs assessment. For this purpose, it would be useful to refer to Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-bank wherein implications of various penalities on terminal benefits has been detailed. The implication of the penalty of compulsory retirement on terminal benefits have been stated as follows:- "(1) No disqualification for future employment; (2) No impact on PF; (3) Leave, encashment/ARB not payable; (4) Gratuity payable only if permissible as per rules; and (5) No pension payable. However, Compulsory Retirement Pension may be paid under Regulation 33 of the Bank of Baroda (E) Pension Regulations, 1995." Whereas, the implications of the penalty of removal from service are stated as follows:- "(1) No disqualification for future employment; (2) No impact on PF; (3) Leave, encashment/ARB not payable; (4) Gratuity payable only if permissible as per rules;and (5) No pension payable. However, if the case is deserving of special consideration, Compassionate Allowance may be sanctioned under Regulation 31 of the Bank of Baroda (E) Pension Regulations, 1995." 11. On a comparison of the implications of two penalties awarded to the appellant, initially and on remittal of the matter by this Court, on the terminal benefits payable to the incumbent, it was noted that except in case of payment of pension, there would be no difference. It was, thus, further concluded in paragraph No.'33' as under:- "33. Thus, from above, it is clear that although the petitioner has been awarded a penalty lower than the penalty of removal but, in sum and substance, it is completely an eye-wash and does not provide any significant benefit to the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement to the petitioner is against the true spirit of the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 30055 of 2005, which had attained finality between the parties. Moreover it is also unduly harsh in the light of the proven charges and, as such, cannot be countenanced." 12. Moreover it is also unduly harsh in the light of the proven charges and, as such, cannot be countenanced." 12. On the question of relief, instead of relegating the matter bank for award of lesser punishment, the Court has proceeded to substitute the punishment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This Court had reached at the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be served, if the position of the writ petitioner was reduced instead of terminating his services. It was directed that the punishment of reduction to a grade lower than what the writ petitioner was holding at the time he was punished be imposed on him. 13. It was then concluded that the substituted punishment would operate from the date of earlier order of removal i.e. 05.08.2004. On the question of back-wages, this Court has reached at the conclusion that though the writ petitioner was not entitled to payment of back-wages, but the continuity of service should be granted only for the purpose of pensionery/retirement benefit, and not for other benefits like increments promotion etc. It was, thus, finally concluded in paragraph Nos. 42' and 43' by this Court, as under:- "42. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was far too harsh, particularly, when this Court had earlier remanded the matter to impose a lesser punishment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons already detailed above, we substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement by imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reduction to a grade lower than what the petitioner was holding at the time when he was punished i.e. 05.08.2004, and to that extent the impugned orders dated 11.05.2012 and 26.11.2012 stand modified. However, in view of the law laid down by the apex court, which has been noticed above, it would not be proper for us to grant back-wages to the petitioner for the period which he has not worked. However, in view of the law laid down by the apex court, which has been noticed above, it would not be proper for us to grant back-wages to the petitioner for the period which he has not worked. But, as the petitioner was deprived of the employer's contribution towards the Provident Fund, the payment of gratuity, the leave encashment and the right to opt for pension only because his services were terminated, therefore, to serve the ends of justice we direct that the petitioner be provided the benefit of continuity of service not for the payment of back-wages for the period that he did not serve the organization, but for the purpose of retirement benefits like employer's contribution towards provident fund, payment of gratuity, leave encashment, with the right to opt for pension, etc. For the aforesaid purpose the petitioner would be treated to be in service on a grade lower than what he held, with effect from the date he was compulsorily retired i.e. 05.08.2004 up to the date of his superannuation. In addition to the above, we also consider it appropriate that petitioner be paid lump sum compensation, by way of costs, for having been forced to approach this court on at least three occasions, which we quantify at Rs.1,50,000/-. The entire exercise of payment of retiral dues, as indicated above, including the compensation quantified by us will be carried out within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 43. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the claim of medical bills, TE bills raised by the petitioner as we find that those claims would involve investigation into facts and we, therefore, leave it open for the petitioner to agitate the same before a civil court or a suitable forum. We may further observe that we have not adjudicated on the right of the respondent-bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by his conduct, which may otherwise be recoverable from his retiral dues in accordance with the law, rules, etc. applicable." 14. We may further observe that we have not adjudicated on the right of the respondent-bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by his conduct, which may otherwise be recoverable from his retiral dues in accordance with the law, rules, etc. applicable." 14. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the General Manager/competent authority had quantified the retiral dues and asked the appellant to deposit Rs.21.20 lacs, towards the pecuniary loss caused to the bank as has been quantified by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 11.05.2012. A perusal of the communication dated 08.02.2014 sent by the General Manager/competent authority to the appellant herein indicates that the said decision was taken pursuant to the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by this Court as noted above in detail. The competent authority has proceeded to modify the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed vide order dated 11.05.2012, as per the Court's decision, in the following terms:- "Reduction to lower grade from MMG-S-III to MMG/S-II fixing his Basic Pay at the initial stage of MMG/S-II i.e. Rs.13820/- w.e.f. 05.08.2004" Further the period of Suspension will be treated as period not spent on duty." 15. It was further observed in the said order that the writ petitioner shall not be entitled to back-wages for the period for which he has not worked i.e. from 05.08.2004 till the date of his superannuation and the effective date of pension payment will be 27.11.2009 (effective date of second pension). It was intimated to the writ petitioner that additional cost was to be borne by him for pension eligibility which means:- "Please therefore immediately deposit Rs.1,10,841/- as national bank contribution from 05.08.2004 to 30.09.2009 plus Rs.3,18,271.85/- to the credit of Pension Fund account. The formality for terminal benefits have to be completed and the above amounts have to be deposited within next three days failing which it will be deemed that you are not interested in opting for the Pension. Meanwhile we shall be crediting the pension fund with the amount of bank's contribution to PF of Rs.4,57,501.60/-. Since if you apply for pension you will not get the bank's contribution to PF but it will be recovered towards pension cost." 16. The amount payable to the writ petitioner as per the order of the writ Court was quoted therein as under:- Sr. Since if you apply for pension you will not get the bank's contribution to PF but it will be recovered towards pension cost." 16. The amount payable to the writ petitioner as per the order of the writ Court was quoted therein as under:- Sr. No. Amount to be paid as per court Order: Particulars Amount 1 Leave encashment 249864.00 2 Gratuity 445005.00 3 Additional Retirement benefits 187398.00 4 Amount of Commutation 403073.00 5 Arrears of Pension (27.11.2009 to 31.12.2013) 630698.00 Total 1916038.00 17. In view of the observation of this Court in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 of the writ court in paragraph 43' that this Court had not adjudicated on the right of the respondent bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss caused to the bank by his conduct which may otherwise be recoverable from his retiral dues in accordance with the law/rules etc. applicable, it was intimated in the letter dated 08.02.2014 that:- "The pecuniary loss of Rs.21.20 lacs caused to the bank has been quantified in DA's order dated 11.05.2012 and attributed to your misconduct which is recoverable from your retiral dues. The same is recoverable by the bank hence please deposit the same immediately in the bank within next three days, otherwise the bank shall have to exercise its legal rights to recover the same form you." 18. The appellant filed a representation dated 15.02.2014 questioning the contents of letter dated 08.02.2014 and raised objection with regard to the substituted punishment awarded to him for reduction in MMG Scale-II fixing his basic pay at the initial pay of MMG Scale-II which is Rs.13,820/with effect from 05.08.2004. It was categorically stated therein by the writ petitioner that by fixing his basic pay at the initial scale of MMG Scale-II, the respondents have imposed additional penalty for forfeiting seven increments with cumulative effect permanently, which were already earned by the writ petitioner in Scale-II before his promotion in Scale-III in September 1993. It was prayed that his last pay drawn in Scale-II was to be protected. It was further stated that the last pay drawn in MMG Scale-II was required to be fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 19400-700/1-20100-800/10-28100, which came into force with effect from 01.11.2007 as per the wage settlement. It was prayed that his last pay drawn in Scale-II was to be protected. It was further stated that the last pay drawn in MMG Scale-II was required to be fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 19400-700/1-20100-800/10-28100, which came into force with effect from 01.11.2007 as per the wage settlement. The competent authority while passing the order dated 08.02.2014 had curtailed the retiral benefits substantially by fixing basic pay in Scale-II that too in Old pay scale of Rs. 13820-500/1-40320- 560/10-19920 of MMG Scale-II prevailing at the time of the original punishment order i.e. 05.08.2004, thus, by not granting continuity of service to the writ petitioner till the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.09.2009. Further, the writ petitioner has also assailed the decision of the competent authority in making recovery of the alleged financial loss of Rs.21.20 lacs on the ground that the computation of the alleged loss was not made by the competent authority and in absence of accounting based entry, the amount of alleged loss, financial or revenue based on the apprehension or likelihood could not have been computed. 19. When no decision of the competent authority was communicated, a Writ Petition No.22697 of 2014 had been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 08.02.2014 passed by the General Manager, Bank of Baroda whereby he was asked to deposit Rs.21.20 lacs or else recovery would be made against him. This Court while dismissing the said writ petition vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014 observed as under:- "After hearing the petitioner in person and Shri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents Bank, we are of the view that the order dated 11.5.2012 by which a categorical finding of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the petitioner on account of his misconduct has been recorded, has become final. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 30.9.2013 has categorically observed that we have not adjudicated upon the rights of the respondents bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss which may otherwise be recovered from his retiral dues in accordance with law and rules etc. The petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 30.9.2013 either before this Court by filing a review petition or before the Supreme Court, therefore, now it is not open for this Court to reopen the said issue pertaining to the financial loss caused to the bank. The petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 30.9.2013 either before this Court by filing a review petition or before the Supreme Court, therefore, now it is not open for this Court to reopen the said issue pertaining to the financial loss caused to the bank. The respondent bank can recover the said amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. The impugned order nowhere states that the recovery is to be made from the retiral benefits, in fact it directs the petitioner to deposit the amount within three days failing which the bank shall take recourse to recover the same in accordance with law." 20. The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21091 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioner had been 'dismissed in limine' vide judgement and order dated 05.09.2014 by the Apex Court. 21. The appellant had filed another writ petition No. 60703 of 2014 with the following relief:- "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 and 2 to grant interim pension to the petitioner in lieu of render service towards bank and other service benefit forthwith after due adjustment of any amount balance on the part of the petitioner. (b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent bank to pay the all service retiral benefit which has illegally withhold." 22. The same had also been dismissed taking note of the judgement and order dated 21.4.2014 of dismissal of writ petition No.22697 of 2014 as extracted above, with the cost of Rs.2000/- on the premise that the second writ petition for the same cause of action as was adjudicated in the judgement and order dated 21.4.2014, was misconceived. 23. Having lost before the Apex Court and this Court in subsequent rounds of litigation after the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by this Court, the appellant preferred a Review Application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22697 of 2014 which was numbered as Review Application No.101363 of 2016. 23. Having lost before the Apex Court and this Court in subsequent rounds of litigation after the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by this Court, the appellant preferred a Review Application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22697 of 2014 which was numbered as Review Application No.101363 of 2016. While hearing the review application, an order dated 02.11.2017 was passed by this Court wherein it was noted that the writ petitioner had moved an application dated 30.11.2014, before the General Manager of the Bank, Zonal Office, Bareilly making a request to proceed to the recovery of Rs.21.20 lacs as per Laws and Rules from the terminal dues and pay the balance of all such arears including pension at an early date. Whereas the bank was insisting on clearing the dues only after the writ petitioner deposited the amount which was sought to be recovered from him. It was submitted by the writ petitioner that the pension and other retirement dues have not been calculated accordingly as per the final directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 in accordance with the Rules applicable and hence recovery of Rs.21.20 lacs was not permissible in law. 24. Taking a practical view of the dispute, which had already been concluded under the judgement of this Court, referred herein above, this Court in the interim order dated 02.11.2017 had called upon the bank to resolve the dispute and on the request of the Court, communication dated 25.10.2017 was submitted by the bank to the Court, a copy of which was also provided to the appellant herein. It was then directed that the bank may withheld the amount of Rs.21.20 lacs from the amount so calculated as per the letter dated 25.10.2017 and pay the balance of the amount to the writ, petitioner/appellant within three weeks from the date of the order. It was kept open to the writ petitioner to make an application detailing his request about the appropriate calculation and also any adjustment to be made, which, according to the writ petitioner may still be payable to him. It was noted by this Court in the order dated 02.11.2017 passed in the review application that the calculation mentioned in the letter dated 25.10.2017 was tentative and also the amount recoverable from the petitioner shall be subject to the final order being passed by the bank in this regard. It was noted by this Court in the order dated 02.11.2017 passed in the review application that the calculation mentioned in the letter dated 25.10.2017 was tentative and also the amount recoverable from the petitioner shall be subject to the final order being passed by the bank in this regard. Liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to file his representation within 10 days and the bank was directed to pass orders within four weeks. Thereafter upon consideration of representation of the writ petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed after one month. 25. On 11.12.2017, final order was passed on the review application after condoning the delay in filing the same. It was noted by this Court in the said judgement and order dated 11.12.2017 of disposal of the review application that the review application had been entertained by it only in order to settle the payment matter finally as it was an outcome of the judgement already given by this Court. It was noted that the appellant had disputed the amount offered by the bank under the letter dated 25.10.2017 and has filed a representation on 06.11.2017. On the submission of the learned counsel for the bank in the review matter that the bank shall decide the representation of the writ petitioner, this Court formed an opinion that there was no reason to keep the review matter pending as only the payment which was due to the writ petitioner remained to be sorted out. 26. The review application was, thus, disposed of with the direction to the General Manager, Bank of Baroda, General office, Bareilly to proceed to update instruction from the headquarter and also pass orders on the representation dated 06.11.2017 of the applicant and inform him within three weeks of any outstanding amount which he may be entitled in accordance with law. 27. Lastly, it was observed that:- "Consequently, the application stands disposed of with a direction to the General Manager-Bank Zonal Office, Bareilly to proceed to obtain instructions from the head quarters and also pass orders on the representations dated 06.11.2017 of the applicant and inform him within three weeks of any outstanding amount which he may be entitled in accordance with law. It will be open to the applicant to pursue his remedy before the higher authorities in case he is dissatisfied by an order passed on his representation." 28. It will be open to the applicant to pursue his remedy before the higher authorities in case he is dissatisfied by an order passed on his representation." 28. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the fact that in the review application, the division bench though has directed the competent authority of the bank to decide the representation of the writ petitioner dated 6.11.2017 keeping it open for the authority to consider the payment that are due to the writ petitioner and are needed to be sorted out, but the parameter upon which the determination of retirement dues has been made under the order dated 8.2.2014 has not been held bad. The learned Single Judge has further gone on to notice that the writ petitioner also acquiesced to the recovery in the order passed on 08.02.2014 and hence now the representation of the writ petitioner once decided by order dated 26.7.2018, reiterating the stand taken by the bank in the earlier order dated 08.02.2014, which has already attained finality, there is no occasion to reopen the controversy, which has already stood concluded previously by four Division Benches of this Court. 29. The submission of the appellant (appearing in person), placing the above noted decisions/directions of this Court, is that with the passing of the order dated 11.12.2017 on the review application, it is kept open for the writ petitioner to challenge the computation made by the respondent towards payment which were to be made to the appellant under the order passed by this Court. 30. The contention is that with the disposal of the review application, the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the writ court on the validity of the order dated 08.02.2014 stood modified to the extent that it was permitted to the appellant to raise objection with regard to the computation made by the respondent-bank under the direction contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. It was specifically noted by this Court while disposing of the review application vide order dated 11.12.2017 that the review application had been entertained in order to settle the payment matter finally as an outcome of the judgements given by this Court. It was specifically noted by this Court while disposing of the review application vide order dated 11.12.2017 that the review application had been entertained in order to settle the payment matter finally as an outcome of the judgements given by this Court. On a fresh computation submitted by the bank vide communication dated 25.10.2017, this Court while passing the interim order dated 02.11.2017 in the review application had noted that the calculation mentioned therein were treated to be tentative and any amount recoverable from the petitioner/appellant will be subject to the final order to be passed in that regard by the bank. While passing the final order dated 11.12.2017, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, the review application was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to pass orders on the representation dated 6.11.2017 of the petitioner/appellant, keeping it open to the appellant to pursue his remedy before the higher authority, in case he is dissatisfied by the order passed on his representation. The submission of the appellant (in person), thus, is that the respondent bank was required to consider the grounds taken by the appellant in the representation dated 06.11.2017 challenging the computation made by the respondent in the communication dated 08.02.2014, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 22697 of 2014 wherein review application was filed and decided on 11.12.2017. The question of computation of payment payable to the writ petitioner on correct calculation as also the financial loss caused to the bank leading to recovery from the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been left open with the disposal of the review application vide order dated 11.12.2017. The dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 21.4.2014 challenging the computation shown in the order dated 08.02.2014 cannot come in the way of the appellant, in as much as, the question in the writ petition out of which the instant appeal has arisen is only about the correct computation to be made by the respondent bank on the issues already settled by this Court, i.e. only on the payment matter as an outcome of the judgements already given by this Court. 31. 31. It was vehemently argued by the writ petitioner that he does not seek any benefit other than what is admissible to him under the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by this Court, whereby the matter pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant was set at rest. The judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by any of the contesting parties. The communication dated 08.02.2014, giving details of the retiral dues and for recovery of Rs.21.20 lacs towards the loss to the bank as qualified in the order of the disciplinary authority dated 11.5.2012, was also sent pursuant to the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013, which is evident from the language employed therein. The appellant/writ petitioner, though may not have succeeded in challenge to the communication dated 08.02.2014 initially, as the writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2014 on the ground that the petitioner cannot dispute the recovery of Rs.21.20 lacs caused to the bank, but on the issues relating to the computation of the retiral dues and the adjustment, if any, to be made from the payments due to the writ petitioner pursuant to the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013, are still open for consideration and the challenge by the writ petitioner to the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the bank disposing of his representation reiterating the earlier stand taken in the order dated 08.02.2014, cannot be turned down on the premise that the controversy had been set at rest and cannot be opened by this Court. The submission is that the dismissal of the instant writ petition vide judgement and order dated 20.4.2022, subject matter of challenge herein, results in non-suiting the writ petitioner without adverting to the issues pertaining to computation wrongly made by the respondent-bank. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank, in rebuttal, vehementally argued that the instant appeal cannot be entertained for the simple reason that all disputes had been settled at the ends of the bank and any issue relating to computation is not left to be adjudicated by the appellant/writ petitioner on the basis of the order passed in the review application which is dated 11.12.2017. It is argued that with the dismissal of the writ petition No. 22697 of 2014 vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, the challenge to the order dated 08.02.2014 of the General Manager/competent authority is not entertainable. It is argued that with the dismissal of the writ petition No. 22697 of 2014 vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, the challenge to the order dated 08.02.2014 of the General Manager/competent authority is not entertainable. The liberty granted to the writ petitioner/appellant to raise grievance with regard to computation made by the bank and the direction to the bank to decide the representation dated 06.11.2017 in the judgement and order dated 11.12.2017 passed on the review application has been fully complied with the passing of the order dated 26.07.2018, whereby all claims of the writ petitioner/appellant herein had been finally settled and payment has been made, accordingly. 33. It was argued that after disposal of the review application vide judgement and order dated 11.12.2017, the request letter sent by the appellant dated 15.12.2017 for compliance of the order dated 11.12.2017, had been finally disposed of by the D.G.M. Bareilly on 08.01.2018. The claim of the writ petitioner was sent to the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda Agra along with the composite application form of terminal dues on 11.01.2018. The appellant had filed appeal before the Executive Director/Appellate authority and Review before the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (reviewing authority) against the order dated 08.01.2018 by which the representation dated 06.11.2017 filed by the appellant was disposed of by D.G.M Bareilly. The appeal and the review application was disposed of by the Executive Director on 04.04.2018, upholding the order dated 08.01.2018 of the Director D.G.M Bareilly. The pension of the appellant has, thus, been finalized on 11.4.2018; gratuity was finalized on 13.4.2018; additional retirement benefits were finalized on 30.4.2018 and lastly after settlement of all claims of the appellant on 26.7.2018, pension payment order was issued on 18.9.2018. The writ petition, out of which the instant appeal has been arisen, has been preferred on 03.01.2019, which has rightly been dismissed by the Writ Court holding that the controversy once settled cannot be reopened. 34. It was vehementally argued by the learned counsels for the respondent-bank that after the decision of four Division Benches of this Court on the issue raised by the writ petitioner herein, nothing is left open to be adjudicated by the special appellate Court. No relief can be granted to the writ petitioner/appellant herein. The appeal deserved to be dismissed as misconceived. 35. No relief can be granted to the writ petitioner/appellant herein. The appeal deserved to be dismissed as misconceived. 35. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, there remains no dispute that the issue pertaining to the punishment awarded to the appellant as a consequence of the disciplinary enquiry, pursuant to the enquiry report dated 31.12.2003, has been brought to its logical end with the passing of the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has been allowed modifying the punishment order for the observation made therein. There is no dispute about the fact that the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 has attained finality interse parties. All subsequent orders for determination of retiral benefits admissible to the appellant/writ petitioner and the recovery therefrom, have to be in consonance with the said decision being consequential. The fact remains that the question of settlement of payment admissible to the appellant/writ petitioner and the amount recoverable from the dues payable to him, has to be determined in the spirit of the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. Even subsequent decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the determination made by the respondent for payment of pensionary dues have to be read in conformity with the decision of this Court in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. We, therefore, have to fall back on the said decision to cull out the effect of the same. 36. We, therefore, have to fall back on the said decision to cull out the effect of the same. 36. While substituting the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ petitioner/appellant, this Court in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 has issued the following directions;- (i) the punishment of reduction to a great lower than what the petitioner was holding at the time when he was punished i.e. 05.08.2004 shall be imposed, be substituted in place of the punishment of compulsory retirement; (ii) the punishment order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority and order of the appellate authority dated 26.11.2012 stood modified to the above extent; (iii) no back wages shall be granted to the writ petitioner for the period during which he has not worked; (iv) the benefit of continuity of service for the period of non-working shall be provided for the purpose of retirement benefits like Employer's contribution towards provident fund, payment of gratuity, leave encashment, with the right to opt pension etc, but for the payment of back wages for the said period; (v) for the said purpose, the writ petitioner would be treated to be in service on a grade lower than what he held, with effect from the date he was compulsorily retired, i.e. 05.08.2004 upto the date of his superannuation; (vi) lump-sum compensation by way of cost for forcing the writ petitioner to approach this Court on three earlier occasions, had been qualified to Rs.1,50,000/-; (vii) the entire exercise of payment of the retiral dues, in terms of the above directions including the compensation quantified by the Court was required to be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. 37. While giving the above directions, this Court had further made it clear that it had not entered into the merits of;- (i) The claim of medical bills, TE bills raised by the petitioner as it was of the view that those claims would involve investigation into facts. (ii) It had not adjudicated on the right of the bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss caused to the bank by his conduct, which may otherwise be recoverable from his retiral dues in accordance with law, Rules etc. applicable. 38. (ii) It had not adjudicated on the right of the bank to recover from the petitioner any pecuniary loss caused to the bank by his conduct, which may otherwise be recoverable from his retiral dues in accordance with law, Rules etc. applicable. 38. In light of the above directions issued by this Court, compliance of which was required to be made by the respondent bank, we are further required to go through the punishment order dated 11.05.2012, which was subject matter of enquiry in Writ A No. 562 of 2013, allowed vide judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 i.e. the punishment order which stood modified in view of the above directions issued by this Court. We may note that though the punishment order dated 11.05.2012 has not been brought on record by the counsel for the parties but from a perusal of the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013, it is evident that the disciplinary authority, even after excluding the allegation in charge No.1(d) and 1(e) from consideration, maintained the punishment awarded to the appellant as was passed under the order dated 30.09.2010, which was set aside by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No. 62743 of 2011, which was allowed setting aside the punishment order dated 30.09.2010 with the direction to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in light of the observation made in the judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No.30055 of 2005, without taking into consideration of the allegation in charge No.1(d) and 1(e). 39. It is in these circumstance of the case of the writ petitioner, this Court while deciding the Writ A No. 562 of 2013 has noted the observation in the earlier Writ Petition No.30055 of 2005 (extracted above), wherein this Court had observed that in view of the proven charges, the writ petitioner/appellant herein deserved lesser punishment than which had been awarded by the order dated 05.08.2004, and, thus, had further proceeded to substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed vide order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority, to the punishment of reduction to a grade lower than what the petitioner was holding at the time when he was punished for the first time, i.e. on 05.08.2004. 40. 40. The result is that though this Court did not interfere with the enquiry report, but having found the decision of the disciplinary authority being not in conformity with the principles of service jurisprudence, had relegated the matter back in the first challenge, for fresh consideration on the question of punishment only, which lated stood finalized with the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. 41. With the adjudications made by this Court, as noted above, all claims of the writ petitioner/appellant were required to be settled by the respondent bank in light of the directions noted hereinabove. However, this has not been done, which is evident from the bare reading of the order dated 08.02.2014, the communication which was sent to the writ petitioner by the General Manager and the competent authority settling his claims in light of the decision of this Court dated 30.09.2013. The substituted punishment as communicated under the order 08.02.2014 namely, "Reduction to lower grade from MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II fixing basic pay of the writ petitioner at the initial of MMG Scale-II i.e. Rs.13820/- w.e.f 05.08.2004" is simply against the spirit and directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. As noted above, this court has imposed a punishment of reduction to a grade lower than what the petitioner was holding on 05.08.2004." 42. On an enquiry made by the Court on this issue, it was admitted by the respondents that the writ petitioner was working in MMG scale III in the pay scale and grade of 22,280/- as on 05.08.2004. The next lower grade to which the writ petitioner was required to be placed as per the directions in the order dated 30.09.2013 was 19,920/- in MMG Scale II. The scale of pay specified against each grade on and from 01.11.2002 in the Middle Management Grade (MMG) Scale III and Scale II has placed before us by the respondent bank and is relevant to be noted as under:- "Scale-III Rs.18240-560/5-21040-620/2-22280 Scale-II Rs.13820-500/1-14320-560/10-19920" 43. Further, the scale of pay specified against each grade has been revised with effect from 01.11.2007 and the revised pay scale of MMG Scale III and Scale II is as under:- "Scale-II Rs.19400-700/1-20100-800/10-28100 Scale-III Rs.25700-800/5-29700-900/2-31500" 44. Further, the scale of pay specified against each grade has been revised with effect from 01.11.2007 and the revised pay scale of MMG Scale III and Scale II is as under:- "Scale-II Rs.19400-700/1-20100-800/10-28100 Scale-III Rs.25700-800/5-29700-900/2-31500" 44. With the revision of the scale of pay with effect from 01.11.2007, the writ petitioner/appellant herein was required to be placed in the revised basic pay scale of MMG Scale II even on the reduction to a lower grade, on the basis of the punishment order dated 30.9.2013 passed by this Court, as continuity of service has been granted to the writ petitioner for the purposes of retirement benefits only denying actual financial benefits for the period of non-working with effect from 05.08.2004 up to the date of superannuation. 45. We have also gone through the relevant Regulations, namely Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations' 1976 which provides the penalty in Regulation 4 as under:- "4. Penalties The following are the penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. Minor Penalties:- (a) Censure; (b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; (c) Withholding of promotion; (d) Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. Major penalties : (e) Reduction to a lower grade, or to a lower stage in the time scale; (f) Compulsory retirement; (g) Removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (h) Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this regulation namely:- (i) withholding of one or more increments of an officer employee on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post, which he holds. Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this regulation namely:- (i) withholding of one or more increments of an officer employee on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post, which he holds. (ii) Stoppage of pay of an officer employee at the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar; (iii) non promotion, whether in an officiating capacity or otherwise of an officer employee, to a higher grade or post for which he may be eligible for consideration but for which he is found unsuitable after consideration of his case; (iv) reversion to a lower grade or post, of an officer employee officiating in a higher grade or post, on the ground that he is considered, after trial to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct; (v) reversion to his previous grade or post, of an officer employee appointed on probation to another grade or post, during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or rules or orders governing such probation, (vi) reversion of an officer employee to his parent organization in case he had come on deputation; (vii) termination of the service- a) of an officer employee appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment, or the rules or orders governing such probation; (b) of an officer employee appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement, on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment; (c) of an officer employee appointed under a contract or agreement, in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement; and (d) of an officer employee on abolition of post; (viii) retirement of an officer employee on his attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with the rules and orders governing such superannuation. (ix) termination of employment of a permanent officer employee by giving 3 month's notice or on payment of 3 months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice; (x) termination of employment of an officer employee on medical grounds, if he is declared unfit to continue in bank's service by the bank's medical officer." 46. A perusal of the penalties prescribed in the Regulation 1976 indicates that the major penalty at clause (e) of Regulation 4, "reduction to a lower grade" has been awarded to the writ petitioner/appellant by this Court. The world "a" is conspicuous in the punishment order passed by this Court and it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the respondents bank/competent authority, while substituting punishment vide order dated 08.02.2014 in compliance of the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013, whereby the writ petitioner/appellant has been placed in a lower grade to MMG Scale-II fixing his basic pay at the initial stage of the said grade. 47. The correct interpretation of the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner by this Court vide judgement and order dated 30.09.2013, could only be of reduction in one grade only, i.e. as the writ petitioner was working in MMG Scale-III in the pay scale of Rs. 22,280, he was to be placed in Scale-II a grade lower by reduction in the pay scale to one grade of Rs. 19,920 only by reduction of one grade. As the writ petitioner was working in Scale III, he could have been placed in Scale II. The stand of the respondent bank in rejecting the representation of the appellant vide order dated 04.04.2018, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, out of which instant appeal arises, that since this Court had directed to place the writ petitioner in lower grade without specifying any stage, it was open for the disciplinary authority to place the writ petitioner in the initial stage of M.M.G Scale-II i.e. Rs. 13,820/-, is wholly sustainable. The justification given in the order dated 04.04.2018, in bank's reply to the action of the disciplinary authority in substituting punishment vide order dated 08.02.2014, is contrary to the above noted legal position. 48. 13,820/-, is wholly sustainable. The justification given in the order dated 04.04.2018, in bank's reply to the action of the disciplinary authority in substituting punishment vide order dated 08.02.2014, is contrary to the above noted legal position. 48. We may note further that in the representation dated 6.11.2017, the appellant had specifically agitated the issue of placing him at initial stage, fixing pay scale in Scale-Ii and the said issue was adverted in the order dated 08.01.2018 passed in view of the judgement and order dated 11.12.2017 in the review matter, with the only statement that the penalty order issued by the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 08.02.2014 has already been served upon the writ petitioner/appellant. 49. The reduction of punishment was to "a lower" grade, lower than what the petitioner was holding at the time when he was punished, i.e. 05.08.2004 clearly specified by this Court, and not to the "lowest one". The interpretation to this phrase by the respondent bank while imposing substituted punishment by holding that this Court has not specified as to which stage the petitioner was to be placed, was evidently a result of misreading and twisting of the directions contained in paragraph 42' of the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 at the whims and fancies of the competent authority. The act of the competent authority in the order dated 08.02.2014 in placing the writ petitioner to the initial stage in the basic pay scale of Rs.13,820/- in MMG Scale-II is found to be wholly illegal. 50. On persistent queries made by the Court during the course of hearing of the instant appeal, learned counsel for the respondent bank could not justify the order dated 08.02.2014 of substituting punishment, as noted above, both in light of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013 and the Regulation' 1976. 51. It has been placed before us and is evident from the record that by substituting punishment in the manner noted above, the respondent bank has curtailed the benefits already accrued to the writ petitioner prior to 05.08.2004 i.e. the date of the punishment order. The additional penalty of forfeiting seven increments with cumulative effect permanently which the appellant had already earned in MMG Scale-II before his promotion in MMG Scale-III in September 1993, has been virtually imposed. The additional penalty of forfeiting seven increments with cumulative effect permanently which the appellant had already earned in MMG Scale-II before his promotion in MMG Scale-III in September 1993, has been virtually imposed. The claim of the appellant that he was required to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.19,920/- of MMG Scale-II prevailing at the time of the punishment order dated 05.08.2004, for the purposes of computation of retiral benefits, without giving him actual financial benefits for the period of non-working, is found to be justified from all angles. Further, there is no dispute about the fact that prior to the date of superannuation of the appellant which is 30.09.2009, there was a revision in the pay scale with effect from 01.11.2007 and the pay scale of Rs. 19,920/- in MMG Scale-II was revised to Rs.28,100/-. The benefit of revision of pay scale with effect from 01.11.2007 could not have been denied to the writ petitioner as benefit of continuity of service, except payment of back-wages for the period from 05.08.2004 up to the date of superannuation, has been granted to the writ petitioner/appellant under the directions of this Court, and for that purpose under the specific directions of this Court, the petitioner was required to be treated in service on a grade lower than what he had held with effect from 05.08.2004 till the date of his superannuation. 52. Now the next question is as to what would be the effect of dismissal of Writ A No. 22697 of 2014 vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, on the question of correctness of the order dated 08.02.2014 passed by the competent authority, which was subject matter of challenge therein. In this regard, suffice it to note that only issue considered and determined by the Division Bench while passing the judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, was with regard to the findings of pecuniary loss caused to the bank in the punishment order dated 11.05.2012, which stood modified vide judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. In this regard, suffice it to note that only issue considered and determined by the Division Bench while passing the judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, was with regard to the findings of pecuniary loss caused to the bank in the punishment order dated 11.05.2012, which stood modified vide judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. Noticing that this Court in the said decision dated 30.09.2013 categorically observed that it had not adjudicated upon the right of the respondent-bank to recover from the writ petitioner in pecuniary loss caused to the bank, this Court has observed in the subsequent judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, that it cannot reopen the said issue i.e. the dispute pertaining to financial loss caused to the bank and, thus, liberty was granted to the bank to recover the said amount in accordance with law. There was no adjudication on the plea of writ petitioner that the punishment imposed upon him was harsher and contrary to the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013. It is clearly transpired from the records that for this reason, the review application filed by the appellant was entertained and vide order dated 11.12.2017 all the issues raised in the representation dated 06.11.2017 were remitted to the respondent bank for consideration. It was also left open to the writ petitioner to avail further remedy as available in law, in case he was aggrieved by the order of rejection of his representation. The result is that with the disposal of the Review Application No.101363 of 2016 on merits vide judgement and order dated 11.12.2017, only issue which has been finally adjudicated by the judgement and order dated 21.04.2014 is not open for consideration, and that issue is with regard to the recovery of the financial loss caused to the bank as estimated in the punishment order dated 11.05.2012, modified by the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013. 53. At no stage of the proceedings of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 22697 of 2014, the issue pertaining to the award of substituted punishment, being contrary to the directions and spirit of the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by this Court, has been adjudicated. 54. 53. At no stage of the proceedings of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 22697 of 2014, the issue pertaining to the award of substituted punishment, being contrary to the directions and spirit of the judgement and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by this Court, has been adjudicated. 54. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has erred in non-suiting the writ petitioner on the ground that with the rejection of his claim by four earlier Division Benches, the issue is not open for consideration. 55. In any case, the competent authority of the respondent bank was under obligation to comply with the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013, strictly in their true letter and spirit, which has not been done in the instant case. 56. For the aforesaid, on the first aspect of the matter, with regard to the substituted punishment, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner is entitled to computation of retiral benefits, treating him to be in service in the pay scale of Rs.19,920/-, in MMG Scale-II with effect from 5.8.2004 till 01.11.2007, and the revised pay scale of Rs.28,100/- in MMG Scale-II with effect from 01.11.2007 till the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.09.2009. All computations are required to be made, accordingly and as such, the writ petitioner/appellant herein is also entitled for re-computation of the pensionary benefits as has been made by the D.G.M. Bareilly vide order dated 08.01.2018. The settlement of all claims of the writ petitioner finally on 26.07.2018 is required to revisited by the respondent bank by re-computation of the retirement benefits made by it on wrong placement of the writ petitioner in the lowest stage of MMG Scale-II in the basic pay of Rs.13,820/- with effect from 05.08.2004. The re-computation of the retiral benefits including pension strictly in accordance with law, Rules etc. applicable has to be made, accordingly. The re-computation of the retiral benefits including pension strictly in accordance with law, Rules etc. applicable has to be made, accordingly. However, the pecuniary loss caused to the bank computed to Rs.21.20 lacs, as intimated to us, has already been deducted by the respondent bank, while finalizing the retirement dues and further since that issue has been finally adjudicated vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, it is not open for the writ petitioner to challenge the deduction of the said amount on the premise that the same is not been referable to any Rule, Law, Regulation of the bank, in as much as, the judgement and order dated 21.04.2014 has attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No.21091 of 2014 on 05.09.2014. 57. As regards the dispute about Rs. 4,57,501/- as bank's contribution to Provident fund, it was clarified in the communication dated 12.09.2018 sent to the writ petitioner/appellant that the said contribution was not credited to the account of the appellant at the relevant point of time, as it was appropriated towards the loss caused to the bank and the recovery of amount of Rs.21.20 lacs from the retiral benefits made on 26.07.2008 was inclusive of amount of Rs.4,57,501/-. It was also clarified that excess amount of Rs.4,57,501/- which was recovered on 26.07.2018 had been reversed in his account on 12.09.2018. The dispute pertaining to recovery of Rs.4,57,501/- in excess or non-crediting of the said amount as bank's contribution to the Provident fund has, thus, been settled with the reversal of the said amount in the account of the appellant on 12.09.2018. 58. With regard to subsistence allowance, Regulation 4 of the Regulation' 1976 is clear to the effect that the subsistence allowance was required to be computed on the basic pay which the officer/employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension. The opinion drawn by the respondent-bank in the communication dated 12.09.2018, while disposing of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 14.08.2018, that there is no effect of salary, revision on subsistence allowance, thus, found to be justified. 59. For the above discussion, the issues raised in the writ petition with regard to wrong computation of the retiral benefits on account of substituted punishment of placing the writ petitioner/appellant in the initial stage of basic pay in MMG Grade- II is hereby settled. 59. For the above discussion, the issues raised in the writ petition with regard to wrong computation of the retiral benefits on account of substituted punishment of placing the writ petitioner/appellant in the initial stage of basic pay in MMG Grade- II is hereby settled. The respondent bank authority is directed to fix the last drawn salary of the writ petitioner, correctly for fixation of basic pension and other terminal dues, according to the above directions. 60. Before parting with this judgement, we are constrained to note that the competent authority of the respondent-bank had acted in a vindictive manner and adopted stubborn approach which has resulted in lingering on the matter for a period of more than 19 years, since the first punishment order was passed on 05.08.2004. The respondents apparently have devised a method to get away from the directions of this Court in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 by misinterpretation of the said decision and then giving an explanation that since this Court has not specified the stage in which the writ petitioner was required to be placed, disciplinary authority had acted legally in passing the order dated 08.02.2014, placing the writ petitioner/appellant in the initial stage of M.M.G Scale-II in the basic pay of Rs.13820/-. 61. For this act of the respondent, the harassment caused to the writ petitioner/appellant by the respondents intentionally, the writ petitioner/appellant is required to be compensated, which we quantify to Rs.2 lacs. 62. The entire exercise of payment of the retiral dues, as per the directions given above, including the compensation quantified by us, shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority namely the respondent No.3, General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office (U.P. & Uttranchal), Bareilly. 63. The judgement and order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.