JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Saurabh Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.1 and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the bank-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby on account of availability of alternative remedy to the appellant-petitioner, the writ petition filed by him has been dismissed. 3. The appellant-petitioner was issued a notice of termination dated 17.07.2021 by the respondent-Bank under Regulation 20 (1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 [here-in-after referred to as 'Regulations, 1979']. The appellant-petitioner responded to the said notice on 10.08.2021. By order dated 01.02.2022, the services of the appellant-petitioner were terminated. The order was passed by the General Manager whereafter the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner also came to be rejected by the Board of Directors. 4. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner filed Writ-A No.4643 of 2023. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition came to be allowed and the termination order dated 01.02.2022, passed by the General Manager and the appellate order dated 02.06.2023 came to be set aside and the Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination could only be passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, whereas the said power was purportedly delegated by him. 5. The learned Single Judge has also directed that consequences shall follow and kept it open to the Bank to proceed against the appellant-petitioner in accordance with Regulations, 1979 and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have passed a fresh order dated 12.09.2023 again terminating the services of the appellant-petitioner in view of the provisions of Regulation 20(1)(a) of the Regulations, 1979. 6. Feeling aggrieved, when the appellant-petitioner approached this court by filing Writ-A No.299 of 2024, learned Single Judge came to the following conclusion:- "Against the impugned order dated 12.9.2023 passed by the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Indian Overseas Bank terminating the services of the petitioner from the Bank, the petitioner has the remedy to file an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank under Regulation 20 (1)(d) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, it is not a case for consideration by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The petition is dismissed. In case the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the Board of Directors on merits expeditiously." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has made vehement submission that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition based on availability of alternative remedy. Submissions were made that once the order dated 01.02.2022 and the appellant order dated 02.06.2023 were set aside by this Court in the earlier round of litigations, the respondents were required to give a fresh notice to the appellant-petitioner and that without issuing a fresh notice to the appellant-petitioner, the respondents could not have passed the order impugned. It is alleged that the appellant-petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the said reason was sufficient for the appellant-petitioner to seek bypassing of the availability of alternative remedy. Submissions were also made that the action of the respondent-Bank in not following the provisions of Regulation 20(1)(e) which requires the Bank to re-instate the appellant-petitioner on setting aside of the appellate order is also clearly mala fide. Submissions were also made that on earlier occasion, while the appeal of the appellant-petitioner was pending before the appellate authority, the appellant-petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 2166 of 2023 wherein the appellate authority was directed to consider and decide the appeal of the appellant-petitioner against the order of termination with a reasoned and speaking order. However, a bare look at the order passed by the appellate authority shows that the same has been decided in a wholly cursory manner and in violation of the directions issued by this Court and, therefore, the remedy even if available under the Regulations, 1979 is not efficacious and, therefore, on that count also, the order impugned which is violative deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back for consideration on merit. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has attempted to make submissions on the merit of the case of the appellant-petitioner that the conduct of the appellant-petitioner in remaining absent is writ large on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has attempted to make submissions on the merit of the case of the appellant-petitioner that the conduct of the appellant-petitioner in remaining absent is writ large on record. Further submissions were made that the Court while passing the earlier order had kept in open for the respondent-Bank to proceed in accordance with Regulations, 1979 and as clause 20(1)(c) of Regulations, 1979 provides for passing of the order by the Chairman and Managing Director, the order impugned has been passed by the said authority which is in consonance with the said Regulation. But the submissions have been made that the appeal as provided under the Regulations is efficacious and merely because on the earlier occasion, the order passed was purportedly non-speaking cannot be a reason bypassing the said remedy and, therefore, according to him, does not call for interference. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The relevant Regulations inter alia reads as under:- "20(1)(a) Subject to sub- regulation (3) of regulation 16, where the bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bonafide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the bank's service would be prejudicial to the interests of the bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedures, the Bank may terminate his services on giving him THREE months notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. (b) Order of termination under this sub-regulation shall not be made unless such officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the Bank against the proposed order. (c) The decision to terminate the services of an officer employee under sub-regulation (a) above will be taken only by the Chairman and Managing Director. (d) The Officer employee shall be entitled to appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation (a) above by preferring an appeal within 15 days to the Board of Directors of the Bank. If the appeal is allowed, the order under sub-regulation (a) shall stand cancelled." 10. (d) The Officer employee shall be entitled to appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation (a) above by preferring an appeal within 15 days to the Board of Directors of the Bank. If the appeal is allowed, the order under sub-regulation (a) shall stand cancelled." 10. A perusal of the above provisions would indicate that the power under the said Regulations for termination of services can be exercised after giving reasonable opportunity of making representation to the proposed Bank and, thereafter the decision to terminate the services of an officer has to be taken only by the Chairman and Managing director and against the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, the appeal lies to the Board of Directors of the bank. 11. Once the order was passed by the learned Single judge in the earlier round of litigations, the communication which was sent by the appellant-petitioner to the Bank, which has been placed by way of an additional affidavit, simply indicates that the appellant-petitioner sought implementation of provisions of Regulation 20(1)(e) of the Regulations, 1979 and did not question the legality of notice which was issued to her on 17.07.2021. Neither did she seek permission to file a fresh response nor was the opportunity of hearing prayed for from the competent authority. 12. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.8.2023 was very clear when it was left open for the Bank to proceed against the appellant-petitioner in accordance with Regulations, 1979. The only implication of the said direction keeping it open for the bank to proceed against the appellant-petitioner would mean that the Bank would proceed pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.2021. 13. Once the notice and it's response were available with the authority and no further prayer was made by the appellant-petitioner to file additional response and/or she sought any opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that the order dated 12.09.2023, now passed by the authority, is in violation of principles of natural justice so as to seek bypassing of the alternative remedy. The availability of alternative remedy is not denied. However, the other plea raised pertains to effect that on earlier occasion, despite specific direction by this Court, cursory order was passed by the appellate authority and therefore, the same is not efficacious, also cannot be accepted. The availability of alternative remedy is not denied. However, the other plea raised pertains to effect that on earlier occasion, despite specific direction by this Court, cursory order was passed by the appellate authority and therefore, the same is not efficacious, also cannot be accepted. Merely because on one occasion, some purported mistake has been committed by the authority, it is not necessary that the same mistake would be committed again and in case the mistake is committed, the appellant-petitioner would have remedy. 14. In view of the above facts situation, no case is made out for interference against the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed. However, in case the appellant-petitioner approaches the appellate authority by way of filing an appeal within a period of fifteen days from today, the same shall be entertained and it would be required of the appellate authority to pass a detailed speaking order with regard to the issues raised by the appellant-petitioner in the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. 15. It goes without saying that any observations made here-in-above only pertains to the plea of availability of alternative remedy and the same shall not prejudice the cause of the appellant-petitioner either in the pending contempt proceedings or before the appellate authority.