ORDER : MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J. Since all the writ petitions arise out of the Show-Cause-Notices issued by the 2 nd respondent Bank under the identical facts and circumstances, these matters are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. All the petitioners herein are the employees of the 2 nd respondent Bank, who were placed under suspension by the 2 nd respondent Bank authorities on the allegations that the petitioners colluded with gold appraisers and got issued loans on spurious gold, resulting in financial loss to the 2 nd respondent Bank. In that regard, two criminal cases were lodged against the petitioners and other employees. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that the 2 nd respondent Bank suspended all the petitioners and subsequently, they got issued Charge Memos alleging specific charges. In reply to the said Charge Memos, petitioners offered their explanations and the 2 nd respondent in dissatisfaction, appointed Enquiry Officers, who inturn conducted enquiries and submitted their respective reports holding that the majority of charges framed against the petitioners were proved. 4. Pursuant to the Enquiry Reports/Vigilance files, individuals who are other than the competent punishment authority of the 2 nd respondent Bank issued Show-Cause-Notices individually to the petitioners proposing to award major penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of the amount towards loss incurred by the Bank. - 5. Challenging the said Show-Cause-Notices issued by the 2 nd respondent Bank authorities against the petitioners, the instant writ petitions are filed mainly on the ground of violation of Rule 66 (xii) of Service Regulations of the Employees of District Cooperative Central Bank of Ltd., Prakasam, and the said Show-Cause-Notices are liable to be interdicted on the point of incompetency of the issuing authority. 6. Heard Y. Sitharam, learned counsel representing Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No.9795 of 2015 and Smt. Deepika Gadde, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P Nos.10623, 10625 and 10628 of 2015 and also heard Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent Bank in all the cases as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation. None appeared for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.11062, 11127 and 42259 of 2015. 7. None appeared for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.11062, 11127 and 42259 of 2015. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits solely on the point that the Show-Cause-Notices are issued without jurisdiction and contrary to Chapter X, Rule 66(xii) of the Service Regulations of the Employees of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited., Prakasam, which specifically stipulates the punishment authority and the appellate authority based on the employee categories and nature of punishment, etc. However, the said provisions were not followed in the present batch of cases, and the Show-Cause-Notices issued against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. - 8. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent Bank, fairly submits that in view of administrative exigencies prevailing at the relevant point of time, the Show-Cause-Notices were issued by the officers, who were not designated as punishment authority against the petitioners proposing to impose the major penalties, but not with any malafide intention. The learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners by this court in respect of Show-Cause- Notices, directed against them, the 2 nd respondent Bank is facing multifarious problems. He also contends that although the Show-Cause-Notices were issued by authorities lacking the requisite competence, such procedural lapse constitutes only a curable defect and does not root out the entire departmental proceedings as null and void. 9. This Court has gone through the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the records in the instant cases reveals that the central issue involved for consideration in the batch of cases is whether the Show- Cause-Notices issued by the authorities in the Bank, who were other than the punishment authorities/competent authorities, are legally sustainable or not? 11. Apparently, the unified High Court at Hyderabad passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners and the same are still subsisting as of today. 12. In this context, it is appropriate to extract the service regulations of the Employees of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Prakasam., defined in Chapter X Rule 66(xii):- - (xii) PUNISHMENT & COMPETENT AUTHORITY The Board of Management of the Bank shall be the competent authority to inflict any punishment on the CEO as also for his removal or repatriation to his parent department in case he is taken on deputation. For all categories of staff, the following are the Competent Authorities for imposing the various punishments and the relative Appellate Authorities: 13. In order to determine the competent authorities to impose the major penalty of removal/dismissal from the services against the petitioners, the criteria may vary depending upon the petitioners' employment categories. - The relevant details are set out in the tabulated format below to appropriately address the central issue of adjudication in this batch:- Sl. No. Writ Petition No./ name of the petitioner Designation of the writ petitioner Show- Cause- Notice dated Show- Cause- Notice issued by Competent Authority as per the banking service rules to impose a major penalty of removal/dismissal from service 1. W.P No.11062 of 2015/ Kola Sudhakar Rao Messenger 12.02.2015 CEO CEO 2. W.P No.9795 of 2015/ V.Venkata Reddy Manager 12.02.2015 CEO President 3. W.P No.10623 of 2015/ V. Padmavathi Manager 12.02.2015 CEO President 4. W.P No.10625 of 2015/ K.Venkata Ramanamma Manager 12.02.2015 CEO President 5. W.P No.10628 of 2015/ M. Krupakar Manager 12.02.2015 CEO President 6. W.P No.11127 of 2015/ Sk. Karimulla Cashier 18.03.2015 CEO CEO 7. W.P No.42269 of 2015/ K.Usha Rani DGM 11.12.2015 CEO President 14. In this scenario, it is relevant to note the dictum held in Marathwada University vs Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan , [ 1989 (3) SCC 132 ] , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while interpreting the statutory framework of the Marathwada University Act 1974, the power of the Vice-Chancellor and those of the Executive Council in exercising the disciplinary proceedings against the employees, given its categorical expression in para 20, the relevant portion of which reads under:- - “…..20. Counsel for the appellant argued that the express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the work and conduct of officers of the University implies as well, the power to take disciplinary action against officers. We are unable to agree with this contention. Firstly, the power to regulate the work and conduct of officers cannot include the power to take disciplinary action for their removal. Secondly, the Act confers power to appoint officers on the Executive Council and it generally includes the power to remove. This power is located under Section 24(1)(xxix) of the Act. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the Vice-Chancellor can exercise that power which is conferred on the Executive Council. Secondly, the Act confers power to appoint officers on the Executive Council and it generally includes the power to remove. This power is located under Section 24(1)(xxix) of the Act. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the Vice-Chancellor can exercise that power which is conferred on the Executive Council. It is a settled principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated.…..” 15. Whereas in the instant batch of cases also, the delegation of powers does not exist to issue Show-Cause-Notices, proposing major penalties of removal/ dismissal of services against the petitioners by the 2 nd respondent Bank. In the absence of such powers to issue the Show-Cause-Notices by those other than the competent authorities are not legal and valid. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners, except in W.P. Nos.11062 & 11127 of 2015. 16. It is relevant to note that after going through the above details furnished in the tabular format, it is crystal clear that in the batch of cases, the 2 nd respondent Bank proposed to impose major penalty of removal/dismissal from the service against the petitioners through the respective impugned Show- Cause-Notices by the individuals other than the punishment authority/competent authority. Whereas, the petitioners in W.P. Nos.11062 & 11127 of 2015 were working as messenger and cashier, and they received Show-Cause-Notices by the chief executive officer (CEO) of the 2 nd respondent Bank, who is designated punishment authority/competent authority for the said category posts. Hence, Writ Petition Nos.11062 & 11127 of 2015 are liable to be dismissed. - 17. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances and taking into account the above stated legal position, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the batch of cases in the following manner:- a) The impugned Show-Cause-Notices dated 12.02.2015, 18.03.2015 and 11.12.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent Bank against the petitioners in W.P. Nos.9795, 10623, 10625, 10628, 11127 & 42259 of 2015 respectively, are hereby set aside on the ground of incompetence of the issuing authority, in terms of Rule 66(xii) of the service Regulations of the employees of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Prakasam. However, the 2 nd respondent Bank competent authorities, are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps, including issuance of fresh Show Cause Notices against the petitioners in accordance with the law only. b) Insofar as W.P. Nos.11062 & 11127 of 2015 are concerned, the same are dismissed, as the Show Cause Notices dated 12.02.2015 and 18.03.2015 were issued against the petitioners by the competent authority only. - No orders as costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.