1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2002 Deepak Narayan Bhandarkar ) Residing at 8/B, Oliver Mansion, ) Plot No.334-A, Mahim Bazar ) Post Office Lane, Mahim, ) Mumbai  400 016 ).Petitoner V/s. 1. The Chairman, Union Bank of India ) Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan ) 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, ) Nariman Point, ) Mumbai  400 021 ) ) 2. Managing Director, ) Industrial Relation Department, ) Union Bank of India, ) Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan ) 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, ) Nariman Point, ) Mumbai  400 021 ) ) 3. Deputy General Manager(P), ) Industrial Relation Department, ) Union Bank of India, ) Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan ) 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, ) Nariman Point, ) Mumbai  400 021 ) ) 4. The Assistant General Manager(P), ) Industrial Relation Department, ) Union Bank of India, ) Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan ) 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, ) Nariman Point, ) Mumbai  400 021 ).Respondents 2 Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Ashok D. Shetty, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) . By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 14th February, 2001, a copy of which is annexed Exhibit K to the Writ Petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was subjected to major penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the Bank as an officer on 16th August, 1975. Vide Memo dated 23rd September, 1999, the petitioner was advised by the Regional Office, Mumbai, that he stood relieved at the close of the office hours 3 on 23rd September, 1999, and to report to the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Bhopal immediately. He had not resumed his duties at Bhopal and accordingly, he unauthorizedly remained absent from duty. The petitioner, was accordingly subjected to Chargesheet by way of Memorandum dated 19th April, 2000. The petitioner gave a reply to the said Memorandum dated 12th May, 2000. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The defence of the petitioner was that he was suffering from various ailments and due to that it was not possible for him to resume his duties at Bhopal. The petitioner also produced some Medical Certificates during the course of Enquiry to point out that he was ill and at the relevant time it was difficult for him to resume his duties. The Disciplinary Authority however, by the impugned Order came to a conclusion that the petitioner committed an act of misconduct by remaining unauthorizedly absent. It was found that his absence from 21st September, 1999, till 4 date of the order of the Disciplinary Authority was treated as unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the Order of removal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner carried the matter further before the Appellate Authority by way of preferring an Appeal. The Appellate Authority decided the said Appeal by its Order dated 12th May, 2001. The Appellate Authority did not interfere with the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, carried the matter further by way of Review Application but the same was rejected by the Reviewing Authority. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, who passed the Order subsequently became the Appellate Authority on 5 account of promotion and the same person, who had decided the matter as Disciplinary Authority has decided the Appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, the Order of the Appellate Authority is bad in law as the same has been passed by the same person, who had passed the removal Order against the petitioner while acting as the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty, the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceeded the aspect that at the relevant time the Disciplinary Authority, who passed the order was the Assistant General Manager and the same person on being promoted as Deputy General Manager became the Appellate Authority and decided the Appeal of the petitioner. In our view, the Appeal should not have been decided by the same person, who had passed the original Order as the Disciplinary Authority. The hearing of the Appeal should be meaningful and not a mere formality. On this very short ground this Writ Petition is required to be 6 allowed by setting aside the Order of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority. It is clarified that all the points raised in this Writ Petition are kept open for the petitioner to urge the same before the Appellate Authority. 6. The Appeal would be decided by one, who has not passed the Order of removal as the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority may now decide the Appeal within a period of three months from the receipt of Writ from this Court. The Appellate Authority shall afford personal hearing to the petitioner. We have directed the Appellate Authority to hear the petitioner, but the same may not be treated as precedent in any other case, as considering the time lag and peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, it is directed that personal hearing may be given to the petitioner. 7. In view of what is stated above, the Writ 7 Petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )