IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.581 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Bholi Malhotra. -----Appellant Vs. Bank of Baroda. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondents/Bank. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of penalty of removal from service for unauthorised absence from duty for about two months. 2. The appellant worked with the Bank of Baroda for a period of about 18 years before initiation of inquiry into the alleged unauthorised absence from duty for about two months. After inquiry, order dated 3.7.2007, Annexure P-9, was passed, removing the appellant from service. The appellant challenged the said order by submitting that the penalty was disproportionate LPA No.581 of 2009 to the charge of absence from the duty for about two months, which according to the appellant was on medical grounds. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the misconduct was proved after enquiry and there was no ground to interfere with the punishment imposed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the competent authority failed to consider that after 10 years of service, pension was admissible and punishment of compulsory retirement would have met the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank states that the petitioner failed to appear for medical test and thus, the charge was rightly held to be proved and penalty of removal was justified. 6. Even though we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of misconduct, recorded against the appellant and her liability for imposition of punishment, it has not been shown that the concerned authority applied its mind to the fact that the appellant had already rendered 18 years of service and whether in such a situation, benefits already earned prior to the alleged misconduct, particularly right to pension ought to be forfeited. Under Regulation 14 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, pension is admissible after 10 years of service. Compulsory retirement is one of the prescribed major penalities. Having regard to these 2 LPA No.581 of 2009 circumstances, we could either remand the matter to the bank for passing a fresh order of punishment or having regard to above facts, give an appropriate direction. 7. Notice was issued on October 13, 2009 and learned counsel for the Bank was given time to take instructions. He states that appropriate order may be passed by this Court. 8. Accordingly, we direct the respondent Bank to substitute the impugned order of punishment by order of compulsory retirement within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order will be operative from the date of original order and appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the conditions of service as applicable. 9. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 16, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3