IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2698 OF 2007 Subhash S. Sawant and others .. Petitioners Vs Central Bank of India ..Respondent Mr. C.U. Singh, senior counsel i/by Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Rele, senior counsel with Mr. Rajesh P. Rele and Mr. Vinod Tayade i/by Mr. Piyush Shah for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & J.P. DEVADHAR , J. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.: The present writ petition is directed against the final order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the bank against the petitioner, lowering down in the scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect in terms of para 6(e) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 2.5.2005 (Disciplinary Action Procedure). Various contentions have been raised by either parties before us. In view of the course of action which we propose to take, it is not necessary for us either to state the facts in greater detail or to determine the merits of the contentions raised by either side. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to paragraph 4(c) of the reply affidavit filed by them, contended that in terms of the settlement dated 2nd June, 2005, the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal against the order. With reference to clauses 14 and 15, an appeal is to be preferred and has to be dealt with in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, stated that they would file departmental appeal which may be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. 3. We are in agreement with the counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioners should be directed to take recourse to the departmental remedy available to them which is equally efficacious and can be comprehensively dealt with the pleas taken by the petitioners in the present writ petition. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the petitioners should be relegated to the departmental remedy at this stage itself. We direct the petitioners to file an appeal against the impugned order within two weeks from today and the appeal so filed shall be disposed of by the respondent within four weeks thereafter. We may notice here that the petitioners earlier had filed writ petition before this court challenging the chargesheet. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 24th April, 2007 and the court had directed that upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the order passed by the authorities will not be given effect for a period of four weeks. 4. We find it just and fair that the order if adverse to the interest of the petitioners now passed, shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order. This direction would balance the equity between the parties in asmuch as the order of punishment only provides about the reduction of pay scale which is a final. It will always be open to the department to pass an appropriate order and give effect in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.