1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8669/06 Dharam Singh Jatav vs. Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank & Anr. Date of order : 25/9/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Suresh Dhenwal for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Arora for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2005 by which the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of willful absence. Shri Suresh Dhenwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not provided with proper opportunity of hearing inasmuch as for part of the charges, he has already been earlier awarded penalty of stoppage of one grade increment which period of absence has again been clubbed in the fresh charge sheet. This amounted to double jeopardy. The petitioner applied for leave for various periods giving valid reasons, but the respondents did not either sanction the leave or refuse the same and refusal was never conveyed to him. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was entitled to a total of 720 days as leave of various kinds and this aspect has completely been ignored by the disciplinary authority. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that all these questions can be gone into by the appellate authority who is the Chairman of the bank under Regulation 47 of Officers and Employees Service Regulations. The petitioner could within 45 days of the date of order of penalty dated 23.12.2005 filed appeal before the appellate authority, but instead of doing so, he has directly approached this Court. It is argued that the petitioner has been provided full opportunity of hearing and there was no case of not awarding sufficient opportunity to him. The leave upto 720 days could be granted only by the Board of Directors and not by the leave sanctioning authority in the present case. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing impugned order as also other material on record, I find that 3 petitioner instead of directly challenging the order of his removal before this Court ought to have first avail of the remedy of appeal providing for by Regulation 47 of Officers and Employees Service Regulations. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the limitation of filing appeal being 45 days has already expired long back. In the circumstances, therefore, it is considered appropriate to now require the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Chairman of the respondent bank within 45 days from the date copy of this order is received by him and the appellate authority is further directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date it is filed before him with special consideration being given to the fact whether the penalty awarded was commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/