3] Mr. S.U. Kamdar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner bank, has taken us through the Roznama, which has been placed on record and submitted that in fact, the petitioner bank had taken the necessary steps to effect service upon all the respondents. Despite the same, at a later stage, the petitioner bank was required to serve the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appeal No. 129 of 2005 afresh and there was some difficulty in the matter of such service. Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the difficulty was basically on account of communication gap between the bank officials and the advocate engaged by the bank who appeared in the matter. Ultimately, the said advocate was replaced by another and necessary steps were being taken to effect fresh service. Mr. Kamdar pointed out that despite service, the respondents were almost never present before the DRAT and therefore, taking into consideration such circumstance, the DRAT ought not to have made the impugned order. Mr. Kamdar submitted that the impugned order directs initiation of departmental proceedings against the Chief Manager and the recovery of amounts from such Chief Manager alongwith interests. Mr. Kamdar submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, such an order was extremely harsh and ought not to have been made. Mr Kamdar submitted that the appeal was dismissed for default on 20 January 2011 and the application for restoration was filed immediately, i.e., on 24 January 2011. Sufficient cause was shown for the absence of the petitioner bank or the officers of the bank on the said date. The DRAT
