CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK Vs. NINGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of dismissal and granting consequential relief with full salary to the respondent, Cauvery Grameena Bank, the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix that has given rise to this appeal, in brief, is as under: the respondent joined the services of the appellant-Bank as a File supervisor on 26-9-1977 and was promoted as an officer on 1-9-1986. The appellant-Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as per the charge-sheet dated 14-11-1991 to look into the charges relating to the period during which the respondent was the manager of Hoogia and Naganahalli Branches of the Bank. As many as eight charges were framed in respect of Hoogia Branch and three charges pertain to Naganahalli Branch. A departmental enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, out of eight charges pertaining to Hoogia branch, charges 1, 2, 5 and 7 stood proved and as regards Naganahalli branch, all the three charges were found to be proved. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary authority, and without a second show-cause notice being issued, the appellant dismissed the respondent. Against this dismissal order, the respondent approached this Court, in W. P. No. 7841 of 1994 and this court remitted the matter to the appellant to issue second show-cause notice, before passing the final order.

(3.) THEREAFTER, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 26-7-1994 and, after receipt of the explanation offered by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 29-8-1994, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service in respect of charges 1 and 2 relating to Hoogia Branch and in respect of rest of the charges pertaining to Hoogia and Naganahalli Branches, the penalty of degradation to a lower stage was imposed, and it was made clear in the order that these penalties would run concurrently. Aggrieved by the above said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service.