CANARA BANK Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.8.2011 in W.P. 37091/10 the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE matter was argued at length by the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the respondent's counsel was not present, in order to provide an opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 23.2.2015. Since the respondent's counsel was not present on that day, the matter was adjourned to this day. Today also the respondent's counsel was not present in the morning so also at 3.20 P.M. In the circumstances, we are constrained to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) IT is the specific case of the appellant's counsel that the appellate authority has not exonerated the respondent from the charges as stated by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Taking us through the order of the appellate authority, it is contended by the appellant that the appellate authority has not interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or with the disciplinary authority. Considering the peculiar facts, by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent, has modified the punishment from dismissal without notice to bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The relevant finding of the disciplinary authority are as under: