DEVAKUMAR L M V SENIOR MANAGER CANARA BANK DISTRICT CO ORDINATOR KANCHEEPURAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No. IRS : DP : MC : CHF/262.91 dated February 6, 1991 and of the second respondent dated August 19, 1991 sent through proceedings in MC.DAC. 1074 E.37 Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, Canara Bank, Madras dated September 10, 1991, quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to his original place of seniority in the Canara Bank and to pay the petitioner the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits from the date of petitioner's suspension. THE petitioner has filed an affidavit in support his contention and stated that he has entered into the service in 1967 as Officer-on-Contract in Canara Bank; that he was regularised in service in the year 1968; that he was promoted as Manager, Grade III in September, 1972; that he was brought to Manager Grade, II in 1976 and Grade I in 1979; that he was fitted in the middle management as a Senior Manager in Scale III. He has also stated that till February 28, 1991, he was in the same position and when he was working as Senior Manager in Mint Street Branch, during me period between May 30, 1984 and August 29, 1986, he was suspended from service under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on September 1, 1986; and that in June, 1988, four charges were framed against him for non performing duties on the ground that the petitioner contravened Regulation 3(1) and committed misconduct within the terms of Regulations 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. THE petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charges that his suspension was revoked on July 12, 1988; that the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries of the Central Vigilance Commission had conducted the enquiry and held that the first charge was proved; that the second charge was proved to the extent that he contributed to it; that third and fourth charges were partly proved and the Inquiring Authority has reported as follows