GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CANARA BANK Vs. L M V DEVAKUMAR, SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, DISTRICT COORDINATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 20-12-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 754 of 1992, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The respondent herein had filed the above said writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the General Manager, Canara Bank (Head Office) Bangalore, first appellant herein, in his proceedings No. IRS:DP:MC:CHF:262.91 dated 19-8-1991 sent through the proceedings MC.DAC 1074 E.37 Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, Canara Bank,. Madras dated 10-9-1991 and quash the same and direct the appellants to restore him in the original place of seniority and to pay him the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits from the date of his suspension.

(3.) The respondent, who at the relevant time was working as the Senior Manager in the appellant bank, was suspended from service under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline) and Appeal Regulations, 1976 on 1-9-1986 and that four charges were framed again him for non-performance of his duties and misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the respondent in which the enquiry officer held that out of four charges framed against the respondent, charge No. 1 was proved, that Charge No. 2 was proved to the extent that Charge No. 1 contributed to it and Charge Nos. 3 and 4 were partly proved. The Disciplinary authority, however, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer held that Charge Nos. 2 and 4 were fully proved and imposed the punishment of reduction to lower grade, i.e. from Scale III to Scale II, which is a major punishment. The appeal and the further review petition preferred by the respondent against the punishment were rejected by the authorities concerned. Challenging the same, the respondent herein had filed the writ petition mainly contending that no opportunity was given to him by the disciplinary authority, before disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore the punishment of reduction to lower grade is vitiated.