( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. 41/pd-ird/da-7, dated 24-4-1990, Annexure-E to the writ petition, in which order the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed by the appellate authority. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent-bank to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits, urging the following facts and legal contentions.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a farm representative and he has reported for duty on 1-4-1980 at staff training college, udupi. Initially the appointment was for a period of 2 years on probation. After successful completion of his probationary period, his services were confirmed by the first respondent-bank.

( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent issued the charge-sheet dated 17-9-1985 in exercise of his power conferred under regulation 6 of the syndicate bank officer employees' (conduct) regulations 1976 and syndicate bank officer employees' (discipline and appeal) regulations, 1976 (hereinafter called as the 'regulations' in short), alleging that the petitioner, during the period of June 1981 and March 1982, while working as a farm representative/rural development officer at mulki branch, accepted a sum of Rs. 300/- from Sri Vaman Achary, and also accepted Rs. 200/-, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and accepted Rs. 400/- from one keshava s. Kunder and he had demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- from one Smt. Sundari mogerthy as a reward for having shown favour to them in getting farm loans and issued a false follow-up inspection report in respect of the above said loanees and recommended an additional loan of Rs. 10,000/- to keshava s. Kunder on the basis of false estimate receipt and thereby it is alleged that petitioner has failed to discharge his duties which would affect the integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and exhibited the said conduct of unbecoming of the status of bank officer, thereby he has committed a grave misconduct for having violated regulation 3 (i) read with regulation 24 of the regulations referred to above. The petitioner submitted his reply on 17-10-1985 explaining the circumstances under which the charges were alleged against him. The third respondent-bank not having accepted the reply statement submitted by the petitioner, has proceeded further appointing an enquiry officer to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against him under regulation 6 (6) of the regulations.

( 4 ) IT is also further stated that prior to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the vigilance officer has conducted a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is stated by the learned counsel, Mr. S. v. shastry that in the preliminary enquiry the vigilance officer has recorded the statement of persons whose names are referred to in the charge-sheet at Annexure-b, on the basis of which the charges were framed and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Further, it is stated that the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the regulations referred to above, and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of dismissal was not preceded by a valid and legal enquiry as required in law. The learned counsel submits that the order of dismissal has been confirmed by the appellate authority and hence both the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The learned counsel elaborating his submissions further submits that in the enquiry, the cbi investigation officer, who is a police officer, was appointed as a presenting officer to present the case on behalf of the 3rd respondent-management. His presence in the enquiry and conduct of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner has prejudiced his case. Therefore the conduct of enquiry proceedings and the order of removal passed by the disciplina