( 1 ) PETITIONER, an employee of the Corporation Bank is challenging Annexure-A, an order passed by the Corporation Bank ordering his removal from the services of the Bank. Petitioner also challenges annexures-D and E orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the reviewing authority confirming the removal of the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed in the Bank as a clerk and was promoted as an officer in the year 1994. He was working at Manipal in the year 1998. He was on deputation to Udupi for a few days. During his deputation to Udupi, the vigilance Officer visited the Manipal Branch and checked certain records in the absence of the petitioner. On the basis of the vigilance check, petitioner was kept under suspension for certain misconduct on his part. Petitioner states that the allegations against him were at the instance of some of the officers and customers of the Bank who were not in good terms with the petitioner. Petitioner states that thereafter he personally approached the higher officers and they have assured the petitioner that they would look into the matter and after a few days the higher officers advised him to give an admission letter so that the matter could be closed. It was in these circumstances, petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him. In the light of the admission, respondents passed an order at Annexure-A removing him from the services of the Bank. The same is confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the reviewing authority. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging these orders on the ground that the removal is bad in law and that he had no opportunity to defend himself.

( 2 ) NOTICE was issued pursuant to which respondents have entered appearance. They say that the petitioner committed several omissions and commissions and in these circumstances, proceedings were initiated culminating in his removal. They justify their action.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued before me in support of his prayers. The essential contention is that the termination on the basis of admission is unsustainable in law. His further allegation is that the admission was based on an assurance and therefore, he has been made a scapegoat in the matter.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record.

( 5 ) PETITIONER was charged with serious charges of irregularities committed by him during his tenure at Manipal Branch. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under: "the charges/allegations levelled against the officer in the aforesaid letter of charge dated 15-9-1998 are as follows. That Shri Prashant Bhatia, a constituent of the Branch, was maintaining a Continuous Deposit Account (CDS) No. 1158, at the branch, comprising of the following deposits: A/c

Amount

Date

Maturity value

1/94

Rs. 20,883/-

18-4-1994

Rs. 23,277/-

2/94

Rs. 3,074/-

18-4-1994

Rs. 3,426/-

4/94

Rs. 26,000

10-6-1994

Rs. 26,459/-

5/94

Rs. 9,000/-

27-9-1994

Rs. 9,934/-

that the said deposits had matured for payment on 7-8-1994, 22-8-1994, 10-9-1994, 27-9-1995 respectively. That the deposits had become overdue and were transferred to Overdue Continuous deposits Account (ODCDS A/c. No. 5/1996) on 5-2-1996 and an aggregate of Rs. 63,096/- was outstanding in the said overdue deposit account since 5-2-1996. That on 8-8-1998, without any authority from the depositor, the officer debited the aforesaid ODCDS Account with a sum of rs. 63,096/-, duly noting therein that the account was renewed on 8-8-1998 and renewed the full amount in the name of Shri prashant Bhatia, under New Continuous Deposit Account No. 2010. That in the account opening form pertaining to continuous deposit No. 1158 of Shri Prashant Bhatia, the officer rounded off the deposit amount of Rs. 4,000/- originally written and wrote the amount of deposit as 5-2-1996 to 22-8-1998. That under the column for special instructions in the said account opening form, the Officer added the words 'issue PO on 22-8-19