The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of the petitioner constituted misconduct under Regulation 3(1) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, and the punishment of compulsory retirement was deemed commensurate with the proven misconduct.

Raghavendra S. Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 8-2-2001, whereby the departmental enquiry was initiated with the submission of charge-sheet, aggrieved by the order dated 3-8-2001, whereby, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, and equally aggrieved by the order dated 24-9-2002, whereby the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner namely, Mr. Sham N. Nemical was an employee of the Canara Bank. He had honestly served the bank for 20 years. In the year 2000, the bank had introduced a Spedal Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In the year 2001, the petitioner had opted for the same. But, before his option could be exercised, on 8-2-2001, he was served with articles of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply. The bank appointed one Mr. Parthasarathy as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding a complete enquiry found the petitioner guilty of charges; the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show-cause notice. The petitioner replied to the same. However, by order dated 3-8-2001, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of `Compulsory Retirement' upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a departmental appeal. However, by order dated 24-9-2002, the Deputy General Manager, as the Appellate Authority, dismissed the departmental appeal. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a review petition before the Executive Director. However, by order dated 19-6-2003, the said review petition was also dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. This case was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By order dated 19-12-2011, the learned Single Judge modified the punishment of `Compulsory Retirement' to that of `retirement with consequential benefits'. However, as the petitioner and the respondent-bank were aggrieved by the said order, they filed two different writ appeals, namely, W.A. No. 4817 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner and W.A. No. 5367 of 2012 filed by the respondent-bank before the learned Division Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 20-11-2014, the learned Division Bench has set aside the order dated 19-12-2011, and has remanded the case back to the learned Single Judge. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr. Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, that the very initiation of departmental enquiry is highly misplaced. For, neither Mr. Chandrappa nor Mr. Thippeswamy, from whom the petitioner is alleged to have taken Rs.10,000/- and allegedly not deposited the said amount in a fixed deposit, have filed any complaint before the respondent-bank. In fact, the very articles of charges revealed that the same have been framed against the petitioner on the basis of news item published in a local newspaper. Therefore, the bank was not justified in initiating the departmental enquiry on the basis of some news item published in a local newspaper.

Secondly, although it is alleged that the misconduct had occurred in 1997-1998, although, it is alleged that the news item appeared on 26-12-1999, the charge-sheet was not submitted till 8-2-2001. Thus, there was an inordinate delay of three years in submitting the charge-sheet.

Thirdly, due to the said delay, the statements given by Mr. Chandrappa and Mr. Thippeswamy during the course of enquiry cannot be believed.

Fourthly, while deposing before the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Thippeswamy has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the bank. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was certainly not justified in finding the petitioner guilty of the offences.

Fifthly, there is no proof of the fact that Mr. Chandrappa and Mr. Thippeswamy had given Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner.

Sixthl