Manmohan Singh, J.

1. That the petitioner has field the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 26.12.2005 passed by the appellate authority, order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority and the Inquiry report dated 11.9.2004.

2. Petitioner joined Canara Bank as a clerk on 13-10-1973 and subsequently promoted to senior manager on 20-04-1998. On 02-06-2001 petitioner was shifted to and so joined Pahar Ganj branch of the respondent bank.

3. On the basis of complaints of certain customers regarding undue favour to some customers of bank in violation to bank's rules and procedures, a FIR dated 30-06-2003 bearing No. 8(E)2003-EOW-1/DLI u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner in pursuant to FIR was arrested by CBI on 04.07.2003 and he was put under suspension. A charge-sheet dated 15.3.2004 was issued against petitioner for the irregularities/misconduct committed within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) punishable under the provisions of the said Regulation for serious irregularities.

5. The petitioner vide letter dated 5.4.2004 replied to the charge-sheet denying all the charges of misconduct and irregularities.

6. Thereafter respondent bank took disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was conducted on 1.6.2006 followed by regular inquiry.

7. The petitioner urged that proceedings were not conducted as per rules and norms. The petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine witness of the investigative officer. Petitioner alleged that his witnesses and documents were not given consideration and were ignored. All the allegations of the investigative officer were accepted as it is. Inquiring Authority accepted all charges against the petitioner vide inquiry report dated 11-09-2004.

8. The Inquiry Officer vide his report found petitioner guilty of the charges. The respondent bank supplied copy of the findings of the Inquiry Authority report to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner filed his comments on 04.10.2004 by way of his reply to the said inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. On 28-10-2004, Disciplinary Authority through a letter to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) recommended the punishment of reduction of the grade of the petitioner and also sought second-stage advice in the matter.

9. Disciplinary Authority stated that the allegations against the petitioner can be at most stated as procedural irregularities and there were no evidence of any pecuniary gains made by the petitioner. However, in reply through a letter dated 13-11-2004, CVO advised the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment and disagreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority.

10. Disciplinary Authority in Reply through letter dated 21-11-2004, informed CVO about the gross irregularities in investigation and past record of the petitioner, but CVO through letter No. VIG- 2940-2004 CVC-147 dated 22-12-2004 again suggested same punishment.

11. Disciplinary Authority showed its dissatisfaction with the advice of CVO through letter dated 15-01-2005 giving many reasons and also stated that matter of such dispute can be resolved as per guidelines contained in letter No. 14/10/98VIG dated 11-05-2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

12. On 10-02-2005, a letter addressed by CVO was sent to Director, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), seeking their advice in this matter. According to the letter the case was not formally put in front of CMD for his intervention. In February 2005, CVC agreed with CVO's advice regarding the removal of petitioner. Petitioner through a letter dated 21-02-2005, reque