Radhakrishnan, J.

This writ petition has been placed before us on a reference made by the learned single judge of this court expressing the opinion that the decision in Abdul Kareem v. Canara Bank (1997 (1) KLT 521) requires reconsideration. While holding so, learned single judge stated as follows:

“The Classification, Control and Appeal Rules which is binding on the petitioner provides for different kinds of punishment which includes dismissal as well as recovery. As both these were imposed as part of one and the same charge according to him, this does not amount to double jeopardy. An analogy may be drawn as regards punishment under the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure which contemplate sentence in prison besides imposition of fines. The decision in Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T. Corpn., v. N. Ramulu and another (1997) 11 SCC 319) also supports this view.”

We may point out that the decision of the learned single judge in Abdul Kareem’s case, supra (1997 (1) KLT 521) has been subsequently reversed by a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1088 of 1997. The Bench opined as follows:

“The language used by the rule making authority in sub Regulation 3 of Regulation 7 is that the disciplinary authority can impose any of the penalties. According to us, the word “any” in this sub regulation taking into consideration the context in which it is sued and the subject matter of the Statute would only mean “all” or “every” or “some” and at any rate, not one. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the regulation in question pertains to a banking institution which is custodian of other people’s money and when it suffers a pecuniary loss as in the present case because of negligence on the part of the delinquent who is entrusted with the money, bank cannot just censure its employees without taking measures to recover the same from him either from his pay or from any other amounts due to him because it is accountable to the customers money. Therefore, invocation of one penalty does not preclude resorting to other penalty. If the contention of the delinquent employee/respondent that the disciplinary authority is competent to impose only one of the penalties specified in the Regulation is accepted, it would certainly lead to anomalous consequences disabling the banking institutions from realizing the loss suffered by it from time employees.”

We fully concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench in the above case. The apex court in Depot Manager, APSRT Corpn., v. N. Ramulu and another (1997 (11) SCC 319) was dealing with the scope of Regulation 8 (v) and Explanation clause (5) of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967. In that case departmental enquiry was instituted for rash and negligent driving which culminated in removal of the delinquent driver from service. Learned single judge of the High Court directed to reinstate the delinquent employee with 50% backwages and deduction therefrom of the amount of Rs.500 by way of damages. The Division Bench modified the said order and held that the delinquent driver is entitled to full backwages on the ground that the learned Judge’s order amounted to double jeopardy. Setting aside the order of the Division Bench the apex court held as follows:

“It is true that reimbursement of the loss caused to the appellant A.P. State Road Transport Corporation has been shown to be a penalty under Regulation 8(v) of the Regulations. But the penalty for; the act of negligence was removal from service. The explanation to Regulation 8, however, enumerates various penalties which are not to be treated as penalties and one of them is as clause (5) thereof says: “The penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders, may be imposed in addition to any other penalty which may be inflicted in respect of the same act of negligence or breach of orders.”

This clause clea