Shaffique, J.

WA No.1766/02 is filed by the respondents in OP No.13836/1997 challenging judgment dated 28/5/2002. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who is hereinafter referred as the petitioner. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside the enquiry proceedings and the dismissal order imposed on the petitioner, giving liberty to the appellants to take appropriate proceedings including fresh enquiry against the petitioner.

2. The facts involved in the above original petition would disclose that the petitioner while working as Manager of Syndicate Bank was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had opened two Savings Bank accounts and had disbursed loan amounts to two fictitious persons. After issuing show cause notice dated 27/5/1995, an enquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service by Ext.P10 order. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Ext.P11 order and the writ petition was filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings as well as the imposition of punishment, which was confirmed in appeal.

3. The learned Single Judge after evaluating the entire factual and legal issues involved in the matter relating to challenge against the disciplinary proceedings held that the enquiry proceedings was vitiated by non compliance of principles of natural justice. It was also held that no material evidence were forthcoming in the enquiry and persons who were actually connected with the grant of loan were not examined. In the said circumstances, it was found that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated and therefore the learned Single Judge interfered with the enquiry proceedings as well as the order issued granting punishment.

4. The main contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge had gone beyond the scope of judicial review and has set aside the enquiry proceedings on re-appreciation of facts and evidence which was not warranted under the circumstances. Further, it is contended that two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and he was found guilty in one case under sections 409, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 409 IPC, and separate punishments were awarded in respect of other offences. It is therefore contended that under Regulation 11 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Regulations'), it was mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty on an officer who has been convicted in a criminal case.

5. It is also contended that the Bank had produced sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner and the available documents which were relied upon by the Bank to prove the guilt has already been made available to the petitioner during enquiry and merely for the reason that certain documents which were not relevant were not produced or made available, was not sufficient to hold that the enquiry was in any manner vitiated.

6. W.P.(C) No.28914/2009 is filed by the delinquent employee, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.13836/1997, seeking for a direction to the respondent Bank to reinstate him in service with effect from 6/12/1996 and to grant him all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would indicate that after the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.13863/1997, by which the disciplinary proceedings has been set aside, WA No. 1766/2002 was filed by the Bank, which was disposed by judgment dated 26/7/2005, by which this Court without going into the merits of the case, held that since the petitioner was convicte