With these companyclusions the Division Bench having held the order of termination to be bad but having granted the relief as already stated, the Bank has companye up in appeal.
On the basis of the aforesaid findings of the EO in his report, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the companyclusion and imposed the penalty of removal from service.
But instead of directing reinstatement, the Division Bench directed that the respondent would be paid his salary from the date of dismissal on September 2, 1984 till the date of his enrolment as an advocate, i. e., October 12, 1988.
The delinquent then filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court which was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge.
By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of High Court came to hold that the order of termination of the respondent after finding him guilty of charges leveled against him is unsustainable.
The writ petition thus having been dismissed the delinquent preferred an appeal to the Division Bench.
The delinquent did prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority finally dismissed that appeal by order dated May 23, 1985.
The Division Bench by the impugned judgment came to the companyclusion that even though the Disciplinary Authority while agreeing with the report of the EO is number required to give any reasons, but in the case in hand a bare look at the order of the Disciplinary Authority would indicate that there was numberapplication of mind to the relevant materials by the Disciplinary Authority and as such the order awarding the punishment is vitiated.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.
The respondent was working as a Manager of Canara Bank and while he was so working in the year 1981 82, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him under the provisions of the Canara Bank Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, a set of charges was leveled against him and the Enquiring Officer EO , came to hold that the charges against the delinquent have been proved.
