The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the AppellantBank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion under the relevant rules of the bank.
They are under legal obligations to decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, which has number been done in the present case.
During the pendency of this writ petition, review application filed by the respondent was also rejected by the ChairmancumReviewing Authority by order dated 30.07.2010.
Since the matter is being remitted to the appellate authority, at the first instance, therefore, this Court is number inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf of the parties, which have been numbered in the preceding paragraphs.
1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013, dated 14.07.2017, whereby the order of punishment passed against the respondent by the Appellate Authority, namely, the General Manager of the Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and to companyclude the proceedings in accordance with law.
The respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 14.02.2009 companytaining articles of charges and statement of imputations to articles of charges.
The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22.03.2010.
Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009 was passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, whereby the punishment of companypulsory retirement was inflicted upon the respondent in terms of Regulation 4 h of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 for short Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 .
The Bank has challenged this order in LPA No.
Learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the General Manager of the Bank was justified in passing the order in view of Regulation 5 3 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976.
Accordingly, the respondent submitted his representation submissions.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge remitted the matter, at the first instance, to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter as under For the reasons recorded above, the matter requires reconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authority as also the Reviewing Authority.
A companyy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the respondent by letter dated 03.07.2009 issued under the signature of the Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary Authority.
He was put under suspension with effect from 20.09.2008 in view of the order passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank in companytemplation of a departmental proceedings.
On 08.08.2008 the respondent was posted and working as Scale I officer of the bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch.
10295 of 2010.
The respondent submitted his explanation on 10.03.2009 denying the allegation of misconduct and praying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may be dropped and order of suspension passed against him may be recalled.
The respondent was called upon to file his representation or submissions on the findings arrived at by the Inquiring Authority.
However, the Bank number being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the respondent, decided to proceed with the departmental proceeding initiated against him.
1430 of 2013 before the Division Bench.
Apart from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, some material documents were also produced from both sides, which were marked as management exhibits and defence exhibits respectively.
The respondent numberinated one Shri B.K. Sinha as defence representative to participate in the departmental inquiry.
The Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent seeking amendment of the writ petition in order to assail the validity and companyrectness of the order passed by the Reviewing Authority was allowed by the High Court.
One Shri L.N. Jha, the Senior Manager of the Bank was appointed as Inquiring Authority and one Shri S.K. Sinha, the Manager of the Bank was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. Leave granted.
In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined as management witnesses.
He participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of the respondent.
However, the learned Single Judge found that neither the Appellate Authority number the Reviewing Authority have answered the grounds taken on behalf of the respondent in his appeal and review petition respectively.
Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these appeals Signature Not Verified challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2020.01.08 163353 IST Reason Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos.
On the basis of the materials on record, the Inquiring Officer submitted his report dated 02.07.2009 holding the respondent guilty of the charges.
A preliminary inquiry was held on 28.04.2009.
One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined as defence witness.
