Managing Director & Disciplinary Authority v. S.P.Shanbhogue

JUDGMENTM.VENUGOPAL,J.This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants/ respondents asagainst the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6015 of 1997 inallowing the writ petition.2.The respondent/writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.6015 of 1997praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords pertaining to the order of the third respondent bearingNo.IRS:DP:MC:CHF:3151:96 dated 18.1.1996 and the order of the secondrespondent dated 30.8.1996 and quash them, directing the firstrespondent to restore the petitioner to Senior Management Grade Scale IVtogether with usual and normal increments that are due to him along withother attendant benefits including promotion to Senior Management GradeScale V.3.The learned single Judge in his order has inter alia observed that'the Appellate Authority has inflicted the punishment, and thereby, itis clear that the petitioner has lost the right of appeal, resulting thepetitioner making an appeal to the Reviewing Authority, which is a Boardand surprisingly, the Committee of Board has considered the reviewpetition/appeal and it is stated that the Committee has nothing to dowith the employment or the service conditions of the petitioner who isworking in Scale IV and has allowed the writ petition for more than onereason'.4.Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge inW.P.No.6015 of 1997 dated 09.08.2006, the respondents in the writpetition have preferred this Writ Appeal as appellants. 5.In the instant case, the facts that the respondent has beenserving as Manager of first appellant Bank and while in service he hasbeen subjected to disciplinary action and later retired in the year 2000under the Special Voluntary Scheme are not in dispute.6.The charges framed against the respondent/writ petitioner arethat:(i)while he was working as Divisional Manager at Headquarters Road,Coimbatore Branch from 08.05.1987 to 05.06.1989, current account in thename of Shri.K.S.Prabhu, Share Broker, 99 Vimal 1st Floor/Dr.AlagappaChettiar Road, Tatabad, Coimbatore was opened on 16.03.1989 and on thevery next day of opening the account on 17.03.1989, he permitted TOD inthe above current account and on 13.04.1989 another TOD was permitted byhim when the earlier TOD permitted by him was outstanding and when thematter was taken up for recovery while he was working as DivisionalManager at Divisional Office, Tirunelveli, a D.D. for Rs.6,450/-favouring Shri.K.S.Prabhu was taken by him at Tirunelveli JunctionBranch out of the amount drawn from his OD account;(ii)that there was no K.S.Prabhu living in the address given in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Current Account Opening Form and there was only one Shri.K.V.Prabhuliving at that address, who was enjoying an OD limit of Rs.50,000/- atOppanakara Street, Coimbatore Branch and knowing fully well thatShri.K.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhu are one and the same, he had permittedTOD in the current account, thereby abetted impersonation to accommodatethe party and exposed the Bank to financial risks and thereby failed toperform his duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence andacted in the manner which is most unbecoming of a Bank Officer andthereby violated Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the CanaraBank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976, a misconductpunishable under Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1976.7.The Inquiry Authority, by his findings dated Nil, has concludedthat the respondent/writ petitioner knew well Shri.K.V.Prabhu by virtueof his business dealings in Share Service Centre, at the time of openingof a current account in the name of Shri.K.S.Prabhu and in view of theshare transactions/dealings with Share Service Centre, he intentionallycaused opening of an account in the name of Shri.K.S.Prabhu and inorder to accommodate Shri.K.V.Prabhu, Proprietor of M/s.Share ServiceCentre, he allowed TOD in the account of Shri.K.S.Prabhu and to thisextent, the charge against him has been proved and that he has failed toperform his duties with honesty, integrity, etc. In regard to the chargeof impersonation of Shri.K.V.Prabhu as K.S.Prabhu and his knowledgeabout this, the same has been held to be not proved by the InquiryOfficer to the effect that K.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhu are one and thesame.8.The third appellant/Disciplinary Authority, by his order dated06.03.1995, has agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Authority to theextent that 'the respondent/writ petitioner has intentionally causedopening of an account in the name of Shri.K.S.Prabhu and in order toaccommodate Shri.K.V.Prabhu, Proprietor of M/s.Share Service Centre, heallowed TOD in the account of Shri.K.S.Prabhu' and in regard to theimpersonation charge has held that 'the respondent/writ petitionerhimself has stated that he knew K.S.Prabhu as Proprietor of M/s.ShareService Centre and as per records, the Proprietor M/s.Share ServiceCentre is actually Shri.K.V.Prabhu and that it is clearly establishedthat K.S.Prabhu and K.V.Prabhu are one and the same and inspite ofknowing this fact he had informed Shri.Nagesh Pai to introduce theaccount as K.S.Prabhu, and further allowed overdrawings that too forpassing cheques issued in favour of Share Service Centre etc. anddisagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Authority.9.However, the third appellant after considering the representationof the respondent dated 15.4.1995 has imposed the punishment ofreduction to a lower cadre i.e. from scale IV to scale III on thedelinquent officer as per regulation 4(e) of Canara Bank OfficerEmployees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.10.The respondent has preferred an appeal to the Board of Directorsof the Bank, through proper channel and the Committee of the Board hasrejected the appeal on 30.08.1996 and confirmed the punishment which waschallenged by filing W.P.No.6015 of 1997 before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedsingle Judge erred in re-appreciating the evidence recorded in theDomestic Enquiry, which is beyond the scope under Art.226 of theConstitution of India and that there is overwhelming evidence to showthat the respondent knew K.V.Prabhu of M/s.Share Service Centre, whichhas not been taken note of by the learned single Judge and the fact thatthe respondent took a demand draft from his personal account to clearthe liability, exhibits his involvement in accommodating Shri.K.V.Prabhuand that Shri.K.V.Prabhu posed himself as K.S.Prabhu to open the currentaccount and the respondent being aware of the same has allowed openingof the current account in the name of Shri.K.S.Prabhu, thereby knowinglypermitted impersonation which has not been appreciated by the InquiryAuthority and the learned single Judge in their proper perspective,inspite of sufficiency of evidence available in the Domestic Enquiry andthe fact that the object to accommodate a customer against the BankRules and the resultant risk that the Bank has been exposed to, has notbeen borne in mind primarily by the learned single Judge at the time ofpassing of the order and that though the third appellant/ManagingDirector is the Appellate Authority in so far as the respondent isconcerned, the punishment has been inflincted by him being the nexthigher authority as per Regulation 5(3) of Canara Bank OfficerEmployees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and this fact hasnot been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and theappeal filed by the respondent has been placed before the Committee ofthe Board, i.e. next authority to the third appellant and inasmuch asthe respondent's appeal has since been considered by an Authority higherthan the Managing Director, in any event, no prejudice has been causedand this has not been looked into by the learned single Judge andtherefore, prays for allowing the Writ Appeal.12.The learned counsel for the respondent urges that there is noevidence in the domestic enquiry to show that the respondent admittedthat he knew K.V.Prabhu and that the respondent has only stated that heknows K.S.Prabhu, having an establishment by name Share Service Centreand that equally there is no evidence about the very existence ofK.V.Prabhu and that the said Prabhu has not been seen by any of theManagement witnesses and inasmuch as the very existence of K.V.Prabhuhas not been established, the question of his knowing K.V.Prabhu at thetime of opening the current account for K.S.Prabhu or his nexus withK.V.Prabhu as K.S.Prabhu is unsustainable and therefore, the question ofimpersonation does not arise and there is no iota of evidence that therespondent has abetted impersonation to accommodate the party andexposed the Bank to financial risks.13.The further plea raised on the side of the respondent is that theauthority to impose penalty is the Executing Director as the ManagingDirector is the Appellate Authority according to the Schedule 2 D and ARegulations (as it then was), though regulation 5(3) enjoins that anyauthority higher in rank than the third appellant can impose penalty,the Managing Director being the Appellate Authority ought not to haveimposed the penalty, thereby depriving the right of appeal to therespondent and that the 'Committee of Board' has no authority to dealwith the appeal as per D and A Regulations and on this ground, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entire proceedings is a nullity.14.According to the learned counsel for the respondent, theDisciplinary Authority is the Executive Director and the AppellateAuthority is the Managing Director (3rd appellant) and the ReviewingAuthority is the Board of Directors (4th appellant) and therefore, theCommittee of Directors is not a forum to deal with the disciplinarymatters relating to scale IV as per D and A Regulations.15.Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for therespondent is that the third appellant has consulted the CentralVigilance Commission and that neither the enquiry proceedings nor thefindings of the third appellant has any reference to the saidconsultation and that the respondent has not been put on notice in thisregard.16.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticedtheir rival contentions.17.We are conscious of the fact that the charges in a disciplinaryproceedings are not required to be proved like, the criminal case i.e.proof beyond all reasonable doubt and what is required is onlypreponderance of probabilities. 18.It is relevant to point out that the term of 'misconduct' is ageneric term and its synonyms are: (1)Misbehaviour; (2)Misdemeanour; (3)Mismanagement; (4)Misdeed; (5)Delinquency; and (6)Offence. In Shroud'sJudicial Dictionary, the term 'misconduct' means arising from ill-motive; acts of negligence, errors of innocent mistake do not constitutesuch misconduct. The omission to do what is expected of a person to doconstitutes misconduct. Whereas, if such failure is directed tointentionally, cause mischief or loss to any person; then it is called'wilful misconduct'. Therefore, misconduct is a definite word with aspecific connotation. In fact, the concept of misconduct in an employerand employee relationship is based upon the nature and relationshipitself and implied and express conditions of services.19.A perusal of the orders passed in the writ petition to the effectthat 'when a clear finding is given by Enquiry Officer, the DisciplinaryAuthority did not accept the inquiry report and without assigning anyconvincing and cogent reason and without any evidence has issued notice,reducing the rank of the petitioner from the Category Grade IV to IIIand thereafter, the Managing Director of Bank has issued the finalorders' etc. indicates that the learned single Judge has made anendeavour to reappreciate the entire matter as if exercising appellatejurisdiction.20.At this stage, it is to be pointed out that the report of theInquiry Officer is intended to assist the Disciplinary Authority incoming to a conclusion about the guilt of delinquent. The findings ofthe Inquiry Officer or recommendations are advisory in character and arenot binding on Disciplinary Authority, who can disagree with them andcome to his own assessment of evidence forming part of record ofinquiry. It cannot be gainsaid that on receipt of report and record of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority will have to examine them carefullyand dispassionately and after satisfying itself that the delinquent hasbeen given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself has to record itsfindings in respect of each Article of Charge saying whether in hisopinion it stands proved or not. However, if Disciplinary Authoritydisagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any Article ofCharge, it will, while recording its own findings, also record reasonsfor disagreement.21.For the better appreciation of the entire gamut of the matter inthe Domestic Enquiry, as seen from the material papers placed on record,it is pertinent to point out that M.W.1-Vaidhyanathan has stated that heand M.W.2-Parthasarathy met Satish Prabhu (a Share Broker of Jai Ganeshand Co. or Ganesh and Co. and a brother-in-law of Ganesh) who informedhim that he is not that Satish Prabhu, who borrowed money from the Bankand that one K.V.Prabhu, his brother might have obtained this facilityand further that Ganesh also has informed that there is no Satish Prabhuin their family, but there is one K.V.Prabhu and furnished the Bombayaddress.22.M.W.2-Parthasarathy, who submitted his investigation report inregard to the long outstanding TOD of Rs.24,500/- in the current accountof K.S.Prabhu, at Headquarters Road, Coimbatore has stated that oneK.V.Prabhu was having an OD account at their Oppanakkara Street inM/s.Share Service Centre name with a limit of Rs.50,000/- and when thesaid account was outstanding, the said Prabhu opened a current accountat their Headquarters Road, Coimbatore Branch in K.S.Prabhu's name andthat the said Prabhu signed in the account opening form as K.S.Prabhuand that the handwriting in the account opening forms of M/s.ShareService Centre and K.S.Prabhu are one and the same and that theresidential address of the Proprietor of M/s.Share Service Centre i.e.K.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhu is also one and the same. He has also furtherstated that a TOD of Rs.24,500/- was allowed in the current account ofK.S.Prabhu on 17.03.1989, i.e., on the very next day of opening of theaccount and the account at Headquarters Road was introduced by NageshPai (the then Manager of Headquarters Road, Coimbatore Branch), whostated that he knew K.S.Prabhu for the past two years.23.From the statement of M.W.2-Parthasarathy, it transpires that apart of the amount was remitted on 13.04.1989 when there was a debitbalance of Rs.2,286.25, further TOD was allowed on 13.04.1989 in orderto pass a cheque for Rs.22,390/- and that the TODs were authorised bythe respondent, the then Divisional Manager and since the TOD was notregularised the Branch took the issue with the respondent (while he wasDM of Tirunelveli Divisional Office) and that there was a remittance ofRs.6,450/- by way of DD favouring K.S.Prabhu sent from Tirunelveli andSatish Prabhu, who is the brother of K.V.Prabhu informed him that therespondent is a family friend and he knows his parents and his brothersfor many years and that there is no K.S.Prabhu and his brother isK.V.Prabhu and he is Satish R Prabhu known as S.R.Prabhu and signs as'Satish'.24.It is the further statement of M.W.2-Parthasarathy that the saidSatish R Prabhu informed him that the respondent handed over a letter to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.R.Prabhu's mother (AOD form) in Mangalore in December 1991 and askedher to get it signed by Shri.S.R.Prabhu and send it to him etc.Moreover, M.W.2-Parthasarathy also is reported to have met A.Ganesan,Coobligant to the OD limit sanctioned to M/s.Share Service Centre atOppanakkara Street and the brother-in-law of K.V.Prabhu and S.R.Prabhuand that the said Ganesan reiterated the version given by Satish RPrabhu and said that the respondent and Nagesh Pai knew about thetransaction.25.The statement of M.W.3-Venkatachalam is to the effect that the DDfor Rs.6,450/- has been purchased by K.S.Prabhu (at Tirunelveli JunctionBranch), drawn on Coimbatore dated 04.05.1990, out of cash cheque forRs.14,000/-, adjusted from cash and that the cheque has been drawn bythe respondent and that K.S.Prabhu has signed the DD application and theDD has been received by Palani.26.M.W.4-Palani (sub-staff) in the Regional Office, Tirunelveli hastestified that in the DD challan for the DD purchased by the DivisionalManager, he has signed and that he has handed over the DD to theDivisional Manager in the afternoon and no one has been in the cabin,other than the Divisional Manager and that the DD is for Rs.6,000/- andthat he has received the balance sum against the cheque of Rs.14,000/-and gave the balance to the Divisional Manager.27.M.W.5-Nagesh Pai, in his testimony has stated that K.S.Prabhuused to come to his Branch very often to meet the respondent and he knewK.S.Prabhu through the respondent and later came to know his fatherPrabhu, who was the Divisional Manager of Corporation Bank and hisbrother-in-law Ganesh Bhat, (Distributor of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi) andsince he knew through respondent, he introduced the account.Furthermore, M.W.5-Nagesh Pai has also stated that as soon as theexplanation has been called for from Bangalore, SSO he approached therespondent, to help him in giving reply to the letter and then therespondent sent one draft letter from Tirunelveli to his address andrequested him to reply in the same line and that the respondent askedhim to introduce the account of K.S.Prabhu.28.At this stage, one cannot ignore an important fact that therespondent in his letter dated 31.03.1992 sent to the Deputy GeneralManager of Madurai Circle has categorically stated that he knowsK.S.Prabhu, a Share Broker of M/s.Share Service Centre and that on04.05.1990 the said K.S.Prabhu called on him at Tirunelveli in regard tothe share transactions, he has entered into with him and aftercalculating a sum of Rs.6,470/- payable to him in respect of the saidshare transaction he wanted to ensure that this amount is to be creditedto his TOD balance at Headquarters Road, Coimbatore.29.It is not out of place to make a mention that in a DomesticInquiry, strict rules of evidence are not applicable as per IndianEvidence Act. All materials which are logically probative for a prudentmind are permissible. For hearsay evidence there is no allergy, providedit has credibility and reasonable nexus. Admittedly, sufficiency ofevidence in proof of the finding by an Inquiring Authority is beyondscrutiny. As a matter of fact, the expression 'sufficiency of evidence' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enjoins existence of some evidence which connects the charged officerwith the misconduct alleged against him. 30.The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision inJ.D.Jain V. The Management of State Bank of India and another (AIR 2000SC 22) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in departmentalproceedings the guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt,proof of misconduct may be sufficient and that the Tribunal committed anerror in holding that the finding of the domestic enquiry was based on"hearsay" evidence, and that the law is well settled that strict rulesof evidence are not applicable in a domestic enquiry".31.The aforesaid testimonies of M.W.1 to M.W.5 coupled with theletter dated 31.03.1992 marked as D.E.1 of the respondent play asignificant role in the instant case on hand.32.Though a plea is taken by the respondent that there is noevidence in the Domestic Enquiry to show that the respondent admittedthat he knew K.V.Prabhu and that the respondent has only stated that heknow K.S.Prabhu and further that there is no evidence about the veryexistence of K.V.Prabhu, it is to be pointed out that from the materialplaced before us it transpires that the respondent knew K.V.Prabhu bymeans of his business dealings in Share Service Centre at the time ofopening of a current account in the name of K.S.Prabhu and since therespondent knows K.S.Prabhu as Proprietor of M/s.Share Service Centreand inasmuch as Shri.K.V.Prabhu is the Proprietor of M/s.Share ServiceCentre, it is quite evident, circumstantially, that K.S.Prabhu andK.V.Prabhu are one and the same, notwithstanding the fact that therespondent has asked Shri.Nagesh Pai to introduce the account asK.S.Prabhu and therefore, the contention of the respondent in thisregard is not accepted. 33.In fact, it is the specific evidence of M.W.2-Parthasarathybefore the Inquiry Authority that K.V.Prabhu was having an account attheir Oppanakkara Street Branch in the name of M/s.Share Service Centrewith a limit of Rs.50,000/- and that the said account was outstandingwhen the said Prabhu opened a current account at their HeadquartersRoad, Coimbatore Branch in K.S.Prabhu's name and that the said Prabhusigned in the account opening form as K.S.Prabhu and that thehandwriting in the account opening form of M/s.Share Service Centre andK.S.Prabhu are one and the same and that the residential address of theProprietor of M/s.Share Service Centre i.e., K.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhuis also one and the same and that Satish Prabhu, who is the brother ofK.V.Prabhu informed him that the respondent is a family friend and heknows his parents and brothers for many years and that there is noK.S.Prabhu and his brother is K.V.Prabhu and further that A.Ganesan,Coobligant to the OD limit sanctioned to M/s.Share Service Centre atOppanakkara Street and the brother-in-law of K.V.Prabhu, S.R.Prabhu hasalso reiterated the version of Satish R Prabhu, who informed that therespondent and M.W.5-Nagesh Pai knew about the transaction. At thisstage, it is specifically to be mentioned that the respondent has notexamined himself in the Domestic Enquiry and further he has not alsoproduced any witness to be examined on his side. Of course, on the sideof respondent, before the Inquiry Authority as many as nine documents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ D.1 to D.9 were marked. 34.Another important factor that cannot be brushed aside in the caseon hand before us is that a DD for Rs.6,450/- has been drawn byK.S.Prabhu at Tirunelveli Junction Branch payable at Coimbatore, dated04.05.1990, out of cash cheque for Rs.14,000/-, adjusted from cash andthat the cheque has been drawn by the respondent and that K.S.Prabhu hassigned in the DD application, which is not a favourable circumstance infavour of the respondent. Moreover, the act of the respondent sending adraft letter from Tirunelveli to M.W.5-Nagesh Pai's address, requestinghim to reply in the same line when explanation was called for fromBangalore SSO will not, in any way, help the case of the respondent anyfurther.35.Suffice it to point out that the materials available on recordunimpeachably brings home the fact that the respondent has knownK.V.Prabhu at the time of opening of an account in the name ofK.S.Prabhu. It cannot be in dispute that a departmental proceedingstricto sensu is not a judicial proceeding and that the findings in thedepartmental proceedings can be based on preponderance of probabilities.Undoubtedly, the inferences cannot be drawn based on conjectures orsurmises. It is not out of place to make a mention that the respondenthas taken a DD from his personal account to clear the liability andtherefore, his action in this regard is not above Board, in ourconsidered opinion.36.It cannot be gainsaid that in Union Bank of India V. Vishwa Mohan(AIR 1998 SC 2311), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'in Bankingbusiness, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs tobe preserved by every Bank employee failing which the Public and theaccount holders would lose the confidence'. As a matter of fact, theInquiry Authority/Disciplinary Authority cannot reject relevanttestimony of witnesses and that he cannot take into considerationirrelevant facts or cannot refuse to consider relevant facts etc. Infact, the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and has toarrive at a decision upon analysing the documents and material evidenceon record. It is pertinent to point out that it is not for the Courts tointerfere with the decision of Disciplinary Authority in regard to acase of misconduct when the inquiry has been fair and proper and themisconduct has been proved.37.As far as the present case is concerned, there are sufficientmaterials, by way of legal evidence, to prove the charges and that theDisciplinary Authority by means of his findings dated 06.03.1995 hascome to the conclusion of agreeing with the findings of the InquiryAuthority to the extent that the respondent has intentionally causedopening of an account in the name of K.S.Prabhu etc. and in regard tothe impersonation charge has disagreed with the findings of the InquiryAuthority and held that the respondent is guilty of this charge also andtherefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of theDisciplinary Authority are supported by legal evidence and that thesufficiency of evidence in proof of finding lies beyond the scope ofscrutiny of Reviewing Court. It is needless to state that in thedepartmental proceedings, the charges, unless proved, cannot form the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ basis of any punishment and that the standard of proof is different asagainst the required standard in the case of a criminal trial, but thecharges levelled must stand proved on the basis of relevant material. Ofcourse, the burden to prove the charges rests upon the department andtherefore, the department owes its liability first to adduce evidenceand take steps for proving the charge. In the case on hand, the Bank, inthe Domestic Enquiry, has examined witnesses M.W.1 to M.W.5 and markedExs.M.E.1 to M.E.20 and on the side of respondent/ Delinquent OfficerExs.D.E.1 to D.E.9 were marked. However, on the side of respondent noone was examined. When the respondent is a family friend of K.V.Prabhuand knows him and his family members, then nothing prevented therespondent to prove the fact which lies within his knowledge i.e. toprove that K.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhu are not the one and the sameindividual. Equally, it is significant to make a mention that thehandwriting of K.V.Prabhu tallies with the handwriting in the accountopening form of K.S.Prabhu, which goes to show, clinchingly, thatK.V.Prabhu and K.S.Prabhu are and the same individual and that therespondent having known these facts has permitted opening of currentaccount in the name of K.S.Prabhu thereby abetted the impersonation andtherefore, the contra contention of the respondent in this regard isunsustainable.38.In regard to the plea that the Authority to impose penalty on therespondent is the Executive Director i.e. Disciplinary Authority and inthe instant case, the Managing Director, third appellant has imposed thepunishment by his proceedings dated 18.01.1996 and therefore, the sameis impermissible, it is to be pointed out that since the post ofExecutive Director viz., Disciplinary Authority has remained vacant, asper Regulation 5(3) of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline andAppeal) Regulations, 1976, any higher authority, higher than theDisciplinary Authority, may impose any of the penalties specified inRegulation 4 on any employee and as such, there is no illegality in theManaging Director imposing punishment on the respondent in the case onhand and resultantly, the respondent's contention in this regard isrejected.39.Coming to the plea that since the Managing Director viz., thirdappellant has imposed the penalty on the respondent, a valuable right ofappeal has been lost to the respondent, it is to be mentioned that theappeal filed by the respondent has been placed before the Committee ofthe Board, being the next higher Authority to the Managing Directorviz., third appellant and therefore, the appeal has been considered byan Authority, higher than the third appellant viz., Managing Directorand therefore, the contention that the respondent has lost the right ofappeal has no legs to stand, in our considered opinion. Moreover, thenext higher authority to the Committee of the Board is the Board ofDirectors of the Bank as Reviewing Authority.40.Though the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on thedecision in H.M.T.Limited Watch Factory I and II V. R.L.Prasad andAnother (2005-III-L.L.J. 884 at page 887), wherein it is inter aliaobserved that "we are clearly of the view that if an order is made by anauthority or a person who is not competent to make the order ofdismissal, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal while considering https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the claim made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking accord forapproval of the order of dismissal would be fully justified in rejectingthe application" for the proposition that the Disciplinary Authority isthe Executive Director and that the Appellate Authority is the ManagingDirector and that in the instant case, the Managing Director i.e., thirdappellant has imposed the punishment and that the appeal has been dealtwith by the Committee of the Board who are not competent to deal withthe same, it is pertinent to mention that since the post of ExecutiveDirector viz., Disciplinary Authority has remained vacant, as perRegulations 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline andAppeal) Regulations, 1976, the Managing Director viz., the thirdappellant-higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority has imposedpunishment on the respondent and therefore, the same is not invalid andillegal, but, on the other hand the same is perfectly legal andjustified as per rules and therefore, we opine that the decision citedis not helpful to the respondent. 41.As a matter of fact, on the memorandum of appeal filed by therespondent, the Committee of Board has passed orders on 30.08.1996rejecting the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed on therespondent. The Committee of the Board has taken into consideration thememorandum of appeal, findings of the Inquiry Authority, the findings ofthe Disciplinary Authority and other documents and evidence on recordadduced during the enquiry proceedings and has finally passed theorders. It is a well accepted principle that when a DisciplinaryAuthority/Appellate Authority agrees with the view of the lowerauthority on evidence, it is not necessary for the concerned higherauthority either to restate the effect of evidence or to reiterate thereasons given by the lower Authority/Inquiry Authority.42.As far as the present case is concerned, in our view that theDisciplinary Authority viz., the third appellant has applied his mindand has given a reasoned findings dated 06.03.1995. Equally, the ordersof the Committee of the Board dated 30.08.1996 as Reviewing Authority(while disposing of the appeal) also does not suffer from any infirmity,since the appeal has been dealt with by the next higher authority to thethird appellant and in any event, it has not caused prejudice to therespondent. Further, merely because the General Manager has prepared thenote administratively and later himself becoming Executive Director ofthe Bank and as one of the members of the Committee, the same has notaffected the decision in the appeal in any way, since it was dealt withby the Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank. In regard to thecontention that the Inquiring Authority has not questioned therespondent on the circumstances appearing against him in evidence in theenquiry as per Regulation 6(17) of D and A Regulations, it is to bepointed that the said omission is not fatal and it will not vitiate theenquiry proceedings, since in the instant case, the respondent hasconsciously submitted his written brief dated 11.06.1994 after the dateof completion of production of evidence as required under Regulation 6(18) of D and A Regulations. 43.The learned counsel for the respondent relies on the letter dated28.09.2000 of Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission whereinat para 5 and 6 it is observed as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Para 12.4.4 of Special Chapter on Vigilance management inPublic Sector Banks and para 22.6.4 of the Special Chapter onVigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises envisage thatthe inquiring authorities, including the CDIs borne on thestrength of the Commission, would submit their reports to thedisciplinary authority who would then forward the IO's reports,along with its own tentative views to the Commission for itssecond stage advice. The existing procedure in this regard maybroadly continue. The disciplinary authority may, afterexamination of the inquiry report, communicate its tentativeviews to the Commission. The Commission would thereaftercommunicate its advice. This, along with the disciplinaryauthority's views, may be made available to the concernedemployee. On receiving his representation, if any, thedisciplinary authority may impose a penalty in accordance withthe Commission's advice or if it feels that the employee'srepresentation warrants consideration, forward the same, alongwith the records of the case, to the Commission for itsreconsideration.6.Thus, if on the receipt of the employee's representation, theconcerned administrative authority proposes to accept the CVC'sadvice, it may issue the orders accordingly. But if theadministrative authority comes to the conclusion that therepresentation of the concerned employee necessitiesreconsideration of the Commission's advice, the matter would bereferred to the Commission" on the pleas of the respondent that the third appellant has consultedthe Central Vigilance Commission for the purpose of imposing punishmentand the same is bad in law and that the respondent has not been put onnotice, it is to be pointed out that in the instant case, theDisciplinary Authority has not imposed punishment on the basis ofCommission's advice and it has applied its mind independently, asinformed by the learned counsel for the appellants and therefore, by nostretch of imagination it can be said that the punishment imposed by theDisciplinary Authority on the respondent is bad and resultantly, thequestion of putting the respondent on notice in this regard does notarise on any score. Resultantly, the reliance placed on the letter dated28.09.2000 of the Government of India, Central Vigilance Commissioncannot come to the aid of the respondent.44.In regard to the contention of the respondent that the order ofthe third appellant dated 18.01.1996 is not a speaking order inasmuch asthe same does not discuss or cover the point raised by the respondent inhis submissions dated 15.04.1995 in reply to his letter dated16.03.1995, a perusal of the proceedings of the third appellant dated18.01.1996 awarding a punishment of rejection to a lower Grade fromscale IV to scale III do clearly indicate that the third appellant hasborne in mind the submissions of the respondent, though the same havenot been restated in his proceedings and in any event, it cannot be saidthat the said order is not a speaking order and in fact, the said orderis based on application of mind, which is a reasoned one too andtherefore, the said proceedings of the third appellant dated 18.01.1996 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality in the eye of law.45.It cannot be gainsaid that an employer loosing confidence on hisemployee is certainly a subjective feeling or an individual reaction toan objective set of facts and motivations. In fact the obligation towork faithfully is assumed because in the absence of any such assumptionthe contract of service will be unworkable or in any case, it is anassumption cemented on equitable grounds. It is not out of place tomention that the Sastri Award which by now has become synonymous to theservice conditions of a Bank employee has a binding force and itempowers the Management to terminate the services of an employee forloss of confidence, as per decision in SBI, Kanpur V. Vidya PrakashBajpai (2004 LLR 159). But, in the case on hand, the respondent has notbeen awarded with the punishment of dismissal.46.In the light of the foregoing detailed discussions and inasmuchas there is sufficiency of evidence available in the Domestic Enquiryand when the third appellant/ Disciplinary Authority has given areasoned findings dated 06.03.1995 and when the charges have been provedagainst the respondent in a fair and proper inquiry, then it is not opento the learned single Judge to interfere with the findings of the thirdappellant/Disciplinary Authority dated 06.03.1995 or with the order ofpunishment dated 18.01.1996 or with the orders of the second appellant/Committee of the Board dated 30.08.1996 and therefore, in that view ofthe matter, the order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing thewrit petition for the reasons assigned therein are not correct, in ourview and therefore, we set aside the order of the learned single Judgepassed in W.P.No.6015 of 1997 dated 09.08.2006 and allow the Writ Appealto prevent aberration of justice. Bearing in mind the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Sgl+ one cc to Mr. P.R. Raman, Advocate, SR.21963+ one cc to M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate, SR.21360CMP(CO)RP 23.04.08W.A.NO.1439 OF 2006