Sanjiv Khanna JUDGMENT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these appeals challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 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 conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the Respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the Appellant-Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion under the relevant Rules of the bank. On 08.08.2008 the Respondent was posted and working as Scale I officer of the bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch. 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 contemplation of a departmental proceedings. The Respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 14.02.2009 containing articles of charges and statement of imputations to articles of charges. 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.
4. However, the Bank not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Respondent, decided to proceed with the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 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. A preliminary inquiry was held on 28.04.2009. Regular inquiry was commenced w.e.f. 18.05.2009. The Respondent nominated one Shri B.K. Sinha as defence representative to participate in the departmental inquiry. He participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of the Respondent.
5. In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined as management witnesses. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined as defence witness. 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.
6. 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 copy 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. The Respondent was called upon to file his representation or submissions on the findings arrived at by the Inquiring Authority. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted his representation/submissions. Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009 was passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, whereby the punishment of compulsory 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 Regulati........