1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/8/2012 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Review Application (MD) No.58 of 2011 and WP(MD)No.1239 of 2008 1. The General Manager Canara Bank (Personnel Wing) J.C Road, Bangalore 1. 2. The Deputy General Manager & Disciplinary Authority Disciplinary Action Cell Canara Bank Circle Office, Madurai. 3. The Manager, Canara Bank Gnanaolipuram Branch Madurai. ...Petitioners/Respondents Vs. K.Perumal ...Respondent/Petitioner Review filed under Section 114 r/w. Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.1239 of 2008 dated 23/9/2011. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No.1239 OF 2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in MDUC-DAC-735/F 253/2003, dated.29.11.2003 and to quash the same and to direct the first and second respondents to apy all the deducted amounts of the petitioners salary. For petitioner ...Mr.C.Godwin O R D E R The applicant pray for review of order dated 23.09.2011 allowing the WP (MD)No.1239/2008, by setting aside order of punishment of Grade down to Lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect. This court set asides the order of punishment, as the evidence led before the enquiry officer on which reliance was placed for holding Thiru.K.Perumal guilty was not trustworthy as petitioner was made scope goat to cover up the witnesses' own irregularities. 2. The District Consumer Redressal Commission had held M/s Nagappa Motors, Sri Srinivasan and Amarnath the witnesses before enquiry officer to be guilty of deficiency in service and had directed to supply Motorcycle to Writ Petitioner along with compensation. It was recorded that findings of Commission were altered in appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The review is sought on the ground that the Writ Petitioner had not produced the copy of the Judgement in appeal, wherein it was held that vehicle was handed over to Sri.Srinivasan without proper authentication, and there was deficiency to this extent, and directing to pay compensation and cost was confirmed but direction to hand over new vehicle was set aside and State Commission also held that Writ Petitioner was in the habit of applying for loan to buy vehicle and sell them. 4. This cannot be a ground to review the order. The State Commission had found the witnesses examined by enquiry officer to be guilty of deficiency in service. The learned State Commission only modified the relief, therefore it cannot be said that on appeal the findings were not confirmed. 5. In the result, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. sd/- Assistant Registrar(crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The General Manager, Canara Bank (Personnel Wing) J.C Road, Bangalore 1. 2. The Deputy General Manager & Disciplinary Authority Disciplinary Action Cell, Canara Bank Circle Office, Madurai. 3. The Manager, Canara Bank, Gnanaolipuram Branch, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.C.Godwin, Advocate in SR.26369 Review Petition (MD) No.58 of 2011 10.08.2012 mvs pbk 03.09.2012 ::2p-5c: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/