H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PUNISHMENT of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and its correctness or otherwise is the subject-matter of this petition. ( 2 ) SRI Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that since charges are not admitted by the charge-sheeted officer, no penalty could have been imposed by the Disciplinary authority without holding an enquiry as required under the service code of the bank and the bipartite settlement. ( 3 ) SRI Ramadas, the learned Counsel for the bank contends that no enquiry need be held if the employee makes an admission of guilt. ( 4 ) THE case revolves round an 'answer' by this Court whether the charge-sheeted Officer can be punished without conducting an enquiry on the ground of 'admission of guilt' before the disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the charge memo. ( 5 ) THE facts are not in dispute. However for deciding the issue, it is necessary to state briefly the facts: petitioner, while working as a Clerk in respondent-Bank's circle Office at Bangalore, applied for issuance of cancard. Accordingly, cancard bearing No. 3085772 was issued to him. It is the respondent's case that while applying for cancard, petitioner had undertaken to clear the bills within 15 days from the date of statement of accounts and since the petitioner failed to maintain sufficient balance to meet the FTVS resulting in overdrawings in petitioner's cancard Account to the extent of Rs. 8,436. 88 ps. , as on 27-11-1989, it is asserted that petitioner was instructed vide letters dated 27-11-1989, 13-12-1989 and 18-1-1990, to regularise the account. It is their further case that when petitioner failed to clear dues, bank wrote a letter cautioning him that if he failed to pay the amounts due, disciplinary action would be taken against him and pursuant to this letter according to the bank, petitioner cleared the liability only on 12-12-1990. Incorporating all these factual matrix. Bank had issued a charge memo dated 24-12-1990. In that, it was alleged that the petitioner had misutilised the cancard facility extended to him by the bank and the petitioner had failed to obey the lawful orders of the bank. Incorporating all these factual matrix. Bank had issued a charge memo dated 24-12-1990. In that, it was alleged that the petitioner had misutilised the cancard facility extended to him by the bank and the petitioner had failed to obey the lawful orders of the bank. Charge memo dated 24-12-1990, contains the following charges:"to sri G. Channa Rama Krishna (27726) clerk, Canara Bank, P and P Section, circle Office, Bangalore. Whereas, there are prima facie grounds for believing that you have been guilty of misconduct, the particulars whereof are given below, this charge-sheet has been drawn-up against you and you are hereby required to submit to me within three days of receipt of this charge-sheet, a statement in writing setting-forth your defence, if any and showing cause why departmental proceedings should not be initiated against you. CHARGE you are working as a Clerk at P and P Section, Circle office, Bangalore since 3-2-1987. As per the scheme introduced by the bank for extending cancard facility to staff members, you had applied for the issuance of cancard and accordingly, cancard bearing No. 3085772 has been issued to you. While applying for the cancard you had undertaken to pay the bills within 15 days from the date of statement of accounts. It has been reported by our Consumer Banking Division, bangalore, that you have utilised the cancard but failed to remit the amounts. In this connection you were also instructed by our staff section (w) vide letters BLSW/31255/ep/sb, dated 5-10-1990, blsw/26856/ep/hs, dated 13-12-1989, blsw/30088/ep/hs, dated 18-1-1990, besides Consumer banking Division's letter PDW/cbd/ofs/5442/krb, dated 27-11-1989. Despite the clear terms stipulated under the scheme and the repeated instructions of higher authorities, you have failed to clear the outstanding liability under the cancard issued to you. The present liability under the cancard issued to you is Rs. 8604. 88 (plus interest/service charges ). Thus by your above actions you have failed to obey the lawful and reasonable orders of the higher authorities placed over you and committed a gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, clause (d) of Canara Bank Service Code. Your above action being prejudicial to the interest of the bank, you have also committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, clause (m) of canara Bank Service Code". Your above action being prejudicial to the interest of the bank, you have also committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, clause (m) of canara Bank Service Code". ( 6 ) THE charge-sheeted Officer submitted his defence/written explanation, according to petitioner, denying the charges, but according to respondent-Bank, virtually admitting the accusation in the memo of charges. The reply filed reads as under: "from G. Channa Rama Krishna, (27726) Clerk, Canara Bank, P & P Section, Circle Office, Bangalore. To Through The Deputy General Manager, The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, D. A. Cell, Circle Canara Bank, Office, Bangalore P & P Section, Circle Office, Bangalore Dear Sir, sub: Charge-sheet No. BLC/dac/1570/e. 37/ch 64/90, dated 24-12-1990. I am in receipt of your letter No. BLC/dac/977/rp/90, dated 24-12-1990 along with the subject charge-sheet informing that in case that the charges are unconditionally admitted by me in my reply to the charge-sheet, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect will be imposed. In this connection, I would like to explain as follows: it is a fact that I bad utilised the cancard facility, but the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet has been paid in full on 12-12-1990 much before this charge-sheet is issued. After clearing the amount, I had informed the Divisional manager, Canara Bank, SS (W) in writing vide my letter dated 12-12-1990 to the effect that, I have cleared the entire liability against my name outstanding in my cancard with a request to view the matter leniently. I had informed in the same letter regarding my cancard already been surrendered during the month of March 1990, itself. Sir, for the earlier reminder, I had clarified in writing the reason for delay in remittance which was mainly due to unforeseen family commitments and circumstances. Xerox copy of my letter dated 12-12-1990 is sent enclosed for your ready reference. I feel sorry for having remitted the amount with delay which was mainly due to the reasons mentioned above. In view of the above and also having cleared the overdue on 12-12-1990 much before the above charge-sheet is issued, I request you to accept my explanation and allow the matter to rest without imposing the proposed punishment. I assure you that I will not give scope for such lapses in future. In view of the above and also having cleared the overdue on 12-12-1990 much before the above charge-sheet is issued, I request you to accept my explanation and allow the matter to rest without imposing the proposed punishment. I assure you that I will not give scope for such lapses in future. I am quite confident, you will consider my request favourably and allow the matter to rest". ( 7 ) TREATING this as a valid admission of guilt, the Disciplinary authority after hearing the petitioner on the nature of punishment as required under Regulation 9 (1x0 of Canara Bank service Code and clause 19. 12 (e) of the bipartite settlement, imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, by his order dated 12-1-1991 without conducting any enquiry and the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order of Disciplinary Authority was dismissed on 27-5-1991. It is these orders which has brought the petitioner before this Court. At this stage, it is relevant to state that the learned Counsel for respondent-Bank did not submit on the maintainability of the petition before this Court even though the said ground is taken in the counter filed by the bank before this Court. ( 8 ) THE relevant provision which requires to be noticed at this stage is Regulation 9 (1) (f) of Chapter XI of Canara Bank Service code. Regulation 9 (1) prescribes the procedure to be observed in conducting an enquiry into any alleged misconduct of an employee. Regulation 9 (1) (f) is an exception carved out for the regulation 9 (1 ). It says that no enquiry need be held if. (i) the misconduct is such that even if proved, the Bank does not intend to award the punishment of discharge, or dismissal: (ii) the bank has issued a show -cause notice to the employee advising him of the misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct; and (iii) the employee makes a voluntary admission of the guilt in his reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. However, if the employee concerned requests, a hearing regarding the nature of punishment, such a hearing shall be given. ( 9 ) EVEN Clause 12 (e) of bipartite settlement is in pari materia with Regulation 9 (l) (f) of the Service Code. However, if the employee concerned requests, a hearing regarding the nature of punishment, such a hearing shall be given. ( 9 ) EVEN Clause 12 (e) of bipartite settlement is in pari materia with Regulation 9 (l) (f) of the Service Code. ( 10 ) A reading of the aforesaid regulations would indicate that an enquiry need not be held if the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is obvious that if there is no admission of guilt, it is incumbent on the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry and arrive at a finding on the material placed before him at the time of enquiry. It is well-settled principle of law that an admission of guilt by the charge-sheeted officer should be explicit, unambiguous, unqualified and unequivocal in terms of the charges and it is also well-settled that "it would not be fair to strain facts against an employee and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him, the enquiry would have served no useful purpose. That is a matter of speculation which is wholly out of place in dealing with cases of orders passed against public servants terminating their services". The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad saxena v State of Madhya Bharat, discussed in detail the question of admission of a public servant in connection with the departmental enquiry. The Court was pleased to observe as under:"11. It is true that the appellant specifically admitted during the course of the previous enquiry that illegal liquor had been delivered to the contractor, and that he had given the key of the receiver to Narona. It is on the strength of those admissions that the High Court took the view that the appellant had substantially admitted his guilt and so there was really no need for holding a formal enquiry against him after the charge-sheet was supplied to him. In this connection it is necessary to remember that the previous enquiry was not directed against the appellant as such, and he was certainly not in the position of an accused in the said enquiry. In this connection it is necessary to remember that the previous enquiry was not directed against the appellant as such, and he was certainly not in the position of an accused in the said enquiry. In fact, as we have already indicated, the result of the said enquiry was that the appellant was absolved from any complicity in the commission of the offence, and the only criticism made against him was that he was slack in his supervision, that is why he was transferred. In such a case, even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission it is open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admissions without holding a formal enquiry as required by the rules. But apart from this consideration, if the statements made by the appellant do not amount to a clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt, failure to hold a formal enquiry would certainly constitute a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against him". (emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) IT is the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to hold or not to hold any enquiry having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, an admission may not in all cases do away with the requirement of holding an enquiry. The admission must be clear, plain, positive and unmistakable statement in terms of the lapse charged against the delinquent employee. In the instant case, whether the delinquent has admitted his guilt in his defence statement is the moot question that requires to be answered and that decides the fate of this case. To answer this precise question, we will have to go into facts to find out whether there is any admission of guilt in terms of the allegations made in the charge memo. ( 12 ) IN the charge memo, dated 24-12-1990, the respondent-Bank had alleged that the charge-sheeted Officer had misutilised the cancard facility extended to him by the bank and failed to remit the amounts and further on the date of issuance of charge memo, the liability under the cancard is in a sum of Rs, 8,604. 88 ps. ( 12 ) IN the charge memo, dated 24-12-1990, the respondent-Bank had alleged that the charge-sheeted Officer had misutilised the cancard facility extended to him by the bank and failed to remit the amounts and further on the date of issuance of charge memo, the liability under the cancard is in a sum of Rs, 8,604. 88 ps. Secondly, it is alleged that charge-sheeted officer was instructed to regularise the account vide their letters dated 27-11-1989, 13-12-1989 and 18-1-1990 and in spite of receiving those letters, the delinquent employee failed to clear the outstanding liability under the cancard issued to him and the above actions would amount to gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, clauses (d) and (m) of canara Bank Service Code. ( 13 ) PETITIONER in his defence statement, dated 29-12-1990 admits utilising the cancard facility and further states that "the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet has been paid in full on 12-12-1990 much before this charge-sheet issued. After clearing the amount, I had informed the Divisional Manager, Canara bank, in writing vide my letter dated 12-12-1990, to the effect that I have cleared the entire liability against my name outstanding in my cancard with a request to view the matter leniently". Now the question is, is there an 'admission' and if there is admission, is it admission of guilt or is it admission of fact by the charge-sheeted Officer to dispense with the enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority as provided under the Service code of Canara Bank. First charge is that the delinquent employee after utilising the cancard facility failed to remit the amount and the liability as on the date of the charge memo is rs. 8,604. 88 ps. Now let us see whether the delinquent admits this charge as it is or with any variation. The delinquent employee in his reply asserts that the amount mentioned in the charge memo has been paid in full much before the issuance of the charge memo. The delinquent only admits the utilisation of the cancard facility but does not accept any liability under the cancard. In my view, there is neither an admission of fact nor admission of guilt by the charge-sheeted Officer. The delinquent only admits the utilisation of the cancard facility but does not accept any liability under the cancard. In my view, there is neither an admission of fact nor admission of guilt by the charge-sheeted Officer. Insofar as second charge of wilful disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the higher authorities is concerned, the delinquent only says that he had clarified in writing the reason for delay in remittance and this explanation cannot be construed as admission of guilt of disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of higher authorities. In my view, where the fault is not accepted in an unqualified language in terms of the offence alleged in the charge memo or substantially all the facts which constitutes the charge, the enquiry would be necessary and in a case of this nature, it cannot be said that holding of an enquiry is just the empty formality and can be dispensed with invoking Clause 9 (1) (f) of Service Code. In my view, the departmental enquiry is not an empty formality but a serious proceedings to give an opportunity to the charge-sheeted Officer to meet the charge and prove his innocence. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there was no admission of guilt by the charge-sheeted Officer, hence the view taken by disciplinary and the Appellate Authority that there was clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unqualified admission entailing them to impose punishment without conducting any enquiry cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) ONE more aspect which requires to be noticed is the decision in Bharat Earth Movers Limited v Arokiyam and another, on which reliance was placed by learned Counsel for respondents. That was a case where workman was absent for more than 10 consecutive days without obtaining the prior permission or getting the leave sanctioned from the higher authorities. The workman had admitted his absence before the enquiry committee. However, the Tribunal took the view that if there was leave to the credit of the workman, for the mere asking by the workman when he returns to duty from the long period of absence, he would ipso facto be entitled to the grant of such leave and that the absence from work was of no consequence and did not amount to misconduct. This view of the tribunal was not accepted by this Court and the Court was pleased to hold that since the workman had admitted his absence in the statement before the enquiry committee and in the light of admission, no further proof on facts was required. In my view, the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision would not assist the respondent-Bank since I have taken the view that the charge-sheeted Officer in his defence statement has not admitted the lapses alleged in the charge memo. ( 15 ) SINCE, I Intend to set aside the impugned orders on the ground that the orders are made without any enquiry, the other issue, namely whether the lapses alleged in the memo would amount to misconduct or not within the meaning of Chapter XI, regulation 3, clauses (d) and (m) of Canara Bank Service Code is not adverted to in the course of this order. Charge-sheeted officer is at liberty to take up this issue before the Enquiry officer/disciplinary Authority if the bank desires to proceed with the enquiry. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated, petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders dated 27-5-1991 and 28-1-1991 passed by Appellate and Disciplinary Authority respectively are set aside, reserving liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed with the domestic enquiry from the stage, defect is noticed by this Court in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in the course of this order. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .