Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : It is unfortunate that the once settled matter was sought to be reopened at the instance of the respondents and thereby causing harassment to the petitioner for no fault of his. The brief background of the case was that the petitioner who was appointed as a Clerk on 22-4-1981 was issued with the chargesheet, dated 13-12-1997, in which it was alleged that he unauthorisedly made fraudulent debit entries totalling Rs. 75, 500/- in the S.B. A/c No. 40723 of one Master Kaushik and misappropriated the said amount. It was stated therein that by virtue of the said conduct of the petitioner, it amounted to commission of gross misconduct falling within paragraphs 17.5(d) and 17.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. It is relevant to note that the said chargesheet, dated 13-12-1997 was issued by one Thiru. R. Sudarsanan in his capacity as the disciplinary authority. On submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the said disciplinary authority himself held an enquiry and he submitted his findings on 12-7-1999 holding that none of the allegations levelled against the petitioner was proved. He, therefore, concluded that the petitioner was innocent and that he was only made a scapegoat. Thereafter, when the defence representative wrote to the first respondent Bank on 7-8-1999 for the reinstatement of the petitioner, a letter came to be issued on 9-9-1999 at the instance of one Thiru. S. S. Sharma, Deputy General Manager also claiming to be the disciplinary authority, stating that the action initiated against the petitioner fell under the category of composite cases, as it involved both officer employees and award staff and, therefore, the said case was entrusted to him in his capacity as disciplinary authority. It was further stated in the said communication that on going through the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer Thiru. R. Sudarsanan, he observed that relevant witnesses were omitted to be examined and relevant documents were also omitted to be marked in the enquiry proceedings. According to Thiru. S. S. Sharma, in his opinion, a fresh enquiry was required for examining relevant witnesses/documents for arriving at appropriate findings in this matter. In that view, Thiru. Sharma entrusted the case to one Thiru. N. Krishnamoorthy for holding a fresh enquiry. According to Thiru. S. S. Sharma, in his opinion, a fresh enquiry was required for examining relevant witnesses/documents for arriving at appropriate findings in this matter. In that view, Thiru. Sharma entrusted the case to one Thiru. N. Krishnamoorthy for holding a fresh enquiry. When a detailed reply to the said letter was addressed on behalf of the petitioner on 27-9-1999 to the Chairman of the first respondent Bank, Thiru. S. S. Sharma, taking a sudden 'U' turn, by his letter dated 29-10-1999 addressed to the petitioner, expressed that his letter dated 9-9-1999 stood cancelled and that he would hear further from the previous disciplinary authority Thiru. R. Sudarsanan. Thereafter, when the impugned communication, dated 3-5-2000 came to be issued, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by way of this Writ Petition.In this context, it is also relevant to point out that under the procedure prescribed for taking disciplinary action, it is provided that the disciplinary authority can either conduct the enquiry himself or appoint any other officer as Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Time and again, it has been repeatedly pointed out by the Courts that actions at the instance of the management with a view to some how or other fix an employee even after the conclusion of the detailed enquiry in which the concerned delinquent was found innocent, should not be proceeded with. It is unfortunate that a public sector bank of very wide set up like that of the first respondent should resort to such an extremely unwarranted action against the petitioner. The present attempt of the respondents only demonstrates the arbitrary move of the first respondent bank on part of its vengeantful action against the petitioner to do away with him irrespective of its own disciplinary authority giving a clean chit to the petitioner after holding an elaborate enquiry in this case. On a perusal of the materials placed before me, I find that the disciplinary authority conducted the enquiry on 1-2-1999, 31-3-1999 and 1-4-1999 when two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and as many as 11 documents were filed on its side. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer analysed the evidence threadbare and gave his conclusions by adducing elaborate reasons as to why he was not able to hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer analysed the evidence threadbare and gave his conclusions by adducing elaborate reasons as to why he was not able to hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Further, the Enquiry Officer, after holding that the petitioner was innocent, also made an observation that he was made a scapegoat. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents were deprived of the relevant materials when the proceedings were initiated originally against the petitioner, in order to justify their present action for reopening the enquiry. In any case, it is not in dispute, that there is absolutely no provision for either review or for reopening the enquiry, available in the regulations relating to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A perusal of the subsequent communications commencing from 9-9-1999 only disclose the utmost casual manner in which the first respondent bank has dealt with the case of the petitioner. When Thiru. S. S. Sharma in his communication dated 9-9-1999 wanted to reopen the enquiry by giving a go-by to the earlier findings of Thiru. R. Sudarsanan and when the illegality was pointed out at the instance of the petitioner in the communication dated 27-9-1999 Thiru. S. S. Sharma by a one line proceedings dated 29-10-1999 came forward to cancel his earlier communication dated 9-9-1999 and stated that the petitioner would hear from the earlier disciplinary authority Thiru. R. Sudarsanan in due course. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings came to be issued at the instance of Thiru. R. Sudarsanan stating that upon consideration of the entire materials consequent to the reversion of the case to him as disciplinary authority, he could now come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. I am at a loss to understand as to under what provision of law, the second respondent was empowered to issue the impugned proceedings. Even assuming that he had the necessary authority to reopen the enquiry, it is not known how the findings issued by Thiru. R. Sudarsanan running to several pages after due analysis of the various materials placed before him could be just like that thrown overboard and a conclusion reached holding that the charges were proved by writing just three sentences without disclosing as to how the earlier conclusion reached by the very same officer was not properly reached. R. Sudarsanan running to several pages after due analysis of the various materials placed before him could be just like that thrown overboard and a conclusion reached holding that the charges were proved by writing just three sentences without disclosing as to how the earlier conclusion reached by the very same officer was not properly reached. The above factors go to show, that the first respondent bank has absolutely no respect for any rule or law in the matter of taking disciplinary action against its employees. Such conduct at the instance of the first respondent bank is highly reprehensible and deserves to be condemned. It is high time that the authorities of the first respondent bank should raise up to the occasion and devote utmost concentration in matters of disciplinary action against employees instead of handling it in such a light hearted manner inasmuch as the ultimate result of such disciplinary action may some time even result in total deprivation of the livelihood of the concerned employees.In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the impugned proceedings are not valid in law, the same is liable to be set aside. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the division bench Judgment of this Honourable Court rendered in W.A. 603 of 1991 (The Kancheepuram Co-operative House Mortgage Society Ltd., Kanchipuram v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras-6 and others dated 10-6-1991 wherein our Division Bench has categorically held that such kind of repeated disciplinary enquiries cannot be held against a charge-sheeted employee when once in the first instance in an enquiry they were found to be innocent. Applying the ratio of the abovesaid division bench judgment to the case on hand, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable. The order impugned in this Writ Petition is therefore, set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 5, 000/-. The first respondent bank is directed to reinstate the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.