JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar. C.J.— Before the main writ appeal could be taken up for consideration on merits, learned Counsel for the Respondent H. Devaraju raised a preliminary Objection that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dated August 25, 2009 disposing of W.P. No. 31405/2004, having been passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the instant, writ appeal was not maintainable. In order to support his aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the Respondent in the first instance placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment rendered by a 5 Judges' Bench of this Court in Gurushanth Pattedar Vs. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and Another, AIR 2005 Kant 377 . Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the Respondent invited our attention to the conclusions drawn at paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench is being extracted hereunder: 4. Petitions are very often filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. When such is the case the Court will have to examine having regard to the nature of allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed therein as to whether the Petitioner wants the High Court to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 or its original jurisdiction under Article 226. There can be cases where a claim is made seeking to invoke the power of the High Court under both the Articles. For instance, an award of a Labour Court is sought to be challenged in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. If the challenge is limited only to the correctness of the award the Petitioner is obviously invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 because the cause has not been initiated for the first time in this Court. It had arisen before the Labour Court who gave its decision thereon in the form of an award, the correctness of which is challenged. It had arisen before the Labour Court who gave its decision thereon in the form of an award, the correctness of which is challenged. If in addition to the correctness of the award the Petitioner were to challenge the vires of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act or of any other provision or the very jurisdiction of Labour Court to pass the award, or on the ground that it suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, he is invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 as well and if such issues are decided by a learned single Judge the decision will be deemed to have been rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 226. This aspect has also been examined by their Lordships in Umaji's case (supra) in paragraph 106 of the judgment. However, the case before us is not a case of such a type because the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant very fairly conceded that he is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution before the learned single Judge. In addition to the aforesaid judgment our attention was also invited to a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Sri Vishnu Ganapathi Naik Vs. The Management of NWKRTC, ILR (2006) KAR 1863 and Another Full Bench judgment comprising of 7 Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Tammanna D. Battal and Ors. v. Ms Renuka R. Reddy and Ors. AIR 2009 Kar 119 . 2. It is not necessary for us to deal with the conclusions rendered in the later two judgments on account of the fact that the later two judgments only approved the conclusions recorded by this Court in Gurushanth Pattedar v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and Anr. (supra). It is therefore, imperative for us to determine the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on the observations recorded in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment (already extracted herein above). 3. (supra). It is therefore, imperative for us to determine the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on the observations recorded in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment (already extracted herein above). 3. In order to assail the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court, to the fact that the Respondent had not approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 31405/2004 to assail the award of the Labour Court, but had approached this Court to assail the punishment order inflicted on the Respondent by the Appellant Canara Bank. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the activities of the Canara Bank, and as such, the writ petition filed by the Respondent which was disposed by the learned single Judge (vide order dated August 25, 2009) could not be deemed to have been disposed of in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that W.P. No. 31405/2004 must be deemed to have been filed and decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the parties. We are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the judgments placed for our consideration is clearly misconceived because this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 31405/2004 did not have the occasion to examine an award rendered by the Labour Court. What was being examined by this Court was the validity of the order passed by the Canara Bank consequent upon the holding of departmental enquiry against the Respondent The Canara Bank on the culmination of a departmental enquiry had passed an order dismissing the Respondent from service. The said order had been assailed by him through W.P. No. 31405/2004 which was allowed on August 25, 2009. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are satisfied that the Respondent had approached this Court exclusively under the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said order had been assailed by him through W.P. No. 31405/2004 which was allowed on August 25, 2009. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are satisfied that the Respondent had approached this Court exclusively under the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus viewed, we find no merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent in so far as maintainability of the instant writ appeal is concerned. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant while assailing the order passed by lie learned single Judge invited this Court's attention to the statement made by the Respondent during the course of the departmental enquiry, wherein, pointed attention of this Court was invited to the response of the Respondent to two questions posed to him by the enquiring officer. The foresaid questions and answers are being extracted hereunder: EO: Do you admit the charges or deny the charges? CSE: I admit the charges unconditionally. My wife was not feeling well and I had to incur lot of expenditure. I was hard pressed for money to meet her medical expenses. I admit having removed the Gold Jewellery packet from the branch as detailed in the charge sheet. I have brought back the jewels and returned them to Bank. I have already admitted every thing in this regard before the investigation officer vide my letter dated April 27, 2001. EO: Even now I give you an opportunity to defend yourself in the case by availing the facility of Dr. Do you wish to avail the said facility in enquiry? CSE: I have admitted the charges on my part. I request you to dispense with the process of enquiry. I will abide by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. EO: Do you wish to add or say anything in your defence? CSE: I have already admitted the charges. I have also admitted the guilt before the IO and I have given him statement which is marked as MEX. 15. Please dispense with the enquiry. I was not issued with any charge sheet earlier. Sir, I have received appreciation letters for mobilising deposit. I committed the mistake cited in the charge sheet purely because of ill health of myself and my family and to meet medical expenses. I have honestly done my duty every day in the Bank expected of me. I was not issued with any charge sheet earlier. Sir, I have received appreciation letters for mobilising deposit. I committed the mistake cited in the charge sheet purely because of ill health of myself and my family and to meet medical expenses. I have honestly done my duty every day in the Bank expected of me. I assure you sir I will not commit such mistake in future. 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent having acknowledged and admitted his guilt before the enquiring officer, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to have gone into the factual aspect of the controversy so as to record a finding, that the charge had not been fully established against the Respondent. 7. In order to repudiate the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned Counsel for the Respondent informed us, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the Respondent prior to the issuance of a charge sheet on the basis of which he was eventually dismissed from service. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that observations recorded by the authority which had conducted the preliminary enquiry would be relevant to determine the veracity of the factual position. In so far as the aforesaid preliminary enquiry is concerned (the report whereof is available and the report of the instant paper book is Annexure C), while recording the conclusions in the said preliminary enquiry conducted, it was noted as under: The missing gold packets have been traced and successfully retrieved. However, from the records verified, the statements recorded and the discussion I had with the staff and other persons I would submit that the main reason for the loss of Gold Packets are as follows: 1. That the branch had not followed the prescribed systems and Procedures in operating the Double Lock. 2. That the Collapsible Gate attached to the Double Lock room was provided with an Ordinary lock with two keys which were kept attached to I and II set of keys by the respective Key Holders. 3. That the Key Holders handed over their respective set to the sub-staff to unlock/lock the Lock provided to the collapsible gate. 4. 2. That the Collapsible Gate attached to the Double Lock room was provided with an Ordinary lock with two keys which were kept attached to I and II set of keys by the respective Key Holders. 3. That the Key Holders handed over their respective set to the sub-staff to unlock/lock the Lock provided to the collapsible gate. 4. That no supervision was available in the branch at the time the collapsible gate was locked/unlocked by the sub-staff during the commencement of the office hours/closure of the office hours. 5. Lack of integrity on the part of Sri. Devaraju. The above reasons are the main reasons for the missing Gold packets from the banch. However, with regard to the statement given by Sri. Devaraju, I am of the opinion that even though, he has confessed having committed the theft, he has not given a true statement on the following aspects. 1. that how he found that the Safe containing gold packets was not locked by the key holder. 2. that he had lifted the Gold ornaments on April 16, 2001 and handed over the same to Sri. Nagaraju in two installments one on April 22, 2001 and Another on April 24, 2001 which has not been disclosed, despite repeated requests. Obviously he must have been given set of keys to open the collapsible gate provided to the Double Lock Room which must have been also utilised to open the safe containing the gold packets, or he must have observed that the key has not been locked by the Key Holder. As the second possibility appears to be very bleak, it would appear to me that he must have master minded the whole operation by using the keys given to him for unlocking the lock provided to collapsible gate. However, I have not been able to lay my hands to any evidence to support my views as to how the safe containing the gold packets were opening with the key. Based on the observations recorded by the authority vested with the preliminary investigation of the controversy, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that various discrepancies in the confessional statement made by the Respondent were highlighted, and that, the confessional statement made by the Respondent should not be taken as the final word to determine the guilt of the Respondent. 8. 8. In addition to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, so as to persuade this Court not to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is asserted that no evidence was led during the course of the departmental enquiry to establish how the Respondent entered the strong room, and thereafter, having entered the strong room, how he operated the locker, so as to take away the ornaments. 9. There is a third submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent (for the same purpose), namely, that the confessional statement made by the Respondent should not be accepted. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the Respondent invited our attention to Annexure R-1 appended to the objection statement filed by the Respondent himself. The aforesaid objection statement was rendered be Respondent H. Devaraju himself. It is pointed out therefrom, that although before the preliminary enquiry officer, as also before the enquiring officer, the stand adopted by the Respondent was, that the ornaments had been stolen to secure a loan so as to be able to treat his ailing wife, the statement made by the Respondent in Annexure R-1 was to the effect that the loan had been secured to purchase a site. It is therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that in view of the conflicting confessional statements, it was the onerous responsibility of the' enquiring officer to have established the guilt of the Appellant to the hilt; and having not done so by either establishing the manner in which he got into the strong room, and thereafter, the manner in which he retrieved the ornaments from the locker, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer should not be accepted, and that, the determination rendered by the learned single Judge should be upheld. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the rival parties on the merits of the claim. There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the Respondent himself admitted to his guilt on 3 occasions, firstly, before the preliminary (enquiring officer, secondly, before the enquiring officer, and thirdly, in his own statement of objections referred to herein above at Annexure R-1. In all the 3 statements given on 3 different occasions, he admitted his guilt of having stolen the gold ornaments from the locker of the bank. In all the 3 statements given on 3 different occasions, he admitted his guilt of having stolen the gold ornaments from the locker of the bank. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find hardly any justification to even consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. For the reasons recorded herein above, especially on account of the three independent statements of confession made on three different occasions, before three different authorities, by the Respondent acknowledging his guilt of having, stolen the gold ornaments from the locker of the bank, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in setting aside the finding recorded by the enquiring officer, and thereupon, in setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the Respondent. 11. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant writ appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge dated August 25, 2009 allowing the W.P. No. 31405/2004 is set aside. The proceedings conducted before the enquiring officer leading to the punishment of dismissal from service on the Respondent by order dated January 5, 2004 is accordingly upheld.