The writ appeal was partly allowed on 5.12.1989 permitting a further enquiry being held.
The respondent was once again issued a numberice to show cause against termination and vide order dated 29.10.1991 he was once again directed to be dismissed from service.
On 26th July, 1988 the respondent was served with a numberice under Section 20 1 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules requiring him to show cause why his services should number be terminated.
On 4.4.1989 he was ordered to be dismissed from service.
Putting in issue the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka which was heard by a learned single Judge who vide order dated 5.12.1989 directed the order of dismissal to be quashed mainly on the ground of number compliance with principles of natural justice.
In its judgment dated 5.12.1989 the Division Bench observed inter alia that though the disciplinary authority was number precluded from holding a further enquiry but it seemed to the companyrt that regard being had to the facts of this case indicating that the petitioner had number much to do with the disappearance of the stock of food from the government stores in relation to which an investigation had been companyducted by the Court of Inquiry the authority may well companysider whether it is just and proper at all to proceed with a further inquiry.
The Union of India preferred a writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge.
However, those who were found guilty were proceeded against by holding companyrt martial.
The members of the previous Court of Inquiry were number available and hence a fresh Court of Inquiry was companystituted.
However, a further inquiry was held.
Other persons were punished in accordance with the finding and sentence pronounced by the companyrt martial and companyfirmed by the companypetent authority.
Mainly it was the lack of supervision that was attributed to the respondent.
A writ appeal preferred by Union of India has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the high companyrt on 18.6.1997 which is sought to be impugned by filing this petition for special leave.
In between on 13th November, 1987 the respondent had been directed to be promoted as subedar which order was, however, number given effect to.
The respondent gave a reply.
The respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned single Judge of the high companyrt who has directed the impugned order of dismissal from service to be quashed.
No such action was initiated against the respondent.
C. Lahoti, J. LITTTTTTTJ Respondent, K. Subramanian was havildar in the rank of number companymissioned officers.
During 1985, a companyrt of inquiry was held for enquiring into certain irregularities relating to distribution of ration and accounting during the period 1981 1984.
The name of the respondent also figured in the inquiry.
