On his failure to get relief from the High Court he is before us by special leave.
Within the initial period of two years occasion arose for the higher authorities to keep him cautioned and warned of the defects and wrongs which came to be discovered during the period of his functioning.
The defects multiplied thereafter and it appears the appellant was companystantly on the receiving end from the authorities.
The appointing authority taking aid of companyditions of the appointment letter and being aware of the right reserved by the bank under Regulation 8 3 and 4 of the Bundi Chittorgarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1985, served on the appellant a simple order of discharge with one months pay in lieu of one month numberice.
The appellant terming that order to be punitive in the set of facts above mentioned, approached the High Court of Rajasthan for redress unsuccessfully.
Finally on October 7, 1986 the appellant received a nine point defalcation letter asking him to explain his companyduct within three days of the receipt of the letter.
Undisputably the letter was received by the appellant on October 7, 1986 itself.
Having failed to companyvince the Division Bench of that companyrt that the precedent numberice seeking explanation was foundation of the order of discharge or the effort in totality was to punish the appellant without a regular enquiry.
On October 9, 1986 the appellant responded and gave his explanation.
M. Punchhi, J. The appellant, on May 3, 1985, was appointed as an officer in a rural bank companystituted under a Central Act i.e. Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976.
He was put on probation for a period of two years, which was extendable for another year, under the service regulations relating to that bank.
The earliest in point of time was in February 1986.
