It is patent that the order dated 8th July, 1988 companytemplated a fresh enquiry.
The appellant challenged the order of dismissal dated 23rd October, 1989 on the ground that the enquiry upon the basis of which it had been passed had number been companyducted as required by the order of the High Court dated 8th July, 1988.
This should be done without any adjournment and the proceed ing should be companyducted day to day so that it may be companycluded as early as possible.
The High Court rejected the writ petition.
The disciplinary authority, upon companysideration of the enquiry report, passed an order dated 23rd October, 1989, dismissing the appellant from service.
He also challenged it upon the ground that he had number been furnished with a companyy of the Enquiry Report.
The appellant was employed by the respondent.
At best, the examination in chief of the witnesses of the respondent companyld be said to have been allowed to be incorporated in the second enquiry proceedings.
C.W.J.C. No.
An en quiry was held.
It is the submission of learned companynsel on behalf of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer had in the second enquiry report relied upon the findings of the earlier enquiry, since quashed, and that he had number permitted the appellant to examine three necessary witnesses in support of his case.
Ramzan Khan, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 471, did number companyer an order of dismissal that had been passed before the said judgment was delivered.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.91 of the Patna High Court in C.WC.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The same Enquiry Officer then permitted the appellant to cross examine the witnesses produced in support of the charge and to examine his own witnesses.
Insofar as the enquiry report was companycerned, the High Court took the view that the Enquiry Officer had allowed the appellant to participate in the proceedings as also to cross examine witnesses and he had companysidered all relevant aspects on the record.
Upon the basis of the enquiry report the appellant was dismissed from service.
Thereafter, the appellant companyld produce such witnesses as he desired.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
With this observation this writ application is disposed of.
901 of 1993.
After the cross examination is over the petitioner will also produce the witnesses when he may like to enquire.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Patna being Writ Petition No.
He made a report dated 27th March, 1989 in which he held nine charges against the appellant to be proved, one to be partly proved and one number proved.
Having regard to the High Courts order dated 8th July, 1988, the Enquiry Officer was bound to companysider the material or, record afresh and number to take his earlier report into account and to say that he found numberreason to change that report.
The Enquiry Officer made a report holding the appellant guilty.
It held that the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd.
3430 of 1991.
by the appellant.
The High Court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 8th July, 1988.
He was chargesheeted for having granted bank loans to a large number of persons without proper documentation and without verifying their creditworthiness and also with having obtained illegal gratification in that companynection.
Ramaswamy and A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.
Sharan for the Appellant.
1979 of 1988 impugning the dis missal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J.Leave to appeal is granted.
It was also impermissible for him to have stated that the findings of the previous enquiry report remain as they are.
It will be recalled that the High Court by the judgment and order dated 8th July, 1988 had held that the earlier enquiry was number proper and in accordance with law and had quashed the order of dismissal dated 14th February, 1987 based thereon.
It had directed that the appellant should face an enquiry whereat the prosecution would produce the witnesses it had examined on its behalf for cross examination.
