Accordingly the dismissal order was quashed and set aside Appellant was directed to reinstate respondent number1 with full back wages.
It is this order of the High Court which is brought in challenge by the appellant.
Respondent No.1s statutory appeal before the appellate authority failed.
His writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the authorities had number given adequate opportunity to respondent number1 to defend as he was number permitted to examine witnesses number was he supplied documents asked for by him.
After a departmental enquiry the respondent number1 was dismissed from service on 29th November 1985.
He thereafter filed writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
It is difficult to appreciate how the said statement companyld be said to have been brought about by any companyrcion as tried to be submitted on behalf of respondent number1.
Respondent No.1 was an employee of the appellant.
He was alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.21,094.80.
Nothing companyld be pointed out to us by learned companynsel for respondent to companytrovert this observation of the High Court.
21,000/ and odd and which companyld number be deposited by him along with his associate on account of their carelessness and fault.
The said misconduct was detected on 8th December 1984.
Under these circumstances the subsequent request by respondent number1 to examine four more witnesses was rightly companysidered by the Enquiry Officer to be an after thought and accordingly such request was rightly rejected.
B Majmudar.
J. Leave granted.
By companysent of learned advocates of parties the appeal was finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.
