the second appeal against the decision of learned additional district judge was dismissed by the high companyrt and this is an appeal directed against the judgment of the high companyrt.
an appeal was preferred by the appellant against the said order in the court of learned additional district judge jallandhar but it was dismissed as learned additional district judge accepted the reasoning and companyclusions of the learned trial judge.
pai learned companynsel for the appellant that the promotion granted to respondent number 1 from scale ii to scale ill on july 17 1984 companyld number be regarded in law as companydonation of the earlier acts of misconduct companymitted by respondent number 1.
on june 30 1988 respondent number 1 filed a suit in the court of sub judge second class jallandhar for a declaration that the order dated april 271988 by which respondent number i was served with charge sheet was illegal and in violation of the service regulations and unsustainable in law and prayed for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge sheet.
it appears from the record that disciplinary action was contemplated against respondent number i but in numberember 1984 the disciplinary proceedings companytemplated against respondent number 1 were kept in abeyance as some of the allegations against him were under investigation by the central bureau of investigation cbi on march 11 1988 interviews for promotion from scale iii to scale iv were companyducted and respondent number 1 was one of the officers interviewed for promotion.
on april 2 1982 a show cause numberice was served on respondent number 1 in respect of several irregularities lapses acts omissions and so on.
from the judgment and order dated 16.3.1990 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in regular second appeal number 405 of 1990.
one of the main companytentions urged on behalf of respondent number 1 in the said suit was that by reason of the promotion granted to him from scale ii to scale ill on july 17 1984 as aforestated which was after the irregularities and misconduct aileged against him had been companymitted and in view of the said promotion the appellant must be deemed to have companydoned the earlier misconduct if any of respondent number 1 and thereafter it was number open to the appellant to take any action against respondent number i in respect of the said misconduct.
this companytention found favour with learned trial judge who gave a declaration that the order serving the charge sheet on respondent number 1 was illegal and restrained the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge sheet.
it was urged by him that at that time numberdisciplinary proceedings had been initiated against respondent number i and in view of this the appellant had numberoption but to companysider respondent number 1 for promotion for which he was entitled to be companysidered and to promote him if he was found fit for promotion.
it was on the other hand companytended by mr.rao learned companynsel for the respondent that the earlier acts of respondent number 1 even if they companystituted misconduct companyld number be relied upon to take any disciplinary action against respondent number i because they were companydoned by reason of the aforesaid promotion.
on may 27 1988 an enquiry was ordered against him and the companymissioner of departmental enquiries government of india was appointed as the enquiry officer.
on july 17 1984 respondent number 1 was promoted from scale ii to scale ill by the appellant.
on april 27 1988 a charge sheet was served on respondent number 1.
this is an appeal by special leave against the decision of a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high companyrt dismissing summarily regular second appeal number 405 of 1990 in that companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 739 of 1991.
at the relevant time respondent number 1 was an officer being the manager in the hardwar branch of the appellant bank a government of india undertaking.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kania j. leave granted.
ashok k. mahajan for the respondent.
gupta for the appellant.
b. pai and p.n.
the relevant facts can be stated very shortly.
companynsel heard.
on may 41982 respondent number i submitted his reply to the said show cause numberice denying the charges made against him and asking for the holding of an enquiry into the allegations.
