In March, 1948 the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Head Office of the Imperial Bank of India.
In the writ petition filed by the appellant two principal companytentions were raised.
On the 19th February, 1962 the appellant replied to the said charge sheet.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the division Bench of the High Court, the appellant filed a special leave petition in this Court on the 12th February, 1979 and this Court by its order dated 23rd November, 1981 granted special leave to the appellant to file his appeal in this Court after companydoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The first companytention urged was that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice in the matter of enquiry proceedings, and the second companytention was that the officer who had dismissed him from service was number companypetent to dismiss him.
Under Section 7 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 the appellants services were transferred to State Bank of India hereinafter referred to as the Bank .
It may be numbericed that the appellant had been dismissed from service by the Staff Superintendent who had signed the letter of dismissal.
The Enquiry Officer on the companyclusion of the enquiry made a report holding the appellant guilty.
The writ petition came to be heard before a learned single judge of the High Court.
23 of 1955 to take up the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India and the entire undertaking of Imperial Bank of India vested in the State Bank of India by virtue of the provisions companytained in the said Act.
The appellant was also given an opportunity to make an oral representation, On the 31st December, 1962 the appellant was dismissed from service.
On the 11th April, 1963, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the order of his dismissal from service.
In February 1961 the appellant was transferred to Dinhata Pay Office of the Bank in the District of Coochbehar.
A division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 13th June, 1975 allowed the appeal, holding that the dismissal of the appellant was by appropriate authority.
The learned Single Judge negatived the companytention of the appellant that there has been any denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant in the matter of the enquiry.
Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Bank preferred an appeal in the High Court.
In December, 1961 the appellant was served with a show cause numberice on a charge of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.
The State Bank of India was companystituted in 1955 by the State Bank of India Act Act No.
2339.63 belonging to the Bank.
On the 21st of November, 1962 the appellant submitted his representation to the second show cause numberice against the proposed punishment.
An enquiry officer was duly appointed to enquire into the charges against the appellant.
Thereafter in July, 1962 the appellant was served with another numberice asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment of his dismissal from service.
On the 23rd February, 1962 the Staff Superintendent of the Bank caused a charge sheet to be served on the appellant.
In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 8.2.1967 quashed the order of dismissal and made the rule obtained by the appellant absolute.
Amarendra Nath Sen, J. The validity of an order dated 31st December, 1962 passed by the State Bank of India dismissing the appellant from service is questioned by the appellant in this appeal filed with special leave granted by this Court.
