1834/1986.
Thereafter the disciplinary authority accepting the enguiry report issued a further show cause numberice dated 13.8.1981 why the punishment of dismissal should bot be imposed upon him in the light of the enquiry report and findings thereon which were accepted by him.
The first respondent again challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge found that full opportunities were given to the first respondent to offer any explanation he wanted to offer and he was satisfied with the reasonable opportunity given to the first respondent in the light of the observarions of the Division Bench referred to above.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 12.6.1986 set aside the enquiry proceedings and companysequently allowed the writ petition with liberty to proceed against the first respondent afresh according to law.
The first respondent challenged the issuance of second show cause numberice itself by filling a writ petition.
1182 on the file of the High Court of Calcutta.
It must be numbered that alongwith this numberice, the companyy of the enquiry report was also enclosed.
The appellants number satisfied with the crder of the learned Single Judge preferred an appeal to the Division Bench in F.M.A.T. No.
The Division Bench by judgment and order dated 29.1.1987 modified the order of the learned Single Judge by upholding the disciplinary proceedings putto the state of issuance of second show cause numberice.
The first respondent aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition preferred F.M.A.T. No.
The first respondent then challenged the order of dismissal by moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, He withdrew the same as before the writ petition companyld be taken up for hearing, the final order dismissing the first respondent was passed by the Management.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.9.1993 passed in F.M.A.T. No.
Venkataswami.
After duly companysidering the representations, authority imposed a penalty of dismissal by order dated 7.3.1989.
A charge sheet was issued on 11.5.1981 against him calling upon the first respondent to show cause against the charges brought against him.
On receipt of reply to the show cause numberice a regular departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry officer submitted a report.
Heard Counsel on both sides.
J. Leave granted.
On the other hand, the firs respondent treated the show cause numberices as number in companyformity with the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of M.A.T. 1834 of 1986.
The first respondent was in the service of the appellant Bank.
