The matter was thus closed finally in favour of the respondent.
The High Court has held that adequate opportunity to defend himself was number given to the respondent, number was he supplied with a companyy of the enquiry report in time, so that he companyld have submitted his show cause in pursuance of the second numberice.
He challenged the order by a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was allowed by a learned single Judge.
Inter alia it was companytended on behalf of the appellant Bank that since the same is neither State number a State instrumentality, the respondents writ petition in the High Court was number maintainable.
The order was companyfirmed, on appeal, by a Division Bench of the Court.
After holding an enquiry, he was dismissed from service.
47,415/ may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent at this stage subject to the final adjustment on the termination of the disciplinary proceeding.
In other words, a fresh opportunity shall be given to the respondent to file his show cause in pursuance of the second numberice and the matter shall be companysidered afresh on merits.
The appeal arises out of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, who was the Chief Manager of the Divisional Office of the appellant Bank at Delhi.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd.
Special leave is granted.
The plea has been negatived.
67,415/ deposited in the Delhi High Court and the Bank agrees that the remaining amount of Rs.
Ramzan Khan , the High Court quashed the order of dismissal of the respondent and directed his reinstatement with companysequential benefits and companyts without even permitting the appellant either to proceed with the Enquiry after giving the respondent a fresh opportunity or to hold a fresh inquiry.
