NEW BANK OF INDIA Vs. N P SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Counsel heard.

(2.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the decision of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing summarily Regular Second Appeal No. 405 of 1990 in that Court.

(3.) The relevant facts can be stated very shortly. At the relevant time respondent No. 1 was an officer being the Manager in the Hardwar Branch of the appellant Bank, a Government of India Undertaking. On April 2, 1982 a show cause notice was served on respondent No. 1 in respect of several irregularities, lapses, acts, omissions and so on. On May 4, 1882 respondent No. 1 submitted his reply to the said show cause notice denying the charges made against him and asking for the holding of an enquiry into the allegations. On July 17, 1984 respondent No. 1 was promoted from scale II to scale HI by the appellant. It appears from the record that disciplinary action was contemplated against respondent No. 1 but in November 1984, the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against respondent No. 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 conducted and respondent No. 1 was one of the officers interviewed for promotion. On April 27, 1988 a charge-sheet was served on respondent No. 1. On May 27, 1988 an enquiry was ordered against him and the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Government of India, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On June 30, 1988, respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Second Class, Jallandhar for a declaration that the order dated April 27,1988 by which respondent No. 1 was served with charge-sheet was illegal and in violation of the Service Regulations and unsustainable in law and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge-sheet. One of the main contentions urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 in the said suit was that by reason of the promotion granted to him from scale II to scale III on July 17,1984 as aforestated, which was after the irregularities and misconduct alleged against him had been committed and in view of the said promotion the appellant must be deemed to have condoned the earlier misconduct, if any, of respondent No. 1; and thereafter it was not open to the appellant to take any action against respondent No. 1 in respect of the said misconduct. This contention found favour with learned trial Judge who gave a declaration that the order serving the charge-sheet on respondent No. 1 was illegal and restrained the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge-sheet. 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 conclusions of the learned trial Judge. The second appeal against the decision of learned Additional District Judge was dismissed by the High Court and this is an appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court.