BINGDON SYIEMLIEH Vs. MUKUL JEISHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner approached this court by way of a contempt petition. The whole issue involved as both the petitioner as well as the contemnor respondents got confused by the judgment passed by this court in WP(C) No. 56(SH) of 2009 wherein, the learned Single Judge of this court had quashed the dismissal order dated 05.02.2008 as well as the resolution of the appellate authority dated 21.08.2008 and order for reinstatement of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated. But, the whole confusion arises at the last Para. The learned Single Judge of this court has mentioned "It shall, however, be open to the Bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL Ltd. Versus B. Karunakar, : (1993) 4 SCC 727".

(2.) MR . S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner argued that, as per his understanding, a fresh inquiry should start from the stage of furnishing the inquiry report, and no fresh inquiry to be held from inception.

(3.) I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 56(SH) of 2009 wherein, it appears that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry was totally faulty and against the principle of natural justice. Hence, he could not accept the earlier inquiry report and came to the conclusion and ordered for reinstatement.