Amarendra Nath Sen, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) In March, 1948 the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Head Office of the Imperial Bank of India. The State Bank of India was constituted in 1955 by the State Bank of India Act (Act No. 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 contained in the said Act. Under Section 7 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 the appellant's services were transferred to State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). In February, 1961 the appellant was transferred to Dinhata Pay Office of the Bank in the District of Coochbehar. In December, 1961 the appellant was served with a show cause notice on a charge of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2339-63 belonging to the bank. On the 23rd February, 1962 the Staff Superintendent of the Bank caused a charge-sheet to be served on the appellant. On the 19th Feb. (sic), 1962 the appellant replied to the said charge-sheet. An enquiry officer was duly appointed to enquire into the charges against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer on the conclusion of the enquiry made a report holding the appellant guilty. Thereafter in July, 1962 the appellant was served with another notice asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment of his dismissal from service. On the 21st of November, 1962 the appellant submitted his representation to the second show cause notice against the proposed punishment. The appellant was also given an opportunity to make an oral representation. On the 31st December, 1962 the appellant was dismissed from service.
(3.) 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 the writ petition filed by the appellant two principal contentions were raised. The first contention urged was that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice in the matter of enquiry proceedings, and the second contention was that the officer who had dismissed him from service was not competent to dismiss him.;