- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh high court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The respondent was the Branch Manager in the State Bank of India, Bhopal branch. A disciplinary inquiry was held against him in respect of six charges. The Enquiry officer held charges 1 and 5 established but held that charges 2, 3, 4 and 6 were not established. After perusing the report of the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority agreed with the Enquiry Officer that charges 1 and 5 are established and charges 3 and 4 are not established. So far as charge 2 is concerned he disagreed with the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority held that the said charge to have been fully established. So far as charge 6 is concerned, he again disagreed with the Enquiry Officer and held it partially established. Accordingly, he imposed the punishment of removal from service by an order dated 8/5/1984. The respondent filed an appeal to the appellate authority prescribed by the service regulations. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 25/1/1985 under the following order: "With reference to your appeal dated 31/8/1984, we have to advise that the said appeal was placed by us before the Local Board, the appellate authority, on 25/1/1985. We further advise that the Board in the meeting held on the aforesaid date, resolved as under: "the BOARD considered at length the facts of the case including the fact that the disciplinary authority has differed from the findings of the inquiring authority in respect of two charges. After having considered the appeal and other relevant papers and having applied their minds, the Board concluded that there are no grounds to sustain the appeal and accordingly RESOLVED that the order of the disciplinary authority be upheld and that the appeal made by Shri S. S. Koshal, be dismissed. "
(3.) The respondent then approached the High court by way of a writ petition, wherein he urged three grounds viz. , (1 [n]on-supply of copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, (2 the failure to give a fresh notice to him when the appellate authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on some of the charges, and (3 the fact that the appellate authority passed a non-speaking order in violation of the principles of natural justice.;