Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, lends itself to a quick burial in view of the brief facts set out below.
(2.) The appellant has been an employee of the second respondent. A notice was issued to him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain items of misconduct imputed to him. The then secretary of the bank, Shirr Daljit Singh, enquired into the allegations. Thereafter, on April 1, 1975 the secretary issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his next increment should not be stopped by way of punishment. A reply was sent by the appellant by way of explanation and the secretary accepting the explanation dropped the proceedings by order dated April 9, 1975 (Annexure III). Thereafter, the Managing Director taking the view that Shri Daljit Singh, secretary, had no power to inflict punishment on the employees of the bank and that therefore the proceedings culminating in the exoneration of the appellant were in valid issued a fresh memorandum which concluded thus. "After considering the said enquiry report along with other relevant documents. I am provisionally of the view to impose upon you a penalty of dismissal from bank services. Before doing so, you are asked to show cause within 21 days from the receipt of this memorandum why on account of findings of the said Enquiry Officer, into the charges, you should not be dismissed from the bank services. In case no reply is received within the prescribed period, it will be presumed that you have no reply in this behalf and the proposed punishment will be imposed." The appellant was also suspended on the same date, viz., 7th July 1975.
(3.) Thereupon, a writ petition under Arts. 226/227 was moved by the appellant challenging the revival of the proceedings against him as illegal and opposed to natural justice.;