S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated December 15, 2001 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated February 1, 2002 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. By the order dated December 15, 2001, the respondent No. 2 has advised the disciplinary authority to consider the matter de novo for fresh enquiry and pursuant thereof by the order dated February 1, 2002, the respondent No. 1 has directed for re-enquiry in the case.
(2.) Heard Sri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned advocate who appears for respondents. Affidavits exchanged between the parties have been perused.
(3.) Brief facts of the case for the purposes of decision can be summarised. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Accountant/Cash Clerk in the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the bank). At the time when the petitioner was posted as identified Head Cashier at Kandharpur Branch in district, Bareilly, he was served with a charge-sheet on January 10/15, 2000 and the enquiry proceeded. It is claimed that the enquiry was concluded on December 23, 2000 in which the charges against the petitioner were found not to be proved. The Inquiry Officer's report came to the respondent No. 1, but he instead of taking any decision in the matter, he appears to have written a letter to the respondent No. 2 (Chief Manager, Vigilance), Central Office of the Bank stating that the petitioner be exonerated as none of the allegations or the charges have been proved. However, the respondent No. 2 by order/letter dated December 15, 2001 (annexure I to the writ petition) advised the respondent No. 2 for transferring the petitioner to another district/region and also for proceeding in the matter de novo. It is thereafter, the order by respondent No. 1 dated February 1, 2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) came to be passed by which, he directed for re-enquiry in the case. Thus the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders i.e. December 15, 2001 and February 1, 2002 has come up to this Court.;