S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Both the appellants as also the respondent have filed these appeals being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 5.1.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ applications filed by the writ petitioners/respondents were disposed of directing: "The final order has not yet been passed. In that background and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was under a misconception that no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against him and in order to give him an opportunity to prove innocent, I have to give appropriate directions, although the petitioner has not yet answered the charge-sheet, but those must be such which will do complete justice to the parties. In those circumstances, I allow the writ application to the extent as follows : (a) Clause (c) of the suspension order dated 19th March, 1999 is struck down. It is made clear that until the petitioner is dismissed or discharged from service, he shall be paid his salaries and allowances to which the petitioner was entitled to immediately prior to 19th March, 1999; (b) The respondents, which shall include the transferee bank, though shall be at liberty to pass the final order, but shall grant a further opportunity to the petitioner to submit an answer to the charge-sheet specifying a date by which such answer has to be given. In the event, such answer is given by the petitioner, the matter must be decided afresh after holding a fresh enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice; (c) In the event, on the basis of the enquiry report already made, the petitioner's services are terminated, from the date of such termination and until the matter is re-decided in terms of this order, it shall not be obligatory on the part of the respondent Bank to pay any salary to the petitioner."
(2.) Mr. Hirak Mitra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Bank, inter alia, submitted that having regard to the grave charges levelled against the writ petitioner and further having regard to the fact that their contentions in the writ petitions having been rejected by the learned trial Judge, he committed an error in issuing the aforementioned directions. According to the learned Counsel, the charges levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. It was pointed out that despite the fact that the charges against them were grave, they did not even participate in the domestic enquiry despite notice. According to Mr. Mitter, they had no mis-conception in their mind, as to whether they are required to participate in disciplinary proceedings and as such the impugned order has been passed on a wrong premise. According to the learned Counsel neither any case of misconception was made out nor any argument in relation thereto was advanced and, thus, the impugned order must be held to be bad in law.
(3.) The writ petitioners were working in the Sikkim Bank Limited which by reason of a scheme of amalgamation made by the Reserve Bank of India vested in the appellant Bank.;