GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated August 31, 1987 by which a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by which an enquiry report and consequential order of dismissal were challenged. Fact s of the case briefly stated are as follows:
(2.) The writ petitioner/appellant started his career as a typist. He joined the Punjab National Bank Ltd., New Market, Calcutta Branch on March 13, 1945. On December 11, 1974 the became Manager of the Second Priority Cell at No.3, Chittaranjan Avenue. On May 2, 1977 a show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner. On October 3, 1977 he was placed under suspension. On November 21, 1977 a charge-sheet was issued to him. After departmental enquiry he was dismissed from service on October 19, 1979. The enquiry and the consequential dismissal were challenged by the writ petitioner which culminated in an order dated June 29, 1982 by which the entire disciplinary proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the Bank to issue a fresh charge-sheet if so advised. The suspension of the petitioner was directed to be deemed to continue until the Bank arrived at a decision. On October 25, 1983 a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner. Enquiry proceedings started which ultimately culminated in a report finding the writ petitioner guilty of some of the charges. On the basis thereof an order of dismissal dated December 31, 1985 was passed. It is this enquiry report and the order of dismissal, which is under challenge under the present writ petition.
(3.) The writ petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceeding and the order of dismissal principally on the following grounds: (a) Allegations of misconduct in terms of the Regulations of 1977 have been levied against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences which took place prior to the Regulations coming into force. (b) The writ petitioner was not allowed to take the assistance of a legal practitioner in the enquiry proceedings. (c) Neither copies of relevant documents were supplied nor was the petitioner granted opportunity to inspect the documents. (d) Part of the documents, relied upon by the petitioner, were declared irrelevant and one witness was not allowed to be examined without assigning any reason whatsoever. (e) At the conclusion of the evidence both the Presenting Officer and the writ petitioner were directed to file written submissions but no copy of the written submissions filed by the Presenting Officer was made available to the writ petitioner.;