RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent -petitioner. The facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent - petitioner was appointed as a probationer with the appellant Bank by letter of appointment dated 2.2.1985 and his services were terminated on 14.8.1987 ostensibly by discharge simpliciter vide Annexupe 35 dated 14.8.1987 by enclosing three months emoluments in lieu of three months' notice as envisaged under the terms of appointment. Appeal against that order Annexure 35 was also dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Bank vide communication dated 18.3.1988. The other facts which have come on record are that the probation period of the petitioner which was initially for two years and could be extended by one year was extended by six months w.e.f. 11.2.1987. After the extension of period of probation, a chargesheet was served on the petitioner -respondent which was dated 29.4.1987 with the covering letter dated 4.5.1987 and while an enquiry was going on vigorously, the aforesaid termination order was made. No order of dropping the enquiry before termination was made. In other words, as on the date the termination order was passed, which was termination simpliciter, the enquiry against the charges levelled against the petitioner was already pending.
(3.) THE termination order was challenged by way of writ petition No. 4667 of 1989 by the petitioner, inter -alia, on the ground that the termination order was punitive in character and could not have been passed without holding an enquiry and finding him guilty of misconduct for which a chargesheet was already served on him.;