VYSYA BANK LTD Vs. M NAMADEVA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, since the first respondent had entered caveat, the petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.

(2.) These two writ petitions are by the same petitioner against two orders passed by the second respondent in Reference No.22/89, In W.P. No. 17495/93, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18-8-1992 passed by the second respondent, answering the preliminary issue against the petitioner, and, the order dated 5-3-1993 directing the petitioner to pay the first respondent 50% of gross salary with effect from 1-10-1992 as an interim-relief, is sought to be quashed in W.P. No. 17496/93.

(3.) Sri B.C. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the validity of the order impugned in W.P. No. 17496/93 is dependent upon the validity of the order impugned in W.P. No. 17495/93 by which the domestic enquiry has been set aside. Accordingly W.P. No. 17495/93 is taken up for consideration first.