JUDGMENT

BHARUCHA, J.—Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. The appellant was employed by the respondent. He was charge-sheeted for having granted bank loans to a large number of persons without proper documentation and without verifying their credit worthiness and also with having obtained illegal gratification in that connection. An enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer made a report holding the appellant guilty. Upon the basis of the enquiry report the appellant was dismissed from service.

4. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Patna (being Writ Petition No. C.W.J.C. No. 1979 of 1988) impugning the dismissal. The High Court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated July 8, 1988. The enquiry, the court concluded, could not be held to be proper and in accordance with law. Consequently, the order of dismissal was set aside. The High Court observed:

"This does not mean that the petitioner should be go scot-free. He must face enquiry. Sufficient time has already lapsed. The enquiry must be concluded as early as possible. The petitioner will appear before the enquiring officer (to be nominated in the meantime) at Patna on August 2, 1988 and the prosecution will produce the witnesses examined on his behalf for cross-examination. After the cross-examination is over the petitioner will also produce the witnesses when he may like to enquire. This should be done without any adjournment and the proceeding should be conducted day to day so that it may be concluded as early as possible. With this observation this writ application is disposed of."

5. The same Enquiry Officer then permitted the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses produced in support of the charge and to examine his own witnesses. He made a report dated March 27, 1989 in which he held nine charges against the appellant to be proved, one to be partly proved and one not proved. The disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report, passed an order dated October 23, 1989, dismissing the appellant from service.

6. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal dated October 23, 1989 on the ground that the enquiry upon the basis of which it had been passed had not been conducted as required by the order of the High Court dated July 8, 1988. He also challenged it upon the ground that he had not been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. The High Court rejected the writ petition. It held that the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan {(1991) 1 SCC 588 did not cover an order of dismissal that had been passed before the said judgment was delivered. Insofar as the enquiry report was concerned, the High Court took the view that the Enquiry Officer had allowed the appellant to participate in the proceedings as also to cross-examine witnesses and he had considered all relevant aspects on the record.

7. It will be recalled that the High Court by the judgment and order dated July 8, 1988 had held that the earlier enquiry was not proper and in accordance with law and had quashed the order of dismissal dated February 14, 1987 based thereon. It had directed that the appellant should face an enquiry whereat the prosecution would produce the witnesses it had examined on its behalf for cross-examination by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant could produce such witnesses as he desired. It is the submission of learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer had in the second enquiry report relied upon the findings of the earlier enquiry, since quashed, and that he had not permitted the appellant to examine three necessary witnesses in support of his case. There had, therefore, been no real enquiry as contemplated by the High Courts order dated July 8, 1988 and that, therefore, the dismissal order passed upon the basis of the second enquiry report shoul