Judgment

KANIA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted. Counsel heard.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High court, dismissing summarily Regular Second Appeal No. 405 of 1990 in that court.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts can be stated very shortly.

( 4 ) AT the relevant time respondent 1 was an officer being the manager in the Hardwar Branch of the appellant Bank, a government of India Undertaking. On 2/04/1982 a show cause notice was served on respondent 1 in respect of several irregularities, lapses, acts, omissions and so on. On 4/05/1982 respondent 1 submitted his reply to the said show cause notice denying the charges made against him and asking for the holding of an enquiry into the allegations. On July 17, 1984 respondent 1 was promoted from Scale II to Scale III by the appellant. It appears from the record that disciplinary action was contemplated against respondent 1 but in November 1984, the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against respondent 1 were kept in abeyance as some of the allegations against him were under investigation by the central Bureau of Investigation (CBI ). On 11/03/1988 interviews for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV were conducted and respondent 1 was one ofthe officers interviewed for promotion. On 27/04/1988 a charge sheet was served on respondent 1. On 27/05/1988 an enquiry was ordered against him and the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, government of India, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On 30/06/1988, respondent I filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge, Second Class, Jallandhar for a declaration that the order dated 27/04/1988 by which respondent 1 was served with charge sheet was illegal and in violation of the Service Regulations and unsustainable in law and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge sheet. One of the main contentions urged on behalf of respondent 1 in the said suit was that by reason of the promotion granted to him from Scale II to Scale III on 17/07/1984 as aforestated, which was after the irregularities and misconduct alleged against him had been committed and in view of the said promotion the appellant must be deemed to have condoned the earlier misconduct, if any, of respondent 1; and thereafter it was not open to the appellant to take any action against respondent 1 in respect of the said misconduct. This contention found favour with learned trial Judge who gave a declaration that the order serving the charge sheet on respondent I was illegal and restrained the appellant and others from proceeding with the enquiry on the basis of the said charge sheet. An appeal was preferred by the appellant against the said order in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Jallandhar but it was dismissed as learned Additional District Judge accepted the reasoning and conclusions of the learned trial Judge. The second appeal against the decision of learned Additional District Judge was dismissed by the High court and this is an appeal directed against the judgment of the High court.

( 5 ) IT was submitted before us by Mr Pai, learned counsel for the appellant that the promotion granted to respondent 1 from Scale II to scale III on 17/07/1984, could not be regarded in law as condonation of the earlier acts of misconduct committed by respondent 1. It was urged by him that at that time no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against respondent 1 and in view of this, the appellant had no option but to consider respondent 1 for promotion for which he was entitled to be considered and to promote him if he was found fit for promotion. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr Rao, learned counsel for the respondent that the earlier acts of respondent I, even if they constituted misconduct, could not be relied upon to take any disciplinary action against respondent 1 because they were condoned by reason of