JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in APOT No. 363 of 2007.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-

The respondent was working as a Clerk with the appellant-Bank at Calcutta. The respondent was issued a charge-sheet for short deposit of Rs.36,990.53. An enquiry was instituted against him and he was found guilty and consequently he was dismissed from service. The respondent aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.

4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer was biased and the proceedings were conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent respondent. The entire proceedings except the charge-sheet were quashed. The appellants herein were granted an opportunity to proceed with the matter de novo on the same charge-sheet.

5. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Appellate Court with slight modification of the order affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.

6. The appellant-Bank proceeded against the respondent de novo appointing an enquiry officer. The second enquiry ultimately revealed that there has been a loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.9,662.46 only and not Rs.36,990.53. The enquiry officer held that the charges have been proved. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondent was served with a copy of the enquiry report. The respondent filed detailed explanation against the enquiry report. However, the second show cause notice was issued by the appellant-Bank again proposing punishment of dismissal from service.

7. The respondent filed the second writ petition which came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge who granted liberty to the appellant-Bank to proceed with the dismissal proceedings and to pass a final order. The respondent was again dismissed from service. On perusal of the said dismissal order, the learned Single Judge found a number of infirmities in the order.

8. The court observed that the disciplinary authority without dealing with the issues raised by the respondent rejected the contentions by observing them as ‘irrelevant’. According to the disciplinary authority, the explanation offered by the respondent on enquiry report was not satisfactory.

9. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the observations made in the earlier judgment as well as the second enquiry report came to the conclusion that the original charge of defalcation of Rs.36,990.53 had been whittled down to Rs.9,662.46. Thus, it has been observed that there has been a dilution of the charge to a substantial extent. The learned Single Judge observed that it might be possible that if there was a third enquiry formed the amount might have been lesser. This according to the learned Single Judge would lead to the conclusion that there is likelihood of faulty accounting system. A request was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to produce the audit report wherein the discrepancy had surfaced. It was submitted that if the report is produced it would show that the respondent was given a clean chit by the audit officials. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that an opportunity should be given to the delinquent to prefer an appeal from the final order and directed that the Appellate Authority may go into the question afresh in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The respondent deposited the sum of Rs.9,662.46 with the bank. This was a pre-condition of filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to grant personal hearing to the respondent.

10. The Division Bench observed that despite orders of the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Authority has not decided the case according to the observations of the court. The learned Single Judge had gone t