( 1 ) THIS Contempt Case was filed by the petitioner alleging that without complying with the orders passed by this Court in W. P. No. 16216 of 1996 dated 5-11-1996 fully, the respondent is trying to hold the disciplinary proceedings and the same amounts to flouting the orders of this Court.

( 2 ) HI this case, this Court is called upon to decide not only the issue whether the respondent-Bank flouted the orders of this Court or not but also whether this Court can interdict the disciplinary proceedings in the middest when a serious illegality came to its notice or the proceedings should be allowed to be completed ?

( 3 ) BY order dated 27-2-1997 notice before admission was given returnable by 13-3-1997. After receipt of the notice, respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the orders of this Court as many as 179 documents on which the Management intends to rely to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner were furnished, and also particulars of 24 missing vouchers were also furnished by the Bank through its letter dated 5-2-1997. With regard to 11 more documents, the Bank categorically stated that they are missing from the records of the Branch and in fact, a charge to that effect was framed against the petitioner and the same is subject-matter of the enquiry. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that it has violated the orders of this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner is not co-operating with the Bank to complete the enquiry within the time stipulated by this Court.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, a little factual background is required. The petitioner is working as Clerk in the respondent-Bank and was posted to Shah Ali Banda branch on 7-10-1991 and he is being entrusted with Special Assistant duties (temporary) as and when required. He was placed under suspension on 134-1996, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings for certain, serious irregularities that came to the notice of the Bank. Subsequently, the Officer of the Vigilance Department seemed to have conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report. But, the Bank for reasons best known to it, without reference to the preliminary enquiry report and at the same time on various commissions and omissions that came to light in the inquiry in proceedings NO. CGS/hyd/ 96/41, dated 25-6-1996 framed as many as six charges including drawal of certain amounts from the accounts of the customers of the Bank, tampering records of the Bank with regard to some others and raising loans from private parties without knowledge and permission of the Bank authorities, which indicates that he is having excessive financial commitments/borrowings outside the Bank with the customers of the Bank. Stating so, the petitioner was charged for commission of gross misconduct of engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of your duties except with the written permission of the Bank" vide Clause No. 19. 5 of the Bipartite Settlement and "doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank", vide Clause No. 19. 5 (j) of the Bipartitie Settlement. In the last para of the charge-sheet the respondent directed the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence within (15) days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet.

( 5 ) AFTER receipt of the said proceedings, the petitioner seemed to have requested the Bank authorities to furnish copies of the documents on which the Bank would like to rely to prove the charges. The Assistant General Manager in his proceedings reference No. 975/272 (3)/irs, dated 31-7-1996 informed the petitioner that the documents will be made available for verification at the appropriate stage and advised him to submit his written statement of defence, within seven days of receipt of the letter. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 16216/1996 and the same was disposed of by order dated 5-11-1996. After adverting to the factual background, I gave a directio