Plea of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time in writ appeal.

Kanakaraj, J.

1. This writ appeal filed by the Indian Bank, a bank nationalised under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1970 poses a challenge to the Bench and the Bar. Whether we rise up to the occasion and meet the challenge, within the four corners of law, will be seen only when we conclude the judgment.

2. The first respondent was working as a Shroff in the Rasipuram Branch of the Appellant Bank. On 17.5.1972 one Sanjeevi acting on behalf of his wife Dhanalakshmi gave a complaint addressed to the Agent of the Rasipuram Branch of the appellant Bank. The gist of the complaint was that Dhanalakshmi was holding an R.P. Account. bearing No. C-51, that Sanjeevi gave the first respondent a sum of Rs.250 per mensem from December, 1968 to January, 1972 to be deposited in the R.P. account of his wife, that when the complainant was desirous of getting a loan from R.P. Account, he learnt that the amounts had not been deposited and when the first respondent was called for and questioned, he had admitted that the deposit was made only for seven months and for the balance of 32 months, the amount totaling to Rs.8,000 had not been deposited in the Bank and that the same had been utilised for his family expenses. The first respondent is said to have promised that the amount will be repaid in instalments of Rs.200 per month. The complainant prayed for action to recover the total sum of Rs.9,570 being the amount meant for depositing in her C-51 account. By a letter dated 7.6.1972, the first respondent was asked by the appellant to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for two acts of misconduct. The first related to the complaint of Sanjeevi given on behalf of Dhanalakshmi and the second related to the alleged false entries made in the pass book of Dhanalakshmi in respect of instalment Nos. 8 to 13 when as a matter of fact, the said instalments had not been received by the bank. On the same day, the first respondent was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The first respondent wrote a letter on 13.7.1972, being his earliest reaction to the charge, stating that he had borrowed money from Sanjeevi and had agreed to repay the loan in insdaments by remitting the instalments in the RJP. Account of his wife Mrs. Dhanalakshmi. He did deposit for a few months and he could not continue the deposit and had told Sanjeevi about his inability to continue the deposits. He had agreed to repay the loan to Sanjeevi after some time and Sanjeevi had agreed to the proposal. The first respondent denied the second charge seeking detailed particulars about the charge. He also prayed for lifting the order of suspension. By letter dated 28.7.1972, the appellant wrote to the first respondent that he was not entitled to any further materials at mat stage and an opportunity will be given to peruse all documents at the time of the enquiry. The first respondent again wrote on 29.7.1972 denying the charges and praying for the lifting of the appellant framed two charges and concluded that the said charges, if proved, will amount to major misconduct as per 29.5.(j) of the Bipartite settlement. An enquiry officer was also appointed. On 11.10.1972, the enquiry commenced and three witnesses were examined on the side of the Appellant-Bank and five documents were marked in support of the charges. On 27.6.1973, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings, holding that the first charge alone was proved and the-second charge relating to the entries in the passbook had not been made out. On 2.8.1973, the second show-cause notice against the proposed punishment of discharge from service was issued. The first respondent gave his explanation to the second show-cause notice on 1.9.1973. By an order dated 22.11.1973 the Disciplinary Authority discharged the first respondent from service with immediate effect. The first respondent filed an appeal to the General Manager of the Appellant bank and the same was dismissed