Provisions of law noticed.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

The writ appeal is directed against the order of K.Venkataswami, J. as he then was, dated 212. 1987 in W.P.No.l 1336 of 1981 allowing the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein holding that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by an authority not competent under the new Regulations and also rejecting the argument of the learned counsel for the Indian Bank that the order was passed by an authority higher than the competent authority since the respondent herein is deprived of an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The learned Judge quashed the order impunged in the writ petition on both these grounds. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, the Indian Bank has preferred the above writ appeal.

2. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant in the Indian Bank. He was promoted as an Accountant in the year 1966 in which position he served until 1968. He was then promoted as Agent and posted to the Coonoor branch during 1968, which position he held till 18. 1970, when he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in the order of dismissal by proceedings dated 210. 1972. At. the meeting held on 210. 1972, the Board of Directors had ordered that the following two punishments should be imposed on the respondent viz.,

(a) Dismissal from the Bank’s service; and

(b) Recovery of the amounts due to him from the Bank towards the whole or part of the pecuniary loss alleged to have been caused to the Bank by the respondent in respect of the advances granted by him.

3. The aforesaid disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent by the Bank under the Indian Bank Limited Officers Service Rules, 1963, which continued to operate as statutory rules by virtue of Sec. 19(3) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. A charge memo was issued to the respondent on 12. 1970, calling upon him to show cause against the disciplinary action for various alleged acts of omission and commission pursuant to investigation conducted. The respondent submitted his explanation on 21. 1971. denying the various charges levelled against him. No further enquiry was conducted on the basis that an enquiry was not contemplated under the Service Rules, 1963, even though the charges were numerous and contained serious allegations of alleged acts of omission and commission which warranted enquiry in the light of the defence taken by the respondent. By a communication dated 18. 1972 from the Secretary of the Bank, the respondent was informed that the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 18. 1972 had considered the respondent’s case a fit one to impose the two punishments set out supra and the respondent was called upon to show cause why the said punishments should not be imposed on the respondent. No reasons were stated in the proceedings but the investigating officer’s reports dated 13. 1970, 15. 1970, 16. 1970 and 8. 1970, pursuant to the investigation conducted behind the back of the respondent, were alone enclosed as contemplated by the Rules. The respondent submitted his explanation dated 8. 1972 wherein he once again denied the charges and also submitted that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in finding him guilty without holding an enquiry and without giving reasons for holding him guilty of the charges. However, by proceedings dated 210. 1972 of the Officer on Special Duty, the respondent was informed that the Board of Directors had ordered that the two punishments proposed should be imposed on the respondent. The appeal petition preferred by the respon dent for re-consideration of the said order as per Rule 34 of the Service Rules, 1963, was also rejected by a communication of the Officer on special duty on 25. 1973, and the respondent was informed that the Board of Directors had decided to confirm the punishments imposed on him at its meeting held on 210. 1972.

4. In the c