SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ori) 325

S.MURALIDHAR, SAVITRI RATHO
General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Madhusudan Mallick – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N. Udgata, Advocate

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, C.J. - I.A. No.1094 of 2020

    1. For the reasons stated in the application, prayer for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is allowed.

    W.A. No.359 of 2020

2. This appeal by Syndicate Bank is directed against the judgment dated 26th February, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No.18668 of 2010 which was filed by the Respondent herein.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) as well as the Appellate Authority (AA) on the ground that there was no proper enquiry by the Enquiry Officer (EO) and remitted the matter to the EO for fresh enquiry in regard to the charges framed against the Respondent by providing sufficient opportunity to defend his case in the event that he seeks it. Further since sufficient time had already been lost, if the particular EO was unable to conduct the enquiry, it would be open to the Appellant to appoint a new EO, who would, after accepting the written statement of defence to be filed by the Respondent within two weeks, conduct a fresh inquiry and submit a report within three months from the date of submission of the written statement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top