The court emphasized that not all witnesses must be examined in domestic inquiries, focusing on the fairness and legality of the inquiry proceedings.

dated 03.03.2017 allowed the appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by that the petitioner bank filed a writ petition before this court in WP(MD)No.7338 of 2017. This court by its order dated 27.02.2018 found that the authority / 1^st respondent did not consider the appeal in a proper manner and disposed of it by way of a cryptic order, remanded back the matter for fresh consideration and accordingly, the 1^st respondent considered the issue again and passed an order dated 12.07.2021 in TNSEA No.1 of 2006, setting aside the order of discharge. As against the order dated 02.07.2021, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner bank.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner bank submits that the charges levelled as against the 2^nd respondent are very serious in nature constituting grave misconduct leading to loss of confidence reposed on the employee as the Branch Manager. A charge memo dated 23.09.2002 was issued to him. He offered his explanation dated 23.10.2002. Further an additional charge memo dated 21.03.2003 was issued and he offered his explanation dated 03.04.2003. Being not satisfied with his explanation, a practicing advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer.

The enquiry officer conducted enquiry by following due procedure and submitted his enquiry report and findings on 02.07.2003, which was served on the 2^nd respondent on 19.07.2003, enabling him to submit his explanation. He also submitted his explanation dated 31.07.2003. A second show cause notice dated 27.09.2003 was issued to him and he submitted his reply dated 11.10.2003. After considering the explanation offered by the 2^nd respondent, he was terminated from service by order dated 20.11.2003.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that challenging the dismissal order dated 20.11.2003, the 2^nd respondent filed an appeal dated 09.12.2003 before the appellate authority of the petitioner's bank and the order of dismissal was modified as that of discharge by order dated 19.02.2004. Thereafter he filed a revision petition before the reviewing authority and the authority by his order dated 22.09.2005 confirmed the order of the appellate authority. Challenging this order, the 2^nd respondent filed an application under Section 41(2) of the Shops Act before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent without considering the case in a proper perspective, set aside the the dismissal order dated 22.09.2025, by his order dated 03.02.2017. This order dated 03.02.2017 was challenged by the petitioner bank before this court in WP(MD)No.7338 of 2017 and this court by order dated 27.02.2018, set aside the order passed by the 1^st respondent and remitted back the mater to the 1^st respondent with a direction to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction, the matter was remitted back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration, however, the 1^st respondent without considering the orders of this court, has again passed a cryptic order dated 02.07.2021 without application of mind and without assigning any independent reason.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned counsel further submits that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner by providing all reasonable opportunities and by following the principle of natural justice. The 2^nd respondent in his explanation to the enquiry report, dated 31.07.2003 had not raised any issue about the violation of principle of natural justice, or that the documents sought for by him were not furnished to him or he was not aff