JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation (for short, the Corporation), has preferred this appeal by special leave against an appellate judgment, dated August 6, 1969, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. It arises out of these facts :

2. V. N. Vajpayee, respondent herein, was employed as a Warehouseman with the Corporation and at the relevant time was posted at the Kanpur Warehouse. There was a complaint of theft, misappropriation of stocks and various other irregularities against the respondent. A preliminary inquiry was held by the Managing Director of the Corporation and charges were framed against him and served him on November 28, 1960, requiring him to submit his explanation and to indicate the evidence if any. On receiving the charge-sheet, the respondent addressed a communication, requesting the Managing Director furnish him with certain papers which were accordingly furnished. Thereafter, the respondent submitted his explanation on January 19, 1961. In this explanation, he specifically demanded that he wanted to cross-examine certain witnesses, the particulars of which were mentioned by him. He further gave the names and particulars of certain other witnesses, stating that he wanted to examine them, in defence. Nothing happend thereafter till April 18, 1961, on which date the Managing Director passed an order dismissing the respondent from service with effect from the date of his suspension. Later on, a demand was made from the respondent, requiring him to remit a sum of Rs.549.61 due to the Corporation on account of certain commodities said to have been misappropriated by the respondent on account of short realisation of storage charges by him.

3. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition (No. 87 of 1962) under Art. 226 of the Constitution, in the High Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of his dismissal on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to establish his innocence. He further prayed for a direction that the Corporation be restrained from recovering the sum of Rs.549.61 from him.

4. In the counter-affidavit, the appellants stated that the respondent had admitted certain material facts during the preliminary inquiry and had also cross-examined the witnesses. It was further urged that there was no regulation provided for conducting an inquiry in a particular manner and, therefore, the remedy of the respondent was by way of a suit and he had no locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further pleaded that the writ petition was delayed and should have been thrown out on that score, also.

5. The writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed it, holding that the Corporation was not required to act in a quasi-judicial manner and that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution were not applicable to the facts of the case.

6. Aggrieved the respondent carried a special appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, which has reserved the judgment of the learned single Judge, and has held that the Corporation was required to act in a quasi-judicial manner and, therefore the writ petition was maintainable. The Division Bench remanded the case for a decision on merits. After the remand, the learned single Judge by his judgment, dated December 7, 1966, allowed the writ petition holding that the principles of natural justice had been violated. He, therefore, quashed the order of the respondents dismissal, but refused to grant an injunction restraining the appellant from realising Rs.549.61 from the respondent. The Corporation again preferred a Special Appeal No.4 of 1967 to a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissal that appeal by a judgment, dated August 6, 1969. Hence this appeal by the Corporation.

7. The main contention of the le