Civil Appeal No 1137 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 14 8 75 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CW No 3995 of 1975
J Ramamurthi for the Appellants
Janendra Lal and B R Agarwala for Respondents 2 and 3 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
This appeal by special leave lends itself to a quick burial in view of the brief facts set out below
The appellant has been an employee of the second respondent
A notice was issued to him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain items of misconduct imputed to him
The then Secretary of the bank Shri Daljit Singh enquired into the allegations
Thereafter on April 1 1975 the Secretary issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his next increment should not be stopped by way of punishment A reply was sent by the appellant by way of explanation and the Secretary accepting the explanation dropped the proceedings by order dated April 9 1975 686 Annexure III
Thereafter the Managing Director taking the view that Shri Daljit Singh Secretary had no power to inflict punishment on the employees of the bank and that therefore the proceedings culminating in the exoneration of the appellant were invalid issued a fresh memorandum which concluded thus After considering the said enquiry report along with other relevant documents I am provisionally of the view to impose upon you a penalty of dismissal from bank services
Before doing so you are asked to show cause within 21 days from the receipt of this memorandum why on account of findings of the said Enquiry Officer into the charges you should not be dismissed from the bank services
In case no reply is received within the prescribed period it will be presumed that you have no reply in this behalf and the proposed punishment will be imposed
 The appellant was also suspended on the same date viz 7th July 1975
Thereupon a writ petition under articles 226227 was moved by the appellant challenging the revival of the proceedings against him as illegal and opposed to natural justice
The first point raised in objection by the second respondent is that the writ petition is premature since no action has been taken finally against the appellant the disciplinary proceedings are still pending and the explanation of the appellant is under consideration
It is only in the event of the appellant being punished that any grievance can arise for him to be agitated in the proper forum
Other obstacles in the way of granting the appellant relief were also urged before the High Court and before us but we are not inclined to investigate them for the short reason that the writ petition was in any case premature
No punitive action has yet been taken
It is difficult to state apart from speculation what the outcome of the proceedings will be
In case the appellant is punished it is certainly open to him either to file an appeal as provided in the relevant rules or to take other action that he may be advised to resort to
It is not for us at the moment to consider whether a writ petition will lie or whether an industrial dispute should be raised or whether an appeal to the competent authority under the rules is the proper remedy although these are issues which merit serious consideration
We are satisfied that enough unto the day being the evil thereof we need not dwell on problems which do not arise in the light of the 687 view we take that there is no present grievance of punitive action which can be ventilated in court
After all even the question of jurisdiction to re open what is claimed to be a closed enquiry will and must be considered by the Managing Director
On this score we dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances without costs
Before parting with this case we would like to make it clear that counsel for the co operative bank has not been able to show any power to suspend an employee pending an enquiry
If that be so the suspension of the appellant is plainly without the pale of law and he would be entitled to his salary during the period till final orders are passed
Since the matter has been pending long enough we are assured by counsel for the respondent that final orders may be passed within one month from to day
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Misconduct was imputed to the appellant by his employer the second respondent
The then Secretary of the bank enquired into the allegations and after issuing a notice to the appellant for showing cause against punishment accepted his explanation and dropped the proceedings
Thereafter the Managing Director of the Bank opined that the said Secretary was not empowered to punish a bank employee and therefore the proceedings culminating in the exoneration of the appellant were invalid
The proceedings were revived and the appellant was suspended
His writ petition under articles 226 and 227 was dismissed by the High Court
On appeal by special leave the appellant challenged the revival of the proceedings against him as illegal and opposed to natural justice
Dismissing the appeal the Court
 HELD 1 There is no present grievance of punitive action which can be ventilated in court
The writ petition is premature since no action has been taken finally against the appellant
687A 2 The co operative bank has not been able to show any power to suspend an employee pending an enquiry
If that be so the suspension of the appellant is plainly without the pale of law
687B