1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.157/2000 B.M.Jhanwar V/s The Punjab National Bank & anr. 10.8.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.S.D.Khaspuria for the appellant. Mr.N.K.Maloo for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.1999 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service was dismissed in limine. Mr.S.D.Khaspuria, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant-petitioner was dismissed from service without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without making compliance of the principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted in total violation of the rules and procedure and the appellant-petitioner was condemned unheard. He was even denied right of cross examination of prime witness of the prosecution. The punishment order was passed on the basis of tampered documents. He referred to documents Ex.10, Ex.11 and Ex.17 and submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of such tampered documents are wholly illegal, erroneous and perverse one and thus, entire enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. These arguments were specifically raised before the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge, but they have failed to consider the same and thus, committed serious error and illegality. He has referred to para 2 no.3 of the impugned judgment where all arguments were specifically noticed by the learned Single Judge, but none of them was dealt with anywhere in the judgment and no finding was rendered. Mr.N.K.Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal. However, he does not dispute the position that those arguments were indeed noticed by the learned Single Judge, yet they were not dealt with, although some discussion has been made in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment which pertains to general propositions of law and does not specifically deal with any of the aforesaid arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have noticed that the learned counsel for the appellant has indeed persuaded us to agree that several arguments, which the appellant-petitioner has raised before the learned Single Judge, were not considered in the judgment and no specific finding was rendered on any one of them by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed in limine. This Court was persuaded to admit this appeal and call upon the respondents, who could not controvert the position that several arguments were noticed by the learned Single Judge, yet no specific finding was given on any of them. In our opinion, it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to consider and deal with the arguments and give his findings, on one way or the other. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge to consider and decide 3 the same afresh on merit in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to consider and decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Parmar