WA 69/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K.GOEL HION’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the finings of the Enq uiry Officer holding the allegations against the appellant to be proved did no t call for interference . However, the appellant was held entitled to be heard by the disciplinary authority after being furnished a copy of the enquiry repor t, as laid down in Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (1993) s4 SCC 727. Accordingly, liberty was given to the respondent Bank to recommence the proceedi ng from the stage of the submission of the enquiry report. Proceedings were dire cted to be completed within four months from the date of the order. Prima facie , there is no error in the impugned order. Since none appears for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecutio n.