Judgment :- The petitioner challenges an order dated 3.1.1990 issued by the first respondent Bank and prays for a direction to reinstate him into the service of the third respondent with full backwages. 2. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in 1971 in the first respondent-Bank and was promoted Junior Officer on 13.12.1978 and subsequently he was promoted as Manager in 1983 posted at Kandaramanickam Branch. He continued in that Branch after obtaining a promotion as Grade II Officer. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry 11.6.1987. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 18.9.1987 for the following “(i) Suppression and misrepresentation of facts; (ii) Abuse of powers; (iii) Falsification of accounts; (iv) Manipulation of account books with ulterior motive to gain his personal end; (v) Unauthorised accommodation extended to certain parties with personal motive prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. ” Since no reply to the memo of charges was given by the petitioner even after sufficient time, an enquiry was ordered to be held before one S.Seenivasagam, Advocate, Madurai, as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the stood proved and as such, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10.4.1989 enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a letter on 18.5.1989 requesting extension of 10 days time on health grounds. Again on 28.5.1989, he submitted another letter for further extension of 15 days by producing a medical certificate. Subsequently, he had submitted another letter dated 12.6.1989 applying for extension time for 15 days on health grounds. Ultimately, on 30.6.1989, he submitted a reply show cause notice questioning the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer in conducting departmental enquiry despite his genuine appeal for adjourning the enquiry. By letter dated 3.7.1989, the petitioner requested the Bank to extend him an opportunity personal hearing on the proposed punishment of dismissal. Accordingly, the petitioner asked to appear on 15.7.1989. It seems that in the personal hearing the petitioner admitted the lapses on his part and requested the Bank to grant him three months enable him to make due recovery of the Bank ’ s money pending under COP account Andaramanickam Branch and the petitioner has been asking for extension of recover the Bank ’ s money and when the impugned order was passed, a sum of Rs.1,03,068 70 was still due to the Bank. Inspite of many opportunities given to the petitioner to the amount, and he did not come forward to defend the case before the Enquiry Officer, impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the petitioner had manipulated Bank accounts, suppressed the facts, abused the powers and acted dishonestly in transactions. The impugned order was passed on 3.1.1990. 3. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that by virtue of Clause (1) of a draft scheme amalgamation of Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., with Indian Overseas Bank his service is to have been transferred to the third respondent bank and as such, the first respondent ceased to employer and the first respondent Bank cannot further prosecute or pass any orders pending matters after his service has been transferred to the third respondent Bank also alleged that by virtue of moratorium all the proceedings and actions are stayed therefore, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner during pendency of the moratorium is illegal. The petitioner further alleges that in view of the respondent’s letter dated 5.12.1989 asking for his consent to become an employee Indian Overseas Bank, the first respondent Bank ceased to be his employer and therefore estopped from continuing the proceedings and passing the impugned order. It is also that under Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, unless the draft scheme of amalgamation specifically excludes certain employees from employment, they are treated to continuity of service with the transferee Bank and therefore the petitioner cannot dismissed by the impugned order. It is stated that after the moratorium, the first respondent is under the direct control of the second respondent and the impugned order passed 3.1.1990 without permission in writing from the second respondent is non est in law. petitioner further alleges that the first respondent and the employees are covered by award and the impugned order passed on 3.1.1990 after a delay of four months violation of the pronouncement of Sastri ’ s Award. 4. At this stage, certain developments, which have taken place during the relevant have to be narrated. petitioner further alleges that the first respondent and the employees are covered by award and the impugned order passed on 3.1.1990 after a delay of four months violation of the pronouncement of Sastri ’ s Award. 4. At this stage, certain developments, which have taken place during the relevant have to be narrated. On 19.8.1989, the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank India, issued an order of moratorium from the close of business on 19.8.1989 upto inclusive of 19.12.1989 in respect of Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., Tirunelveli, who is the respondent herein, under the provisions of Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 during the period of moratorium it was stated in the notification that the Bank does conduct any business other than that provided in the aforesaid notification. There various clauses in the notification. Ultimately, in pursuance of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.45 Banking Regulation Act, 1949, 20th February, 1990 is specified as the prescribed relation to the scheme for the amalgamation of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli, the respondent herein, with the Indian Overseas Bank. This notification was published Gazette of India on 19.2.1990. So during the course of the enquiry proceedings, moratorium was issued by the Central Government under the Banking Regulation Act before the amalgamation order was passed, the petitioner was dismissed from service 3.1.1990. That means, when the first respondent Bank was amalgamated with the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was not in the service of the first respondent-Bank. 5. The respondents 1 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition and stating that the posting of the petitioner as Manager of Kandaramanickam Branch is not a promotion and it was only a posting given to him and he was promoted on 12.7.1984 as Order II Officer. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the allegations against the petitioner are based on documentary evidence that the petitioner failed submit his explanation to the charge sheet despite sufficient opportunities being given him and naturally a domestic enquiry was followed, that the charges were proved, that proved charges showed moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner and that the petitioner exposed the funds of the Bank to grave risk by indulging in unsecured advances in the of clean cheque purchase facility and thereby committed gross misconduct. It is also that the domestic enquiry was conducted upholding all the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was given every opportunity to inspect the document and take notes same, that the enquiry was conducted by an advocate as per the practice prevalent Bank, that the petitioner was represented by member of the State Committee of AIBOA, registered trade Union of the Bank employees and that every opportunity was given petitioner to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted ex parte only subsequently the petitioner was adamant in not taking part in the proceedings and he wantonly deliberately absented himself. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is only considering the petitioner ’ s reply dated 30.6.1989 to the show cause notice and after a personal hearing to the petitioner on 15.7.1989, the disciplinary authority passed punishment order dated 3.1.1990. It is also stated in the counter transferred to the third respondent bank and as such, the first respondent ceased to employer and the first respondent Bank cannot further prosecute or pass any orders pending matters after his service has been transferred to the third respondent Bank. also alleged that by virtue of moratorium all the proceedings and actions are stayed therefore, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner during pendency of the moratorium is illegal. The petitioner further alleges that in view of the respondent ’ s letter dated 5.12.1989 asking for his consent to become an employee Indian Overseas Bank, the first respondent Bank ceased to be his employer and therefore estopped from continuing the proceedings and passing the impugned order. It is also that under Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, unless the draft scheme of amalgamation specifically excludes certain employees from employment, they are treated to continuity of service with the transferee Bank and therefore the petitioner cannot dismissed by the impugned order. It is stated that after the moratorium, the first respondent is under the direct control of the second respondent and the impugned order passed 3.1.1990 without permission in writing from the second respondent is non est in law. petitioner further alleges that the first respondent and the employees are covered by award and the impugned order passed on 3.1.1990 after a delay of four months violation of the pronouncement of Sastri ’ s Award. 4. petitioner further alleges that the first respondent and the employees are covered by award and the impugned order passed on 3.1.1990 after a delay of four months violation of the pronouncement of Sastri ’ s Award. 4. At this stage, certain developments, which have taken place during the relevant have to be narrated. On 19.8.1989, the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank India, issued an order of moratorium from the close of business on 19.8.1989 upto inclusive of 19.12.1989 in respect of Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., Tirunelveli, who is the respondent herein, under the provisions of Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 during the period of moratorium it was stated in the notification that the Bank does conduct any business other than that provided in the aforesaid notification. There various clauses in the notification. Ultimately, in pursuance of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.45 Banking Regulation Act, 1949, 20th February, 1990 is specified as the prescribed relation to the scheme for the amalgamation of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli, the respondent herein, with the Indian Overseas Bank. This notification was published Gazette of India on 19.2.1990. So during the course of the enquiry proceedings, moratorium was issued by the Central Government under the Banking Regulation Act before the amalgamation order was passed, the petitioner was dismissed from service 3.1.1990. That means, when the first respondent Bank was amalgamated with the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was not in the service of the first respondent-Bank. 5. The respondents 1 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition and stating that the posting of the petitioner as Manager of Kandaramanickam Branch is not a promotion and it was only a posting given to him and he was promoted on 12.7.1984 as Order II Officer. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the allegations against the petitioner are based on documentary evidence that the petitioner failed submit his explanation to the charge sheet despite sufficient opportunities being given him and naturally a domestic enquiry was followed, that the charges were proved, that proved charges showed moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner and that the petitioner exposed the funds of the Bank to grave risk by indulging in unsecured advances in the of clean cheque purchase facility and thereby committed gross misconduct. It is also that the domestic enquiry was conducted upholding all the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was given every opportunity to inspect the document and take notes same, that the enquiry was conducted by an advocate as per the practice prevalent Bank, that the petitioner was represented by member of the State Committee of AIBOA, registered trade Union of the Bank employees and that every opportunity was given petitioner to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted ex parte only subsequently the petitioner was adamant in not taking part in the proceedings and he wantonly deliberately absented himself. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is only considering the petitioner ’ s reply dated 30.6.1989 to the show cause notice and after a personal hearing to the petitioner on 15.7.1989, the disciplinary authority passed punishment order dated 3.1.1990. It is also stated in the counter that despite sufficient time given to the petitioner at the time of second show cause the amounts outstanding to the Bank were not recovered by the petitioner. It is stated the moratorium issued by the Central Government does not in any way vitiate proceedings against the petitioner. Clause 10 of the draft scheme of the amalgamation Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., with Indian Overseas Bank provides that all the employees of Tamil Nadu Ltd., shall be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee Bank same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as they were applicable to the said employees immediately before the close of business on 19.8.1989. It is the counter that the petitioner was dismissed from service of the first respondent before the date of amalgamation i.e., 20.2.1990 and therefore he cannot claim employment in the third respondent Bank and that the right of employment of the petitioner ceases the order of dismissal dated 3.1.1990 issued by the competent authority of respondent herein and he has no right to continue either in the service of respondent or the third respondent and the consent letter of the petitioner to become employee of the third respondent does not give him any right to continue employment. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner filed a civil O.S.No.12 of 1990, on the file of the District Munsif ’ s Court, Tirunelveli and had withdrawn and as such the allegation that on the receipt of the notice in the stay application in only, the first respondent with mala fide intention passed the impugned order is denied. moratorium does not affect the service conditions of any employee and the first respondent Bank has every right to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner during that period. It is further stated in the counter that the service conditions employees include disciplinary proceedings as well as dismissal therefor and there estoppel against the first respondent bank to issue the impugned order before the actual amalgamation on 20.2.1990 and that there is no stay of disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of moratorium and the moratorium applies only to commercial transactions and there was no question of obtaining permission from the third respondent take action against the petitioner as disciplinary proceedings are not subject to moratorium. 6. Mr.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, while.reiterating contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended Enquiry Officer in this case is an advocate and under the Administrative circulars pursuance of the memo of settlement of South India Bank which was renamed as the of Tamil Nadu, an Advocate cannot be an Enquiry Officer, that permission to the petitioner engage of lawyer was not granted and the petitioner was not permitted even to represented by the Union Representative and that when the petitioner wanted to peruse certain documents, those documents were not made available to him and even the copies those documents were not furnished to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that when the enquiry was conducted on 28th and 29th July, 1988 on which an adjournment was asked for on the ground of the demise of the daughter of petitioner’s representative and it was not granted and only on those days, three witnesses on the side of the management were examined. The learned Senior Counsel states when the petitioner was handicapped on those days without the assistance of representative, the Enquiry Officer should have adjourned the enquiry for some other instead he proceeded with the enquiry and examined two witnesses, which, is against principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Counsel states when the petitioner was handicapped on those days without the assistance of representative, the Enquiry Officer should have adjourned the enquiry for some other instead he proceeded with the enquiry and examined two witnesses, which, is against principles of natural justice. The learned Senior counsel argues that the words “ conduct business ” include the disciplinary proceedings against the officer of the Bank and anything could be done with regard to the administration also in that period unless it varies scheme issued under the Bank Regulations Act, 1949. The learned Senior Counsel wants to construe the notification as if all the enquiries are kept under suspension. The learned Senior Counsel also contends that the petitioner filed O.S.No.12 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli for a declaration that the charge memo is null and and also took out an application restraining the Fank from dismissing him and in application, notice was served on the 1st respondent and prejudiced by that, the respondent proceeded with the enquiry and passed the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel points out that as per Clause (1) of the Draft Scheme of Amalgamation of the of Tamil Nadu Ltd., with Indian Overseas Bank, the petitioner has to be taken as the employee of the transferee especially when he has been given an option on 9.12.1989 when he was asked to join 3rd respondent Bank and contends that the petitioner was not able to avail the appellate remedy because by that time, the impugned order was passed, and as such the petitioner entitled to invoke Art.226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned order. 7. Per contra, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 contends that the domestic enquiry was conducted according to the rules and after observing principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given every opportunity to inspect documents and take part in the enquiry and that the petitioner was represented by Union Representative and it is only the petitioner who did not take part in the enquiry allowed the impugned order to be passed. 8. I have given due consideration to the arguments of Mr.Masilamani, learned Senior appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel appearing respondents 1 and 3 and also the points raised in the counter affidavit filed by respondents and 3. 8. I have given due consideration to the arguments of Mr.Masilamani, learned Senior appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel appearing respondents 1 and 3 and also the points raised in the counter affidavit filed by respondents and 3. First of all, I am inclined to take the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. When the impugned order was passed particularly before the amalgamation, the petitioner cannot question the order of dismissal passed by the 1st respondent which was amalgamated with the third respondent Bank under the draft scheme. Clause of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 regarding draft scheme amalgamation of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., with Indian Overseas Bank reads as follows: “(10). All the employees of the transferor bank shall continue in service and be deemed have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before close of business on 19th August, 1989. Provided that the employees of the transferor who have, by notice in writing given to the transferor or the transferee bank at any before the expiry or one month next following the date on which this scheme has sanctioned by the Central Government, intimated their intention of not becoming employees of the transferee bank, shall be entitled to the payment of such compensation if any, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and such pension, gratuity, provident and other retirement benefits as may be ordinarily admissible under the rules authorisations of the transferor bank immediately before the close of business on August, 1989. Provided further that the transferee bank shall in respect of the employees of the transferor bank who are deemed to have been appointed as employees of the transferee bank deemed also to have taken over the liability for them on retrenchment compensation event of their being retrenched while in the service of the transferee bank on the basis their service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by their transfer transferee bank. ” A reading of this clause clearly says that only the employees of the transfer or bank continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank. ” A reading of this clause clearly says that only the employees of the transfer or bank continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank. case, on the date of amalgamation, the petitioner was no more in the service of respondent Bank and as such, he cannot claim the benefit of Clause (10). I am not agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner can claim to have been relieved from the 1st respondent Bank. Once the petitioner has been dismissed after disciplinary enquiry and especially in this case after giving petitioner many opportunities to collect the money due to the Bank which the petitioner failed to do so, I do not think the petitioner can question the impugned order. 9. On a plain reading of the draft scheme of amalgamation of the Bank of Tamil Nadu with Indian Overseas Bank under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the petitioner claim to be an “ excluded person ” to come under the dicta laid down in K.I..Shephard Union of India, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 686. In that case, certain persons were named and excluded from the transferor Bank, the Supreme Court, considering the facts of that case, held without giving an opportunity, any order in any disciplinary proceedings cannot exclude persons from the scheme. I do not think that this principle will apply to the facts of this case. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.18327 of 1989 dated 17.4.1990. In that case also the petitioner was one among the persons mentioned in the schedule was excluded from the service of the Canara Bank. The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the principle laid down by Supreme Court in University of Kashmir and others v. Dr.Mohd. Yasin and others, A.I.R. S.C. 238, held in favour of the petitioner. In that case, the Canara Bank tried to enforce terms of the scheme of amalgamation on the petitioner who was an employee of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited. Yasin and others, A.I.R. S.C. 238, held in favour of the petitioner. In that case, the Canara Bank tried to enforce terms of the scheme of amalgamation on the petitioner who was an employee of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited. The learned Judge held that there was provision in the scheme of amalgamation indicating that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee before amalgamation would continue and in the absence of any provision, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee before amalgamation would fall to the ground on amalgamation and in such a case, the question of appointment any enquiry officer to probe into the charges levelled against the employee before amalgamation would not arise. In fact, in my view, this principle decided in this case against the petitioner. The case before me is a case where the petitioner was dismissed service by a Bank which was amalgamated with the third respondent-Bank. So on the date amalgamation, the petitioner was not in service of the first respondent and as such he cannot have any right against the third respondent Bank in law. When it has been held that enquiry proceedings started before the amalgamation cannot be continued by the transferee Bank I do not see how the petitioner can claim any right against the transferee Bank. In case, as already stated, considering the scope of the clauses in the draft scheme amalgamation of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., with Indian Overseas Bank, the petitioner no locus standi to maintain the writ petition against the third respondent and it has got dismissed. 11. Even on merits, I do not see any violation of the principles of natural justice in this The petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and he has also represented by the Union representative i.e., a member of the State Committee of AIBOA and before the Enquiry Officer all the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner such, it cannot be said that petitioner has been denied any reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. One another feature in this case is that when a notice for personal hearing to the petitioner to meet the disciplinary authority in the premises of the first respondent Bank on 15.7.1989 was sent after the second notice the petitioner admitted certain lapses on his part and he undertook to ensure the recovery of the amounts due to the first respondent Bank and wanted three months to collect the overdue amounts. In view that, three months time seems to have been granted to the petitioner. By a registered letter on 24.11.1989, the petitioner has stated that as per his assurance, he had followed over dues whereupon eleven parties have remitted Rs.47,387-50 p. and that two more parties have admitted their liability and executed valid promissory notes. It is also seen from the letter of the petitioner dated 27.7.1989 addressed to the General Manager, of the 1st respondent Bank which is as follows: "In continuation of my earlier letter dated 30.6.1989, I submit the following: 1. Certain transactions during my tenure at Kandaramanickam could could not be reconciled properly and I sincerely regret for the same. I admit that there were overdue COP some which could not be recovered immediately. Even though I had explained the circumstances, there were certain lapses on my part, leading to the unfortunate developments. 2. I undertake to ensure recovery of pending items as mentioned in the Charge Sheet No.Stf/ 477/87, dated 18.9.1987 from the parties. If the same is not materialised from them I undertake to remit the same. 3. In this connection I kindly request your office to grant me 3 months time from date collect the overdue items of OCP. Thanking you, Tirunelveli, 27.7.1989. So from a reading of these letters it is clear that the Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.MURUGESAN) petitioner had admitted the lapses on his part unequivocally. This the petitioner had done after the enquiry was over and after the second show cause notice was given. In my view, the petitioner having found that he cannot get any order in his favour from the authorities and cannot escape from the charges, has admitted to make good the loss to the first respondent Bank and wanted time so that the first respondent Bank can consider about the quantum of punishment. In my view, the petitioner having found that he cannot get any order in his favour from the authorities and cannot escape from the charges, has admitted to make good the loss to the first respondent Bank and wanted time so that the first respondent Bank can consider about the quantum of punishment. Having taken such a stand after the issue of notice with regard to the punishment, I do not think that the writ petitioner can challenge the enquiry itself now and plead that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. As such I am not convinced that any principle of natural justice has been violated so that this Court can interfere with the impugned order as it is settled law and varies, from case to case on facts. It is well settled that in orders of dismissal, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in the sense that this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued that the petitioner was not able to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. I am not impressed with this argument. It is seen that the impugned order has been passed on 3.1.1990 and the amalgamation had taken place on 20.2.1990. Nothing prevented the petitioner at least to file an appeal as per the settlement which was in force with the erstwhile South Indian Bank now renamed as Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd. Having failed to do so and having filed a civil suit and withdrawn it, I do not think the petitioner can be allowed to take this plea before me Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the relevant rules and regulations, I am satisfied that the impugned order cannot be assailed. There are on merits in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.