ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. Briefly put, the facts are: the appellant was an employee of State Bank of India. Two charges were levelled against him. An enquiry was held. He was found guilty of both the charges. The punishment imposed upon him was challenged by way of a writ petition. A learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the first charge was not proved, but that the second charge was proved. In regard to the second charge, he, however, upheld the. punishment that had been imposed upon the appellant, namely, the withdrawal of special allowance (Head Clerk allowance) as provided for in: the Sastry Award and the Desai Award. An appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. Necessarily, what the Divisionl Bench was required to consider was the correctness of the learned Singh Judges judgment in relation to the second charge. However, the Divisionl. Bench said: "The fact remains that the reversion of the petitioner pursuant Charge 2 was confirmed by the learned Single Judge, and the cannot be gone into in the present appeal." (emphasis supplies3. We are at a loss to understand why the only issue involved in the appeal could not be gone into and there is nothing in the impugned judgment to indicate why. 4. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order are set aside and the writ appeal (Writ Appeal No. 256 of 1993) restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. 5. It is made clear that the wages that have been paid to the appellant shall not be disturbed. 6. No order as to costs