for investigation, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the petitioner is a former employee of the respondent No.7 Bank who was terminated by the Bank presided by respondent No.5 for the alleged misconduct on 6-9-2011 and thereafter, he was chargesheeted on 17-9-2011 in his abscondence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with two other accused persons and thereafter, firstly he had filed writ petition before the Supreme Court which he was permitted to withdraw with liberty to file writ petition before this Court, and which he ultimately filed on 19-12-2013 stating that various irregularities committed by respondent No.5 deserve to be investigated upon by constitution of SIT or a direction be given to CBI for investigation on which preliminary enquiry has been conducted by registering preliminary enquiry and thereafter, the State Economic Offences Wing has categorically come to the conclusion as on the date of filing return that no material demonstrating commission of cognizable offence has been found till date against respondent No.5 by filing affidavit before this Court in the instant case, which has not been controverted by filing rejoinder by the petitioner. As such, there is no prima facie case / material warranting direction for further investigation by constituting a Special Investigation Team or by CBI. Apart from the above-stated fact, it is apparent on the face of record that only preliminary enquiry was held in which no cognizable offence is found to have been committed by respondents No.5 & 6, but the fact remains that there is no investigation initiated and pending in terms of Section 2(h) of the
