JUDGMENT O. P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 225 of the Constitution the petitioner prayed for a writ of certiorari for bushing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the order of compulsory retirement. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 7-8-1946, the petitioner was employed in the subordinate service of the Central Bank of India. On 1st September, 1969 he was promoted to the Officers, Grade. Between 28th April 1975 and 6th October, 1977 he was posted as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Dibiapur Bench, District Etawah. In August September, 1977, there was an audit of accounts of Dibiapur Branch. Gross irregularities were found in the accounts during the period petitioner was posted there as Branch Manager. After calling for his explanation, the statement of Articles of Charges was served on him vide Memo dated 28th May, 1979. He submitted his explanation on 21st June, 1979. Sri B. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Kanpur was appointed Disciplinary Authority. He appointed Sri B. S. Srivastava, Assistant Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Kanpur as the Enquiring Officer. Sri K. K. Singhal was appointed presenting Officer. A formal intimation was sent to the petitioner on 24th July 19 79. On 28th August, 1979, a list of documents was sent to him. 24th October, 1979 was fixed for commencement of the enquiry proceedings. The proceedings were adjourned to 5th November and then to 18th December, 1979. On 18th December, 1979 the enquiry proceedings commenced and the charges were read over to the petitioner by the Enquiring Authority. On the request of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 21st January, 1980 and the proceedings continued from day to day until 29th January, 1980, when the enquiry was closed. On 27th March, 1980, the Enquiring Authority submitted its report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. On 2-5-1980 Sri B. N. Bhaya Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Kanpur and Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiring Authority and directed compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. On 21-5-1980, the order of compulsory retirement was formally communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, Sri S. K. Gauba, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow. 3. On 21-5-1980, the order of compulsory retirement was formally communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, Sri S. K. Gauba, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow. 3. The petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings, inter alia, on the grounds that the Disciplinary Authority was not appointed by a competent person, that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated, that no copies of documents were given to him before the commencement of the enquiry, that no opportunity was given to him for filing the written statement in the charge-sheet submitted on 24th July, 1979, that no opportunity was given to him to contest the proceedings through Sri Marathey, that the principle of natural justice was not followed during the course of the enquiry that the Disciplinary Authority did not give any reason in the order dated 2nd May, 1980 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired, that the appeal was heard by Sri S. K. Gauba who had passed the order of compulsory retirement on 21st May, 1980 and that no reasons were given in the appellate order. 4. The petitioner was contested by the respondents inter alia, on the grounds that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with Central Bank of India, Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, that every reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his ease, that the enquiry proceedings were conducted fairly and impartially and that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner is legal and binding upon him. 5. There are two sets of regulations governing the officer employees of the Central Bank of India. There is Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. It will be referred to hereafter as Conduct Regulations. There is Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. This will be referred to as Appeal Regulations hereafter. 6. Sri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sri S. K. Gauba had no authority to appoint Sri B. N. Bhaya as Disciplinary Authority and the latter was not duly constituted Disciplinary Authority for imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Regulation 5 of the Appeal Regulations provides as below ; - "Authority to Institute Disciplinary Proceedings and imposes Penalties. Regulation 5 of the Appeal Regulations provides as below ; - "Authority to Institute Disciplinary Proceedings and imposes Penalties. - (1) The Managing Director or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may institute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an officer employee of the Bank. (2) The Disciplinary Authority may himself institute disciplinary proceedings. (3) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 on any officer employee." Annexure 4 is the copy of letter dated 17-4-1979 whereby Sri S. K. Gaub informed the petitioner that Sri B. N. Bhaya had been appointed Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 5 of the Appeal Regulations. 7. We are unable to accept the contention of Sri S. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents that this was only an administrative direction as the petitioner was no longer under the jurisdiction of Sri B. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Kanpur. On 6th October, 1977, the petitioner had been transferred as Sub-Accountant, Belanganj Branch, Agra. We are further unable to accept his contention that Sri B. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Kanpur himself instituted the disciplinary proceedings under para 2 of Regulation 5. Annexure 7 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 24th July, 1979 and it does not show that Sri B. N. Bhaya himself instituted the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. We, however accept the alternative submission of Sri S. N. Verma that Sri S. K. Gauba Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow was empowered to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over all the employees of the Central Bank of India and was further empowered to appoint Disciplinary Authors. Annexure 5(CA) is the copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India passed at its meeting held on 12th July, 1978. Para 5 of this resolution conferred this power on the Assistant General Manager. 8. Sri S. K. Gauba was the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and he was thus empowered to appoint Sri S. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Kanpur as the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure 4, the Memo dated 17-4-1979 was thus rightly issued by Sri S. K. Gauba under para 5(1) of the Appeal Regulations. 8. Sri S. K. Gauba was the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and he was thus empowered to appoint Sri S. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Kanpur as the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure 4, the Memo dated 17-4-1979 was thus rightly issued by Sri S. K. Gauba under para 5(1) of the Appeal Regulations. We are unable to accept the contention of Sri Prakash Gupta that the Disciplinary Authority was not properly appointed and as such the enquiry proceedings were vitiated. 9. Sri Prakash Gupta placed reliance on para 3 of Regulation 6 of the Appeal Regulations which provides as below : "(3) where it is proposed to hold an enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days) or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defence." 10. Sri Prakash Gupta referred to Annexure 7, the copy of charge-sheet dated 24th July 1979 and argued that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a written statement of his defence. 11. S. N. Verma drew our attention to Annexure 5, the copy of Memo dated 28th May, 1979. The articles of charges and the statement of allegations on which the articles of charges were based were enclosed with the Memo. 12. The petitioner did not file the articles of charges and statement of allegations on which the charges were based. In para 12 of the petition, it was said that the same were Dot being annexed as they formed a charge sheet at a subsequent stage, it was not disputed before us that the articles of charges and the statement of allegations on which the charges were based were similar to the charge-sheet submitted to the petitioner. There is no substance in the contention of Sri Prakash Gupta that the Memo dated 28th May, 1979 was inadequate as it did not inform the petitioner that he was liable to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the charges framed against him. There is no substance in the contention of Sri Prakash Gupta that the Memo dated 28th May, 1979 was inadequate as it did not inform the petitioner that he was liable to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the charges framed against him. Annexure 5 shows that the following was duly mentioned : "The aforesaid acts of omission and commission/gross misconduct of Sri N. L. Saraswat are liable for major penalties prescribed under paras 4 (e) to 4 (h) of the Appeal Regulations." 13. He was further informed that he had to submit his written statement of defence on the articles of charges and the statement of allegations made there in within 15 days of the receipt in terms of Regulation 6(3) of the Appeal Regulations. it is obvious that the petitioner was not only informed that he was being called upon to furnish a written statement of his defence, under para 3 of Regulation 6 of the Appeal Regulations but he was also informed that he was liable for major penalties as prescribed in Regulation 4 (e) to (h). 14. The submission of a formal charge sheet on 24th July, 1979 vide Annexure 7 was merely superfluous. The Appeal Regulations did not provide for submission of a formal charge-sheet in addition to the articles of charges together with a statement of allegations on which they were based. The mere fact that a formal charge-sheet w s also submitted could not wash away the compliance of para 3 of Regulation 6 of the Appeal Regulations which had been made earlier vide Annexure 5. In U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narain, AIR 1980 SC 840 at pp. 844 para 4, it was held : - "A regular departmental enquiry takes place only after a charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latters explanation is obtained." 15. In this case, a regular departmental enquiry commenced when the Memo dated 28th May, 1979 vide Annexure 5 along with the articles of charges and the statement of allegations on which the charges were based was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21st June 19 ?9 vide Annexure 6. 16. Sri S. N. Verma drew our attention to Annexure 11 the copy of the enquiry proceedings held between 18th December, 1979 and 29th January, i9s0. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21st June 19 ?9 vide Annexure 6. 16. Sri S. N. Verma drew our attention to Annexure 11 the copy of the enquiry proceedings held between 18th December, 1979 and 29th January, i9s0. At various places the petitioner referred to the explanation submitted by him on 21st June, 1979 vide Annexnre 6 and he had nothing further to add in his defence on the various charges. 17. We are thus of the opinion that the issuing of the charge-sheet on 24th July, 1979 vide Annexure 7 was entirely superfluous, that compliance of para 3 of Regulation 6 of the Appeal Regulations has been made when Memo dated 28th May, 1979, vide Annexure 5 was sent to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation dated 21st June, 197v vide Annexure 6, that the omission to call upon the petitioner to furnish a statement of his defence in the charge-sheet dated 24th July, 1979 was of no consequence, that the petitioner in fact relied upon his explanation submitted on 21st June, 1979 during the enquiry proceedings also and more often he had nothing to add and that the petitioner was in no way prejudiced by the alleged omission to call upon him to furnish his written statement of his defence in the chargesheet submitted to him. 18. Sri Prakash Gupta submitted that the Enquiring Authority refused to adjourn the case on 21st January, 1980 when the petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that Sri Marathey who was to defend his case had not come. The enquiry proceedings dated 21st January, 1980 vide copy Annexure 11, however, show that the petitioner informed the Enquiring Authority that his representative had not come on 21st January, 1980 and that he would, therefore, defend by contesting the enquiry himself. It is significant to note that the enquiry proceedings were meticulously maintained verbatim as the enquiry proceeded. After each days proceedings the Enquiring Authority the Presenting Officer and the charge sheeted Officer signed the proceedings and copy of the day's proceedings was given to the petitioner. The manner in which the proceedings were maintained leaves no room for doubt that the same were correctly maintained. After each days proceedings the Enquiring Authority the Presenting Officer and the charge sheeted Officer signed the proceedings and copy of the day's proceedings was given to the petitioner. The manner in which the proceedings were maintained leaves no room for doubt that the same were correctly maintained. There is no substance in the contention that the petitioner wanted any further adjournment on 21st January, 1980 and the record shows that he told the Enquiring Authority that he would defend by contesting the enquiry himself. We are unable to accept that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced. 19. Sri Prakash Gupta next submitted that the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as the copies of documents were not furnished to him before the commencement of the enquiry. He contended that only a list of documents was submitted earlier vide Memo dated 28th August, 1979, Annexure 8. The copies of documents were furnished after each charge was proved by the Presenting Officer. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623 . It was held : - "It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the right to cross examine the witnesses who give evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the enquiry officer by not giving to the officer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would he that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with rules of natural justice." 20. Sri S.N. Verma submitted that the respondents gave various opportunities to the petitioner to explain his conduct. Annexure 2 (CA) is a copy of letter dated 16th August, 1977 sent by the Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra calling for the petitioners explanation on the internal audit objection within 3 days. The memo received by the petitioner on 19th August, 1977. Annexure 3 (CA) is the explanation dated 22nd August 1977 submitted by the petitioner. Annexure 1(CA) is the copy of letter dated 7th October, 1977 sent by the Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra calling upon the petitioner to furnish his further explanation within 3 days. The petitioner received the copy of the letter on the same day. Annexure 4 (CA) is the explanation dated 19th October, 1977 submitted by the petitioner. Annexure 1(CA) is the copy of letter dated 7th October, 1977 sent by the Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra calling upon the petitioner to furnish his further explanation within 3 days. The petitioner received the copy of the letter on the same day. Annexure 4 (CA) is the explanation dated 19th October, 1977 submitted by the petitioner. It was pointed out that in both the letters vide Annexures 2 and 1 (CA), the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Annexure 2 is the copy of memo dated 31st October, 1977 whereby further explanation of the petitioner was called for. Annexure 3 is the copy of the explanation dated 12th November, 1977 submitted by the petitioner. It was thus submitted that the petitioners explanation had been called for on three occasions before formally submitting the articles of charges and the statement of allegations on which the charges were based vide Memo dated 28th May, 1979 (Annexure 5). It is obvious that the petitioner had about two years at his disposal in which he could inspect the record and submit his explanation. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner at any stage claimed inspection of the records and the same was refused. There is also nothing on the record to show that the petitioner prayed for copies of documents and the same were not given. 21. Sri S.N. Verma drew our attention to para 10(a) of Regulation 6 of the Appeal Regulations which provides as below : - "The inquiring authority shall, where the officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved." 22. Sri S.N. Verma submitted that under the relevant regulation governing the petitioner there is no provision for supply of copies of documents and only a list of documents and a list of witnesses have to be furnished. 23. Sri S.N. Verma submitted that under the relevant regulation governing the petitioner there is no provision for supply of copies of documents and only a list of documents and a list of witnesses have to be furnished. 23. Sri S.N. Verma drew our attention to Annexure 8, the copy of the letter dated 28th August, 19 79 whereby the list of documents was furnished to the petitioner and submitted that the description in the list was fairly in detail and the petitioner could have no difficulty in knowing the nature of the documents. 24. Sri S.N. Verma drew our attention to the enquiry proceedings vide copy Annexure U which shows that after the Presenting Officer presented his case in respect of each charge, the petitioner was given the copies of the relevant documents and was also permitted to inspect the documents. 25. Sri S.N. Varma emphasised that the enquiry proceedings show that at no stage the petitioner sought any adjournment on the ground that copies of documents had not been given to him. 26. 25. Sri S.N. Varma emphasised that the enquiry proceedings show that at no stage the petitioner sought any adjournment on the ground that copies of documents had not been given to him. 26. In Union of India v. T.R.Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 at 885, it was held - "Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, and that no material should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them." In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , it was held on page 1629 : - "The only general statement that can be safely made in this connection is that the departmental enquiry should observe rules of natural justice and that if they are fairly and properly conducted the decisions reached by the enquiry officer on merits are not liable to be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not exactly in accordance with that which is observed in Courts of law." In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, AIR 1984 SC 273 at page 282, it was held : - "The basic concept is fair play in action administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial The concept of fair play in action must depend upon the particular Us, if there be any between the parties. If the credibility of a person who has testified or given some information is in doubt, or if the version or the statement of the person who has testified, is, in dispute, right of cross-examination must inevitably form part of fair play in action but where there is no is regarding the facts but certain explanation of the circumstances there is no requirement of cross-examination to be fulfilled to justify fair play in action. When on the question of fact there was no dispute, no real prejudice has been caused to a party aggrieved by an order, by absence of any formal opportunity of cross-examination per se does not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. When on the question of fact there was no dispute, no real prejudice has been caused to a party aggrieved by an order, by absence of any formal opportunity of cross-examination per se does not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. This is more so when the Party against whom an order has been passed does not dispute the facts and does not to test the veracity of the version of the credibility of the statement." 27. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us and we find much substance in the submission of Sri S. N. Verma. We hold that the petitioner had been given three opportunities of submitting his explanation before the commencement of the formal proceedings vide Memo dated 28th May, 1979 (Annexure 5). The petitioner replied to this also on 21st June, 1979 vide Annexure 6. At no stage the petitioner made any prayer for inspecting the documents or for copies of the documents in order to enable him to give his explanation. As he submitted the explanation with all the details, it can be reasonably assumed that he inspected the documents. The enquiry proceedings show that more often he had nothing to add to the explanation submitted by him on 21st June, 1979 vide Annexure 6. 28. We, therefore, hold that under the rules, a list of documents was required to be furnished, to the petitioner, that copies of documents were not required to be furnished that the petitioner submitted three explanations prior to submitting his final explanation on 21st June, 1979 that the petitioner was not in any way prejudiced by the failure to furnish copies of documents to him, that the copies of documents were duly furnished to him as and when each charge was proved, that the petitioner was given every reasonable opportunity of explaining his position and that the petitioner had more often nothing to add to the explanation furnished by him earlier on 21st June, 1979 vide Annexure 6. 29. Sri Prakash Gupta next submitted that no order was passed by the Enquiring Authority under Regulation 6( 10,(b)( 1) of the Appeal Regulations. This provides that the Enquiring Authority shall record an order that the officer employee may inspect the documents listed within 5 days of the order. 29. Sri Prakash Gupta next submitted that no order was passed by the Enquiring Authority under Regulation 6( 10,(b)( 1) of the Appeal Regulations. This provides that the Enquiring Authority shall record an order that the officer employee may inspect the documents listed within 5 days of the order. In view of the detailed discussion made above, the absence of any such order did not prejudice the petitioner and it can be said that principles of natural justice were violated by the omission to pass such an order. 30. Sri Prakash Gupta next submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did not give any reason for the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and there was a breach of Regulation 7(3) of the Appeal Regulations. Regulation 7 provides as below : - "Action on the Inquiry report. - (I) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of regulation 6 as far as may be. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its finding's on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any or the penalties specified in regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, not withstanding anything contained in regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned." 31. Sri S. N. Verma referred to the order dated 2nd May, 1980 passed by Sri Sri B. N. Bhaya, the Disciplinary Authority vide copy Annexure 12. It was mentioned - "I have carefully studied the proceedings of the enquiry and find that all the 16 charges put up by the Presenting Officer stand proved." 32. Sri S. N. Verma referred to the order dated 2nd May, 1980 passed by Sri Sri B. N. Bhaya, the Disciplinary Authority vide copy Annexure 12. It was mentioned - "I have carefully studied the proceedings of the enquiry and find that all the 16 charges put up by the Presenting Officer stand proved." 32. Sri S. N. Verma submitted that under para 2 of Regulation / of the Appeal Regulations, the Disciplinary Authority is required to give reasons case it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiring Authority. The above observation of the Disciplinary Authority clearly shows that he agreed with the finding of the Enquiring Authority on all the charges and it was, therefore, not necessary for him to give his reasons. 33. Union of India and others v. Shashi Bhushan Biswas, AIR 1970 Cal 545 and General Manager Eastern Railway v. Jwala Prasad, AIR 1970 SC 1095 and authorities on Rule 1713 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I. In the first case, It was held that if the punishing authority does not record his own finding separately on each charge, the order is vitiated for non compliance of Rule 1713. In the second case the Supreme Court also held that under Rule 1713, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the record of the enquiry and record its finding an each charge. 34. Vijay Singh Yadav v. State, 1972 Lab 713 is an authority on Rule 13 of Punjab Civil Vetenary Service. It was held that an order dismissing an employee must be a speaking order and more so if the order is appealable. The authorities based on different service regulations cannot be of any help to the petitioner. 35. In State of Assam v. Vimal Kumar, AIR 1963 SC 1612 , the dismissing authority did not expressly state that he agreed with the findings of the inquiring authority but issued a second notice under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court repelled the plea that the notice did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer under Article 311(2). 36. The Supreme Court repelled the plea that the notice did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer under Article 311(2). 36. In State of Madras v. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 , the Supreme Court held on page 1831 "In dealing with the question as to whether it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing a penalty on the delinquent official, we cannot overlook the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer being with an inquiry conducted by an officer conducted in this behalf. The enquiry is followed by a report and Public Service Commission is consulted where necessary. Having regard to the materials which is thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it seems the State Government must record the reasons why it accepts the finding of the tribunal " In Som Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 414 the Supreme Court held on page 422 "Apart from any requirement imposed by any statute or statutory rule expressly or by necessary implication, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Datta that there is any general principle or any rule of natural justice that a statutory tribunal should always and in ever, case give reasons in support of its decision." 37. In Tara Chand v. Delhi Municipality, AIR 1977 SC 567 , the Supreme Court repelled the argument that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated as it did not record its findings with respect to the charge drawn up against the employee as required by para 3(9) of the Regulations nor has it given its reasons for passing the order. The first limb of the argument was repelled on the ground that the impugned order stated that the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The second limb of the argument was repelled on the basis of earlier decisions in State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan, AlR 1966 SC 1827 Som Dutt Datta v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 414. 38. Taking into consideration the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Appeal Regulations and the authorities referred to above, we are of the opinion that the order dated 2-5-1980 passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure 12 is not vitiated on account of want of reasons. 39. 38. Taking into consideration the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Appeal Regulations and the authorities referred to above, we are of the opinion that the order dated 2-5-1980 passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure 12 is not vitiated on account of want of reasons. 39. Sri Prakash Gupta submitted that the appellate order 25-9-1980 vide Annexure 17(2) is vitiated as the Appellate Authority was none else than Sri S. K. Gauba who had passed the order of compulsory retirement on 21st May, 1980 vide Annexure 13. 40. Sri S N. Verma submitted that the order of compulsory retirement was passed by B. N. Bhaya the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure 12 dated 2nd May, 1980 and Sri S. K. Gauba merely communicated the order vide Annexure 13 dated 21st May, 1980. 41. Annexure 15 is the copy of the Memo of Appeal filed on 11th August, 1980 It shows that the appeal had been filed both against the order dated 2nd May, 1980 passed by Sri B. N. Bhaya, Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Kanpur as well as against the order dated 21st May, 1980 passed by Sri S. K. Gauba, Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow. Annexure 17(2), the copy of the appellate order dated 25-9-1980 shows that the appeal was heard by Sri S. K. Gauba. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the appeal should not be heard by an officer who himself passed the impugned order. In this view of the matter the appellate order dated 25th September, 1980 is vitiated. 42. The result is that the petition succeeds partly. 43. The petition is partly allowed and the appellate order dated 25-9-1980 vide Annexure 17(2) is quashed. The respondents are directed to appoint a fresh Appellate Authority other than Sri S. K. Gauba who passed the order dated 21st May, 1980 compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The appeal shall be heard and decided by an appellate authority so appointed in accordance with the Appeal Regulations. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.