Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority (respondent No.3), Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, patna Zonal Office, dated the 10th December, 1986 (Annexure-3), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. On appeal, the Deputy General manager of the Central Bank of India (respondent No.2), affirmed the said order on 16th July, 1988 (Annexure-9 ). The petitioner has further challenged the proceeding held during the inquiry and has prayed for reinstatement to the post he held along with the consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner entered the Banks service in the year 1959 and was promoted to the Office Grade as Sub-Accountant in March, 1971. He worked as Branch Manager first at Bikramganj and thereafter at the Fraser road Branch, Patna. In the year 1979, he was promoted as Deputy Chief officer and then posted as Branch Manager at the Birla Mandir Road Branch in Patna In March, 1984, he was transferred to the Sasaram Branch in place of Shri Makardhwaj Tripathi. Having learnt about several irregularities and unmanagable advanced at Sasaram Branch, the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to join there and represented before the Management for his posting at some other place other than Sasaram Branch. The petitioner joined the Sasaram Branch in August, 1984, and soon thereafter he represented before the Assistant General Manager Patna Regional Office for his mutual transfer to the Sakchi Branch at Jamshedpur. After joining the sasaram Branch, the petitioner brought to the notice of the higher authorities of the Bank, including the Assistant General Manager and the Regional manager, Patna, about the Irregularities and unmanageable advances of the sasaram Branch made by Shri Tripathi which caused annoyance to Shri tripathi and he became revengeful towards the petitioner. Apprehending that some action might be taken against Shri Tripathi, he statted reporting to the Regional Manager that the petitioner had issued some Bank guarantees without maintaining any record in the bank, although the petitioner had maintained proper record, register and files relating to the Bank guarantees but they were either concealed or removed from the Branch with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner. 3. On 9-10-1984, the petitioner was transferred from the Sasaram branch and posted at Sakchi Branch at Jamshedpur where he joined as branch Manager. 3. On 9-10-1984, the petitioner was transferred from the Sasaram branch and posted at Sakchi Branch at Jamshedpur where he joined as branch Manager. On 28th August, 1985, he was served with a memo issued by the Regional Manager, Ranchi asking an explanation from him. One of the charges was that the petitioner issued Bank guarantees keeping no record at the Branch. He did not maintain any margin or counter-guarantees and failed to charge commission from the concerned parties. Thus, he kept the higher authorities of the Bank in dark about these transactions with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention to benefit certain parties and to benefit himself by obliging them at the cost of the Bank. He thereby failed to work with sincerity and integrity. In resect of one of the guarantees, the petitioner is alleged to have extended the period upto 31-3-1985 when he was no more working as Branch manager at the Birla Mandir Road Branch. The said guarantee was initially issued by him for the period 15-2-1984 to 31-12-1984, which he further renewed upto 31-3-1985 vide his letter dated 17-8-1984. This was done by him without keeping anv record in the Bank and without informing the new branch Manager Shri Tripathi who was posted in his place. The said Shri tripathi joined the Birla Mandir Road Branch on 20-8-1984 and relieved the petitioner on 21-8-1984. As alleged, the letter dated 17-8-1984 addressed to the Accounts Officer, bihar State Electricity Board, was found to have been delivered by the party to the Board on the recovery of the letter dated 29-12-1984. This clearly established that the petitioner had extended the period of guarantee some times in December, 1984 when he was no more Branch Manager at the Birla mandir Road Branch. 4. To these articles of charges contained in the memo dated 19-2-1986, the petitioner submitted his reply on 13th March, 1986. 5. The basis for issuing the said memo of charges was the report of the said Shri Tripathi dated 12th April, 1985. The said Shri Tripathi was the new incumbent in place of the petitioner at the Birla Mandir Road Branch at Patna. The report of Shri Tripathi was based upon a letter dated 25th march, 1985, of the Bihar State Electricity Board which is said to have been received by an officer of the Bank at the Birla Mandir Road Branch. The said Shri Tripathi was the new incumbent in place of the petitioner at the Birla Mandir Road Branch at Patna. The report of Shri Tripathi was based upon a letter dated 25th march, 1985, of the Bihar State Electricity Board which is said to have been received by an officer of the Bank at the Birla Mandir Road Branch. The letter of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated 25th March, 1985, was marked as Management Ext-M-2, and was admitted in evidence 1. 6. The memorandum of charges was based on the report of Shri makardhwaj Tripathi dated the 12th April, 1985. The Said Shri Tripathi was the new incumbent in place of the petitioner at Birla Mandir Road branch at Patna. The report of Shri Tripathi was founded upon a letter of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated the 25th March, 1985, which is alleged to have been received by an officer of the Bank at the Birla Mandir Road branch. The petitioner had challenged the genuineness of the said letter of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated the 25th March, ) 985. Neither the author of the said letter nor the officer concerned who received the said letter were examined by the Presenting Officer. The Receipt Book, as well, was not produced before the Inquiring Authority even then the said letter dated 25tb, March, 1985 (M. Ext.2) was admitted into evidence on behalf of the management. The alleged report of Shri Tripathi dated 12th April, 1985, was not given to the petitioner on the basis of which the present inquiry was set up. Jn absence of the crucial letter of the Bihar State Electricity Board, upon which the report of Shri Tripathi proceeded, M. Ext.2 marked on behalf of the Management, was inadmissible in evidence because neither the author of the said letter nor the officer concerned who received the said letter were examined by the Inquiring Authority. Even the Receipt Book was also not produced to prove it. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit as to why the said report of Sri Tripathi was withheld and so to what were the reasons for not examining the author of the said letter dated 25th March, 1985, which formed the basis of the said report. Even the Receipt Book was also not produced to prove it. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit as to why the said report of Sri Tripathi was withheld and so to what were the reasons for not examining the author of the said letter dated 25th March, 1985, which formed the basis of the said report. There is no explanation why the officer concerned who received the said letter was not examined and as to why the Receipt Book was not produced before the Inquiring Authority. 7. Even before star ting the disciplinary proceeding, the admitted position is that a through investigation had been conducted by the then Regional manager Mr. B. R. Oberoi. During the course of investigation, depositions of certain witnesses were recorded on the basis of which he arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner did not act in a mala fide manner while issuing bank guarantees and he recommended to the Zonal Manager that the suspension of the petitioner be lifted. Copies of the statements of witnesses and the documents which were taken into account by the then Regional Manager shri Oberoi during the course of investigation, were not supplied to the petitioner. The finding of Shri Oberoi recorded after investigation was also not given to the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the investigation was an internal matter and the report, if any, of Mr. Oberoi along with the statement of some witnesses, if at all taken, were not relied upon to prove the charges against the petitioner. The statement made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit is not categorical as to whether the said shri Oberoi did submit any report or not along with the statement of a few witnesses. In cross-examination, Mr. Oberoi (M. W.5) said that he could not remember whether he had recommended for lifting the suspension of the petitioner. It is not suggested in the counter affidavit that no report was submitted by Mr. Oberoi at all and that the statement of some witnesses during the course of investigation was not recorded by him at all. In cross-examination, Mr. Oberoi (M. W.5) said that he could not remember whether he had recommended for lifting the suspension of the petitioner. It is not suggested in the counter affidavit that no report was submitted by Mr. Oberoi at all and that the statement of some witnesses during the course of investigation was not recorded by him at all. As against that, the petitioner has asserted that a thorough investigation into the allegation was conducted by Shri Oberoi before starting the disciplinary proceeding in course of which the statement of certain witnesses was recorded and it was further alleged that Shri Oberoi arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner did not act mala fide while issuing Bank guarantees and he further recommended to the Zonal Manager for lifting suspension against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it was convenient for the Management not to rely on the said report because it was in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the contention that it was not used in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner is not relevant and the copies of the report and the statement of witnesses recorded by Shri Oberoi were relevant documents to unfold the truth and the petitioner would have placed reliance on the statement of such witnesses and the recommendation of Shri Oberoi if the same would have been made available to him. It was, thus, necessary, in the circumstances, that the petitioner should have been afforded copies of the statement of witnesses recorded by shri Oberoi as also his findings and/or recommendation recorded by him. In fact, these documects should have been placed before the inquiring Authority but these documents were withheld by the management. This caused serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner and the disciplinary proceeding was not fairly conducted. 8. In reply to the memorandum of charges dated 20th August, 1985, submitted by the petitioner on 18th September, 1985, it was categorically asserted by him that he maintained separate Register and file relating to Bank guarantees at the Branch. In course of the inquiry proceeding held on 10th may, 1986, the representative of the petitioner made a prayer before the inquiring Authority for searching out the Register and file which were maintained by the petitioner. In course of the inquiry proceeding held on 10th may, 1986, the representative of the petitioner made a prayer before the inquiring Authority for searching out the Register and file which were maintained by the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority made observation in writing that the doubt raised by the petitioners representative was a vital one since the guarantee Register was not being produced by the Management. The Inquiring Authority also observed that natural justice required searching out of those Registers and flies, if any, assured that he would look into the matter but even then the petitioner was not given any opportunity to search out those Registers and files. When the same prayer was reiterated by the representative of the petitioner on 7th June, 1986, drawing the attention of the luquiring Authority about his observations to provide the petitioner an opportunity to search out the Bank guarantee Register at the Branch, the inquiring Authority rejected if by holding that the presenting Officer of the Bank had stated that there was no Register or file maintained at the branch. 9. In order to demolish the charges relating to the maintenance of record, maintenance of margin and taking of the counter guarantees, the petitioner brought on record of the proceeding that the parties in whose favour guarantees were issued were very credible parties of the Bank maintaining substantial amount to their credit to meet any exigencies of the guarantee. According to the Banks Circular, guarantees may be secured by reservation of the full guarantee amount and the parties C. B s Account. True copies of the counter guarantees were also brought on the record, office copies of which were handed over to the parties concerned but without assigning any reason, the Disciplinary authority rejected it. The stant taken in the counter affidavit was that, since no record or Register of the Bank guarantees were maintained, the question of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to search out the Banks record did not arise. As per the evidence of the Management witness, i. e. , the incoming Branch manager (M. W.2), it was gathered from the examination-in-chief as also cross-examination that one Bank guarantee register could be searched out but there was no recording of the guarantee issued by the petitioner. As per the evidence of the Management witness, i. e. , the incoming Branch manager (M. W.2), it was gathered from the examination-in-chief as also cross-examination that one Bank guarantee register could be searched out but there was no recording of the guarantee issued by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner never called for such Register for his defence or examination and, if the same would have been called for, it would have been supplied as there was the existence of the said record. In reply to the same, the petitioner reiterated his categorical assertion made in paragraph 18 to 20 of the writ application. The stand of the Bank taken in the counter affidavit is against the known principles of natural justice, equity arid fair play. There was no reason why the petitioner should not have been permitted to search out the Bank record in order to establish that he did maintain separate Register and file relating to Bank guarantees at the Branch. In course of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority had rightly observed that natural justice required an opportunity to be given to the petitioner for searching out those Registers and files but at a later stage it was rejected without assigning any reason. Jt was in the interest of justice that the petitioner should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to search out such Record and file maintained by him in the Bank. In absence of such an opportunity how could he have refuted the charges about the maintenance of Register and file. Mere denial that no such Register was maintained was not enough in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If no such Register was maintained, the petitioner might have failed in his effort to search out that Register and only then it could have been said that the petitioner did not maintain it. The inquiring Authority did not record any reason and arbitrarily rejected the request of the petitioner made by his representative. 10. The second and the third charges are co-related regarding extension of the period of guarantee No.4/84. In proof cf these charges the disciplinary authority has relied upon a letter dated 29-12-1984 alleged to have been written by the petitioner. It has been wrongly held that the letter was written by the petitioner. It is a letter written by the concerned party to the Bihar state Electricity Board. In proof cf these charges the disciplinary authority has relied upon a letter dated 29-12-1984 alleged to have been written by the petitioner. It has been wrongly held that the letter was written by the petitioner. It is a letter written by the concerned party to the Bihar state Electricity Board. Merely because the extension letter of Bank guarantee dated 17th August, 1984, was submitted to the Bihar State Electricity Board by the party concerned on 29th December, 1984, it should not be assumed that the petitioner signed the said letter extending the period of gurantee some times in December, 1984. Thus, the disciplinary authority committed error of record in placing reliance on the said letter to uphold the charges. It appears that while considering these charges the disciplinary Authority miserad Ext. M/39 and wrongly held that it was not a reminder but the first letter regarding extension of guarantee. A bare reading of the aforesaid letter Ext. M/39 would re\eal that it was a reminder of D. Ext.11 which was sent to the Bank by the parties concerned along with the letter dated 28th May, 1984 (D. Ext.12 ). The disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority failed to consider the defence Ext.10 to 13, which demolish these charges. The defence Ext. D-Exts.10 to 13 have been arbitrarily rejected by the disciplinary authority. If these Ext.10 to 13 would have been properly considered, it would have been evidently clear that M. Ext.39 referred d. Ext.11 and this D. Ext.11 referred D. Ext.10. All these letter D. Exts.10 to 13 and M. Ext.39 are connected with each other regarding the extension of Bank guarantee. The disciplinary authority committed an error of record in holding that Ext. M.39 is the first letter. In fact, a bare perusal of Ext. M.39 would show that it is not a complete letter but an extract of the letter noted from the Electricity Boards file. The same has also not been authenticated by any of the authorities of the Electricity Board. 11. The disciplinaiy authority was not justified in holding that the counter guarantees were not taken merely because they were taken on stamp paper of lesser value. The D. Exts.1 to 9 were wrongly rejected on mere surmises that they might have been prepared subsequently. 11. The disciplinaiy authority was not justified in holding that the counter guarantees were not taken merely because they were taken on stamp paper of lesser value. The D. Exts.1 to 9 were wrongly rejected on mere surmises that they might have been prepared subsequently. This could not have been possible for the reason that D. Exts.20 and 21 which are certified copies obtained from the Treasury, would have cleared the doubt about the issuance of the stamp papers on different dates for guarantees and counter guarantees. The disciplinary authority failed to appreciate that the guarantee bonds were obtained on stamp paper of Rs.24/- and counter guarantee on stamp paper of Rs.3.50 paise and certified copies relating to the purchase of the stamp papers, for the said purpose, were filed in respect of only four cases, which, on search, could be available in the Treasury Officer. 12. The findings of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the central Bank of India Officer Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal)Regulations, 1976. It is necessary to notice the provision of regulation 7 (2) which reads as follows : "7. Action on the inquiry report. " (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". 13. Here, in the present case, the Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry before starting the disciplinary proceeding in course of which the statement of certain witnesses were recorded and then the Inquiring Authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner did not act mala fide while issuing Bank guarantee and recommended to the Zonal Manager that the suspension against the petitioner be lifted. It is not suggested in the counter affidavit that no report was submitted by Mr. Oberoi at all and that the statement of some witnesses was not recorded during the course of such inquiry. The said inquiry report was. therefore, in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 (2), it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to record its own reasons for any such disagreement with the findings of the inquiring authority and it had to record its own finding on such disagreement. The said inquiry report was. therefore, in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 (2), it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to record its own reasons for any such disagreement with the findings of the inquiring authority and it had to record its own finding on such disagreement. On the other hand, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority proceeded on mere surmises and conjectures. There is no finding that the act of the petitioner, in any way, caused any illegal benefit to himself or caused illegal loss to the Bank. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the impugned punishment or removal from service is unwarranted and untenable. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and this application is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is reinstated back to his service with all consequential benefits. Petition allowed.