S.N. Phukan, J.:- The writ petitioner joined the State Bank of India In the year 1968 as cashier. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of officer Grade-II and then to Grade-I. While he was serving: as Accountant (Grade-I) at the branch office of the State Bank of India at Phek, Nagaland he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch, State of Tripura and he joined the new place of posting in the first week of January, 1981. It may be stated that the petitioner left Phek on leave after banding over charge and according to the petitioner he left his belongings and other articles at his quarter at Phek. For transpor­tation of his belongings to Amarpur he obtained three quotations from three different carriers. The lowest quotation being Rs. 9,500/- he sent the said quotation to the Regional office for obtaining san­ction. The petitioner while serving as Accountant in the Phek Branch was also holding the post of Branch Manager for some time and during that period he sanctioned an amount of rupees one lakh to one Shri Asang Snock of Mellury for construction of a building which was to be taken over by the State Bank of India (for short, S.B.I.) for opening of a Branch office. After joining at his new place of posting a departmental proceeding was initiated by Memorandum dated 8th February, 1984 and 5 (five) charges were drawn up aga­inst the petitioner. The said charges were: "Charge No. I-That on 10.2.82, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194. 80P in connection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch. In the said bill you made a claim for Rs. 9.500/- being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full truck and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated 9.1.82 for Rs.9.500/- obtained from one M/S. Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur whereas you neither engaged a full truck nor spent Rs.9,500/- for the transport of household goods. By your above act you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32 (4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff Se­rvice) Rules. Charge II-That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12, 194. 80P dated 10.2.82 you made another claim for Rs. By your above act you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32 (4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff Se­rvice) Rules. Charge II-That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12, 194. 80P dated 10.2.82 you made another claim for Rs. 120/-supported by two false separate money receipts dated 9.1.82 for Rs. 60/- each obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek and Amarpur respectively. By jour above act again you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and violated Rule 32 (4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge III-The at along with the Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.SOP dated 10.2.82 you furnished a list of 19 packages of household items claimed to have been transported from Phek to Amarpur whereas only 8 package-s of household goods were transported. Thus you knowingly furnished an infl­ated list of goods transported with an intention to derive undue pecuniary benefit and thereby infringed Rule 32 (4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge IV-That during the period of your posting at our Phek Branch your S. B. Account thereat showed frequent dep­osits by means of cash as well as transfer transactions. These deposits and various T. D. Rs. S. T. D. Rs. and other assest acquired as detailed in the Statement of Allegations enclosed herewith, indicate that you were having assets disproportion­ate to your known sources of income the fact which reflects adversely on your conduct which is unbecoming of a Bank official and thus you infringed Rule 32 (4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge V-That while you were holding temporary charge of the Phek Branch you disbursed a construction loan to Shri Asong Snock in two installments i.e. Rs. 90,000/- on 7.5.81 i.e. as, soon as you received the sanction from Regional office and Rs. 10.000/-on 10.5.81. without taking into account the progress of the construction of the building as instructed by Regional Office. The said loan was not utilised for the construction of the building and as a result of which the accou­nt become irregular. Thus you have infringed Rules 321) 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 2. 10.000/-on 10.5.81. without taking into account the progress of the construction of the building as instructed by Regional Office. The said loan was not utilised for the construction of the building and as a result of which the accou­nt become irregular. Thus you have infringed Rules 321) 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 2. On the basis of the Enquiry Report dated 18.8.84 the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Chief General Manager by order dated 7.10.85, vide Annexure 'D' to the petition, punishment of removal from service in terms of Rule 49 (g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules was inflicted on the petitioner. From the order of the Disciplinary Authority, which has been ann­exed to the said order of removal, we find that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the report of Enquiry Officer regard-log Charge-IV and, therefore, held that the said charge was not proved. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner under the relevant Rule was dismissed by the Local Board at its meeting held on Dec­ember 10, 1985. Resolution of the said Board is quoted below: "THE BOARD after having fully considered the facts of the case and after having applied their minds independently on all the points made in the appeal concluded that there are no grounds to sustain the appeal filed by Shri S. K. Endow and accordingly RESOLVED that the order of the Disciplinary Auth­ority be upheld and that the appeal made by him be dismissed''. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed 3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Officer-in-charge, Disciplinary Action Cell of the State Bank of India. In the said affidavit allegations made in the writ petition have been denied and it has been urged that the petitioner was removed from service after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Rules. It has further been urged that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority after proper application of mind and considering the entire materials on record. The original record of the disciplinary proceeding has also bees produced before the Court. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has urged that in the case in hand, the impugned orders were passed without giving reasonable opportunity to (he petitioner in the departmental proceeding. The original record of the disciplinary proceeding has also bees produced before the Court. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has urged that in the case in hand, the impugned orders were passed without giving reasonable opportunity to (he petitioner in the departmental proceeding. The law is well-settled that in such a proceeding the principle of audi-alterom pattern has to be followed, otherwise the entire proceeding is vitiated (see Town Area Committee vs. Jagadish Prasad, AIR 1978 SC 1407 ; K.L. Tripoli vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1984 SC 273 . In the case in hand, from the record of the departmental proceeding it is clear that the writ petitioner was given full opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses and to produce, his defence. He was also given defence Assistant. From the record we are satisfied that the enquiry was conducted keeping in view the above principle and on that ground the proceeding cannot be faulted. 5. The next contention of Mr. Das is that the charges are vague and, as such, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision in Surath Chandra vs. State of West Bengal. AIR 1971 SC 752 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that vague and indefinite charges and failure to supply statement of allegations would render the order of removal of a government servant void and in­operative. The said law was reiterated by the Apex Court in Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajas than, AIR 1986 SC 995 . 6. Coming to the case in hand, we do not find any vagueness in the charges and the statement of allegations. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel. 7. The next contention of Mr. Das is that prior to passing of the impugned order, report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the petitioner. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. 7. The next contention of Mr. Das is that prior to passing of the impugned order, report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the petitioner. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Bashyan (1988) 2 SCC 196 .ln that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, reported in (1988) 6 ATC 904 (Premnath K. Sharma vs. Union o India) wherein it was held that furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the charged officer before recording a finding against him is obligatory and failure to do so would viliate the inquiry. Their Lordships considered the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and considered whether such report of the Enquiry Officer being the basic material for holding that the delinquent was guilty was not made available to the delinquent till the axe fell on him, could it be said that the principles of Natural Justice had been complied with Could it be said that the delinquent had an opportunity to address the mind of the Disciplinary Authority who alone in reality found him guilty Their Lordships expressed the view that it the would be difficult to resist the conclusion that for non-supply of such report the principles of natural justice had been violated and the delin­quent had been denied reasonable opportunity. As the decision on this point would affect million of employees in service. the matter was referred to a larger Beach. Mr. Das has rightly pointed out that as the matter has not been decided by the larger Bench, non-furnishing of such a copy before passing the final order by the Disciplinary Authority is violative of principle of Natu­ral Justice. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn our att­ention to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Bishnu Ranjan Bardhan vs. Tripura Jute Mills Limited. (1988) 2 GLR (NOC) 10. In that case the enquiry report was not only supplied to the dismissed employee but the same was also not made available to the court and on this ground the dismissal order was set aside. (1988) 2 GLR (NOC) 10. In that case the enquiry report was not only supplied to the dismissed employee but the same was also not made available to the court and on this ground the dismissal order was set aside. We, therefore, hold that the present proceeding is vitiated as the report of the enquiry officer was not furnished to the writ petitioner before the final order of removal was passed. 8. The next attack of Mr. Das is on the order passed by the appellate Authority which we have already quoted. 9. Rule 51 (2) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules provides for procedure for disposal of appeal by the appellate authority. The relevant portion of the said Rule runs as follows: "........the appellate authority shall consider whether the findings are justified and/or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders." Thus, from reading the rule we find that the appellate authori­ty has to consider the entire findings so as to ascertain whether the findings are justified or not and the authority has further to apply its mind as to whether penalty is excessive or inadequate. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1940. In that case, their Lordships considered Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and held that the order of the appellate authority passed under the above Rule only stating that after thorough examination of the facts the punishment imp­osed was just and in accordance with the Rule applicable, was not an appropriate order as there was no indication in the said appe­llate order that the appellate authority was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the rules had been complied with. Their Lordships regretted that the Director General while disposing of the appeal did not give any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the cadence on record. 11. ID reply, Mr. Their Lordships regretted that the Director General while disposing of the appeal did not give any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the cadence on record. 11. ID reply, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173 wherein it was held that in the absence of a requirement in the Statute or the Rules, there is no duty cast on an appellate authority to give reasons where the order is one of affirmance. Their Lordships also considered the land mark decision reported in (1985)3 SCC 398 (Tulshi Ram Patel) and held that the appellate authority would pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal as reasoned decisions by Tribunals would promote public con­fidence in the administrative process. We may add here that as such an order is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 or of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, it is expected that the appellate authority should give reasoned orders. 12. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.1 of the relevant rule, the appellate authority has to consider justification of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and adequacy of the penalty. We have perused the order dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. The said order does not disclose as to whether the appellate authority applied its mind regarding justification of findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority and adequacy of penalty imp­osed. On this ground alone the impugned order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority are liable to be set aside as the impugned order of punishment has merged with the final order passed by the appellate authority. 13. The main thrust of argument of Mr. Das is that the repo­rt of the Enquiry Officer is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is based on no evidence at all. In this connection Mr. 13. The main thrust of argument of Mr. Das is that the repo­rt of the Enquiry Officer is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is based on no evidence at all. In this connection Mr. Das has taken us through the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the evidence on record and has urged that only three wit­nesses, out of which two were Bank employees, were examined alongwith number of documents and these witnesses did not support the charges framed. According to Mr. Das the Enquiry Report is based on one document which was marked Ext-P12 and this document was neither proved properly nor it was established, as to how this 'document came to the custody of the presenting Officer. Before dea­ling with the submissions of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner let us consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents as regards the jurisdiction of this Court. Lear­ned Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ Court has no jurisdiction at all to go into the report of the Enquiry Officer and in other words writ court is not a court of appeal, In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 .SC 1723 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the High. Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot convert itself to a court of appeal regarding a departmental enquiry against a public servant and where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the del­inquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on evidence. 14. In Union of India vs. H. C. Gael, AIR 1964 SC 364 , a Bench consisted of five Hon'ble Judges held that the High Court has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported fey any evidence at all. In reply, Mr. 14. In Union of India vs. H. C. Gael, AIR 1964 SC 364 , a Bench consisted of five Hon'ble Judges held that the High Court has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported fey any evidence at all. In reply, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on "a decision of the Apex Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chitra Venkatarao, AIR 1975 SC 2151 regarding jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. We need not consider the said decision for the present purpose as the law is clear on this point. In support of his submission that the report of the Enquiry Officer is liable to be set aside being based on no evidence, Mr. Das has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagawati Pd. Dubey vs. F. C. I. AIR 1988 SC 434 . 15. Situated thus, we re-state the settled law that by exercising writ jurisdiction this Court cannot sit as a court of appeal and re-appreciate the evidence on record in respect of findings of the En­quiry officer. But if the Court is of the firm opinion that the report is based on no evidence at all, the same can be interferred with. 16. As stated above, from the side of respondent Bank three witnesses were examined. P. W. I. is the owner of a carrier who carried the belongings of the writ petitioner. Other two witnesses are employees of the Bank and not very important for the present-purpose. 17. P.W. I has completely supported the case of the writ petitioner though he was examined by the Bank to prove that the transfer T. A. Bill was falsely submitted by the writ petitioner The Enquiry Officer, in respect of the first charge made some cryptic remark about the evidence of P.W. I The Enquiry Officer mainly concentrated regarding the date of despatch of the articles of the writ petitioner from Phek to Amarpur via Dimapur and came to the finding that there was no actual movement of household goods belonging to the writ petitioner. His ultimate finding was: “........All the above discrepencies only indicate an attempt on the part of the employee (charged officer) to somehow cons­truct his claim ' and accordingly held that the Charge No. 1 is proved. His ultimate finding was: “........All the above discrepencies only indicate an attempt on the part of the employee (charged officer) to somehow cons­truct his claim ' and accordingly held that the Charge No. 1 is proved. There is absolutely no oral evidence in support of the finding that there was no movement of goods. P.W. I has categorically stated that goods were carried. In our opinion this finding was not a finding at all vis-a-vis the charge framed as it was not based on evidence at all. 18. Regarding Charge-II and III, the Enquiry Officer has come to the findings that one Ram Prasad, who according to the P.W. I carried the goods, was a fictitious person. This finding is also not based' on evidence on record as there is not an iota of evidence to show that the said Ram Prasad was a fictitious person, whereas, P.W I has categorically stated that Ram Prasad accompanied the articles of the writ petitioner. The finding that the money receipts were false is also not sustainable as there is no evidence whatsoever. 19. According to Charge-III, though the writ petitioner gave 19 packages of household items only eight packages were transported. This charge itself is contrary to the finding of the Enquiry Officer as according to him there was no actual movement. In this regard P.W. I has categorically stated that goods were re-packed and out of 19 packages 8 packages were made. The Enquiry Officer without considering the materials on record came to the finding that such e-packing could not have been done and on this count he did not accept the evidence of P.W. 1, though this witness was produced by the Bank. Therefore, the finding that such re-packing could not have been done is also based on no evidence and there is no justification to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. I. 20. The delivery slip, Ext. p.12 was rejected by the Enquiry Officer taking into consideration some writings on the back of the said slip, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn oat attention to the record of the Enquiry Officer and has urged that this piece of documents was admitted by the Enquiry Officer and, as such, the contention of Mr. p.12 was rejected by the Enquiry Officer taking into consideration some writings on the back of the said slip, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn oat attention to the record of the Enquiry Officer and has urged that this piece of documents was admitted by the Enquiry Officer and, as such, the contention of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said document was not proved and that it was, not explained how this piece of document came to the possession of the Presenting Officer, cannot be accepted. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as we hold that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that this document, Ext. P17 is a. Waste paper of the carrier is also not bassed on any evidence, 21. Reading Charge No. V. we are of the opinion that the main charge against the writ petitioner was that due to non-ulilisation of the amount of rupees one lakh paid as loan advance 'the Account became irregular'. The Enquiry Officer did not give any finding whatsoever as to whether the account became irregular due to granting of loan by the petitioner and in fact there is no evidence in this court. The Enquiry Officer also did not give any finding OB the points urged by the Presenting Officer as well as the Defence Assistant. He was only of the opinion the Defence is mostly theore­tical and that granting of second advance of Rs. 10.000/- after three days is not at all justifiable. In our opinion, this finding is also not based on evidence. Factually also according to Mr. Das the building was completed by the owner S. B. I is in occupation of the building by paying rent and adjusting a part of it for loan advanced to the owner. 22. On 7.8.87, the writ petitioner filed an affidavit before this Court and in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit he has categorically stated that Item-7 in the list of documents was fabricated one and it was done by the Circle Vigilance Officer, Shri Y. L. Batra. No reply has been filed against the said statement on oath. In the affidavit it has also been urged that Shri Batra committed an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and that the charges brought against him (Petitioner) were mischievous, malicious and arbitrary. No reply has been filed against the said statement on oath. In the affidavit it has also been urged that Shri Batra committed an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and that the charges brought against him (Petitioner) were mischievous, malicious and arbitrary. We need not take any action in respect of the said affidavit excep­ting the fact that as this affidavit goes un-replled. the said document which was considered by the Enquiry Officer has no evidentiary value. We may and here that both the Presenting Officer and the Defence Assistant furnished written statement before the Enquiry Officer bat nothing was considered, more particularity, the points urged by the Defence Assistant. 23. From what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence at all and, accordingly, we quash the said report. 24. In the result, we find merit in the present petition and, accordingly, it is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of punishment dated 7th October, 1985 issued by the Chief General Managsr, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure-'D' to the petition, and the Resolution of the Local Board of the State Bank of India dated 10.12.1985, by which the appeal of the present writ petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from October 7, 1985 and he shall be entitled to all bank wages. The Respondents shall take necessary steps to pay the back wages of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this Judgment. 25. The Rule is made absolute. The Respondents shall pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) only to the petitioner as cost.