Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad and J JJ. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30-6-1989 (annexure 11) passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent No 3) of Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been placed 4 stages lower in the time-scale, in which he was placed at the relevant time, i e. Junior Management grade I and thereby his basic pay of Rs.1895/- per month was reduced to Rs 1655/-in the same scale with effect from the date of the order as also the arder dated 16-6-1990 (annexure 13), passed by the appellate authority (respondent No.2) on the appeal filed by the petitioner enhancing the aforesaid punishment by lowering it down to the initial stage in the aforesaid scale in terms of Regulation 4 (e) of the Allahabad Bank officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) in lieu of the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that in the year 1971 he was appointed as clerk in the bank and in the year 1982 was promoted at J. M. G. grade-I. In the year 1986 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager of rajendranagar Branch of the Bank from where he was transferred to Nataul branch in February, 1988 While he was posted at Nataul, the Regional office sought certain clarifications from him on 14-6-1988, which was submitted by him on 14-7-88. Thereafter on 21-7-1988 the petitioner was suspended while working as Manager of Nataul Branch of the bank for which he received order on 28-7-1988. On 29-7-1988 the petitioner handed over charge of his office at Nataul, whereafter he was served with a charge sheet dated 13-1-1989, a xerox copy of which had been annexed as annexure-3. The charges against the petitioner were in relation to the period while he was posted at Rajendranagar branch, Patna, for committing certain acts of omission and commission in violation of Regulation of the Officer Employees (conduct)Regulation 1976. Along with the said charge sheet the petitioner was supplied with statement of imputation of misconduct in support of articles of charges with detail of advances made to the parawise as well as list of documents by which articles of charges were proposed to be substantiated. Along with the said charge sheet the petitioner was supplied with statement of imputation of misconduct in support of articles of charges with detail of advances made to the parawise as well as list of documents by which articles of charges were proposed to be substantiated. The Articles of charges are as follows : article I: In giving under benefits to the proprietoress of M/s Usha enterprises, Shri Dwarika Roy failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and deligence which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation-3 (1) read with Regulation-24 of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees, (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. Article II: In having personal dealing with the constituents of the branch Shri Dwarika Rai failed to protect the interest of the bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity which act of Shri Dwarika Rai is an act of unbecoming of a bank officer which amounts to misconduct in terms of regulation-3 (1)read with Regulation-24 of Allahabad Bank Officer employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Article III: The said Shri Dwarika Roy in violation of the instructions of the Bank marked cheques drawn by M/s Usha Enterprises as "good for payment" and exposed the Bank to great financial risk. He wilfully disobeyed Banks instructions which act constitutes misconduct under Regulation-3 (3) read with regulation (24) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Conduct)Regulations, 1976. Article IV : Shri Dwarika Roy while functioning as Acting Manager of Rajendranager branch misutilised the D. R. I Scheme and made advance to fictitious persons ond thus, failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation-3 (1) read with regulation-24 of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Conduct)Regulations, 1976. Article V : The said Shri Dwarikg Roy while discharging his duties as acting Manager of Rajendranagar branch did not discharge his duties with honesty and procured fake suppliers bills with a purpose to cheat the Bank which is an act of unbecoming of a bank officer and constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation-3 (1) read with Regulation-24 of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. 3. The petitioner was directed to submit a written statement. 4. 3. The petitioner was directed to submit a written statement. 4. Thereafter a proceeding was conducted by the Enquiry officer, who submitted his report including findings in respect of the charges, a photo copy of which has been annexed as annexure 9/1 From the findings it appears that charges contained in Article Nos 2, 3, 4, and 5 were found to be conclusively proved whereas charges in Article 1 was found to be partially proved and accordingly, he held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him to that extent. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the said report in detail passed the aforesaid order imposing punishment (vide annexure 11 ). The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of the disciplinary authority, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 12. It appears that the appellate authority after considering the appeal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22-2-1990 in terms of sub-clause (2) of the proviso to Regulation 17 of the Regulation as to why the enhanced penalty of lowering down bis basic pay to the initial stage in J. M. G. grade I in lieu of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be imposed. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner submitted his representation on 2-4-1990, in which he raised certain grievances including making submission that the appellate authority did not provide him with personal hearing. The General Manager of the Bank, who is the appellate authority, by the impugned order dated 16th June, 1990 (annexure 13) enhanced the punishment as already stated above. Thereafter the present writ application has been filed, in which, various contentions have been raised challenging the validity of the aforementioned impugned orders. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, in which it has been contended that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in a regular departmental proceeding and that rules of natural justice was followed at all stages. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, in which it has been contended that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in a regular departmental proceeding and that rules of natural justice was followed at all stages. It is further contended that the disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer as well as the oral and documentary evidence produced in the enquiry concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, but however, taking a lenient view inflicted penalty of placing the petitioner in four stages lower in the time-scale with effect from the date of order, which was enhanced by the appellate authority considering the nature of gravity of the charges in terms of Regulation 17 after following due procedure. As regard, the grievance of the petitioner that the enquiry officer accepted the list of different documents to be requisitioned from the bank, but at the same time directed the petitioner to arrange and produce the documents which, according to him, are supposed to be kept in the Bank and he could not have access to the same as he was forbidden to enter into the Bank premises, it has been contended that no prejudice has been caused to the defence of the petitioner by order of enquiry officer, contained in annexure 4, by which the petitioner was directed to produce the documents, which the management may not be in a position to produce It is also contended that the very perusal of the enquiry report would show that the documents which were not accepted by the charged employee were not considered in the enquiry. Other contentions have also been answered in paragraph 10 to 12 of the counter affidavit. 6. Thereafter a further supplementary application was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to appear in the departmental examination of J. M G. grade II, which was scheduled to be held on 17-3 1991 subject to the decision of this case, which was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the writ application, but as same has not been pressed, 1 do not consider it necessary to deal with it. 7. Mr Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the order of the appellate authority contained in annexure 13 is bad as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. 7. Mr Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the order of the appellate authority contained in annexure 13 is bad as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha learned counsel for Bank submitted that the appellate authority has passed the orders strictly in accordance with Regulation 17, the relevant extracts of which are quoted below : (ii) An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against, The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Provided that : 0) if the enhanced penalty which the Appellate Authority proposed to impose is a major penalty specified in clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided in regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Appellate Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the inquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper, (ii) if the Appellate Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held as provided in regulation 6, the Appellate Authority shall give a show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any submitted by the officer employee". 8. The learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that under the said regulation the appellate authority is not required to give the officer employee any personal hearing. 8. The learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that under the said regulation the appellate authority is not required to give the officer employee any personal hearing. Under Regulation 17 the appellate authority has to consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and in case the appellate authority proposes to enhance the punishment, then he shall give a show cause notice to the officer employee in that regard and shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee. 9. In my opinion, Mr. Sinha is right in his submission that under the regulation the appellate authority was not required to give any personal hearing to the officer employee concerned even where it proposes to enhance the punishment. The only requirement is that he should give a show cause notice to the officer employee in that regard whereafter he shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any submitted by the officer employee. Thus, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Jha in this regard. 10. Then it was submitted by Mr. Jha that the allegations do not come within the purview of the misconduct under Regulation 3 read with regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulation. In this regard, he referred to clause 24 which deals with acts of misconduct and provides that a breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Allahabad Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thereafter, he referred to clause (3) which provides that no officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior". It was submitted by Mr. Jha that from the very reading of the charges, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted otherwise than in his best judgment and thus, according to him, the allegation do not come within the purview of misconduct. In my opinion, there is no substance in the said submission of Mr Jha Under the conduct Bregulation 24 a breach of any of the provisions of the said regulation constitutes a misconduct. In my opinion, there is no substance in the said submission of Mr Jha Under the conduct Bregulation 24 a breach of any of the provisions of the said regulation constitutes a misconduct. Clause (1) of Conduct Regulation 3 provides that, every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and deligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. " The charges against the petitioner, in my opinion are fully covered by the the said clause. After going through the charges, there cannot be two opinions that in the discharge of his duties the action of the petitioner was highly unbecoming of a bank officer atleast. 11. Thereafter, it was submitted by Mr Jha that the papers relied upon by the management of the bank were not brought on record by the management and even on demand copies of those documents were not supplied to the petitioner" Thus, according to him, the petitioner had been deprived of the reasonable opportunity in defending his case On asking as to what are those documents, he referred to the statement made in paragraph 17 of the writ application, which reads as follows : "that bare perusal of Annexure-5 clearly shows that the petitioner was neither shown the documents contained in SI No 12, 32, 44 (c) and 60 of prosecution documents, incriminating the petitioner nor these documents were ever produced during the whole enquiry proceedings which shall be evidenced by subsequent deposition". 12. Thereafter, on enquiry as to whether this point was specifically taken before the appellate authority, Mr Jha learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the following two paragraphs 4 and 5 of his memorandum of appeal, which are as follows : "4. I have already written a letter to you which was received at your office on 9-6-89 that enquiry officer has already violated the rule of natural justice and the power of enquiry officer which was conferred upon him by the Disciplinary Authority, Zonal office, Patna He has over-ruled his own direction which was given by him in page No 4 of the proceeding dated 02-06-89. He also violated article 226 of Indian Constitution So, I would request you to be kind enough to go through my previous letter, reconsider my punishment which was inflicted by disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer did not consider the documentary evidence. He only considered imaginary evidence given by MW 6 in relation to article of charges no 3. Further t e presenting officer faild to bring any documentary evidence or any circular which related article of charges No.3 The enquiry officer also ignored the oral evidence MW-3 already deposed during the course of enquiry. MW-3 never came across any circular of the Bank where the officer was debarred from marking of a cheque "good for payment". As per rule of enquiry, enquiry officer should not himself be prsonally interested/prejudiced in the alleged misconduct or he should not have prejudged, the issue. In the above circumstances it is already established that the enquiry officer prejudged the issue due to prejudice and violated the principle of natural justice. Thus, the total enquiry becomes bad/void. In this regard, I draw your attention to the conduct of the enquiry officer (Delhi cloth Mills Ltd v Labour Court, 1970 IILJ-93) wherein it has already been decided that should be the conduct of the enquiry officer. " 13. From perusal of the said two paragraph I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Jha that the point raised in paragraph 17 as stated above, was raised before the appellate authority. I do not find any thing in the said two paragraphs that the petitioner has raised any grievance in respect of non-production of documents or non-furnishing of documents as mentioned in SI, No 12, 32, 44 (c) and 60 of the prosecution documents. It is well settled that a point which is not urged before the appellate authority, before whom the entire record is available and has full opportunity to test such points, the writ court will refrain from entertaining such points for the first time raided in a writ application. A reference in this regard is made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bishwanath Banerjee V/s. State of west Bengal (1971 S. C.1039 (1040 ). 14. A reference in this regard is made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bishwanath Banerjee V/s. State of west Bengal (1971 S. C.1039 (1040 ). 14. Lastly, Mr Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner ventured to submit that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against him and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of Justice It is well settled that appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority The appellate authority may interfere with the same, but not the High Court or the administrative Tribunal where the penalty has been imposed after regular enquiry. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of India and others V/s. Samarendra kishore Endow and another (Judgment Today 1994 (1) S. C.217 ). 15. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Application Dismissed.