Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The present writ application is directed against the order dated 27.1.90 (annexure 20) passed by the Regional manager, Region III, Muzaffarpur (respondent No.3), by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service and the order dated 15.2.94 (annexure 22)passed by the Appellate Authority namely, Dy. General Manager, State bank of India, Muzaffarpur (respondent No.2) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the aforementioned decision of the disciplinary Authority. 2. It appears that while the petitioner was working in mohammadpur branch of the Bank he was placed under suspension on 23.11.83. The petitioner was served with numerous charges vide letter dated 20.1.86 of the Disciplinary authority, whereby he was required to submit explanation. The petitioner requested tor certain papers in order to submit his explanation. 3. The case of the Bank in the supplementary counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was given opportunity to peruse the documents vide letter No.11/86, dated 25.3.86, but he did not avail of the opportunity and peruse the documents, nor did he submit his explanation. Later, he was served with the chargesheet vide memo No.624 dated 21.9.87 (annexure 6 to the writ application) in regard to certain financial irregularities. The enquiry was conducted by the inquiring authority. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance in full since his suspension in the year 1983, as huge amount has wrongly been shown to have been adjusted against non-existing dues ana the petitioner was at the stage of starvation, he had prayed for an advance of Rs.200/- to enable him to go to the concerned branches for perusing the documents, but no advance was given to him in order to deprive him from defending himself in the disciplinary enquiry. On 29.8.88 the petitioner requested the Inquirying officer to allow him to engage a lawyer to defend his case, which was also finally denied by the Disciplinary authority vide his letter dated 11.11.88. which as claimed by the petitioner was intimated to him on 22.12.88 It is alleged that in the meantime, the enquiry proceeded without even waiting for the order of the Disciplinary Authority and an ex parte report was submitted by the inquirying Authority. 4. which as claimed by the petitioner was intimated to him on 22.12.88 It is alleged that in the meantime, the enquiry proceeded without even waiting for the order of the Disciplinary Authority and an ex parte report was submitted by the inquirying Authority. 4. Thereafter the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to submit his show cause on the point of proposed punishment vide annexure 16, which the petitioner submitted challenging the entire procedure of enquiry as also the finding of the Inquirying Authority vide annexure 17 on 30.8.89. On 18.12.89 and 2.11.90 the petitioner claims to have requested the authority concerned to supply the documents to defend himself. But the Disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 27.1.90 dismissed him from service. 5. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed on 21.2.91 as is evident from annexure-1. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing C. W. J. C. No.11565 of 92 in this Court against the said order. In the said writ petition the petitioner raised a grievance that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was never served upon him, but he learnt that punishment has been inflicted on him vide annexure 32 the said writ petition, which was sent by registered post and served upon him on 27.11.90 whereafter he preferred the appeal. 6. A counter affidavit was filed in the said writ petition on behalf of the bank that no record in support of the statement made in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit, which was verified to be true to the information based on official records was produced, the court in the interest of justice directed the respondent No.2 to communicate the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner within two weeks with the liberty to the petitioner to submit additional grounds before the appellate Authority and the Appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits as early as possible. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed another memorandum of appeal vide annexure 21 and the Appellate authority on consideration of the points raised therein dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the disciplinary Authority, which have been assailed in the present writ-application. 7. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed another memorandum of appeal vide annexure 21 and the Appellate authority on consideration of the points raised therein dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the disciplinary Authority, which have been assailed in the present writ-application. 7. It is contended that from the facts of this case it is clear that the petitioner was neither served with documents, nor he was allowed to engage a lawyer to defend his case and thus, there is complete denial by the bank authorities including the enquirying Authority to the procedure accepted by the Shastry Award, besides depriving him from doing proper pairvi in the matter, as his dues were withheld by the Bank. Further, according to the petitioner, the enquiry proceeded even during the application of the petitioner for permission to engage a lawyer was pending and the ex pane enquiry report was submitted. 8. A counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, in which, inter alia, it is contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity at the enquiry so much so that despite grant of 15 days time for submission of the show cause, failing which the enquiry was to proceed, the petitioner did not submit the explanation. However, by letter, dated 18.8.88 the petitioner requested the bank to furnish copy of the evidences on the basis of which the charges have been levelled against him, whereupon the petitioner was again given opportunity to peruse the relevant books and. records and taken notes thereof vide memo No.119 dated 3.3.88 (annexure 8 ). According to the respondents, from the beginning itself the petitioner adopted a non-cooperative attitude. As regards the advance, of Rs.200/- for which the petitioner had requested, it is stated that he was already availing a large sum of money from the bank as advance, which was not re-paid by him on the material date and thus, he was not eligible to get further advance from the Bank. 9. In paragraph 6, it is stated that the petitioner was repeatedly requested to appear in the enquiry, vide 10 letters referred to therein. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Bank that despite several opportunities the petitioner did not choose to avail of the opportunities and thus, the enquirying officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte submitted the report. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Bank that despite several opportunities the petitioner did not choose to avail of the opportunities and thus, the enquirying officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte submitted the report. The Disciplinary authority on examination of the entire proceeding as well as the report, submitted by the Inquirying Officer, who found the charges to have been proved as also considering the nature and gravity of the misconduct a tentative decision was taken to impose the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service of the Bank in terms of paragraph 521 (5) (a) of the shastry Award and the petitioner was given second show cause against the proposed punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for one months time to submit his reply and further to supply necessary papers and documents vide letter dated 30.8.89 (annexure 17 ). The Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 13.11.89 (annexure 8) sent the photostat copies of all the documents riled in the enquiry except few documents for which he was requested to peruse the documents in his office on 25.11.89 and further allowed one month time to submit show cause making it clear that in case the show cause was not filed it would be presumed that he had nothing to show cause. But the petitioner again failed to submit his show cause, he however, again on 18.12.89 demanded certain more documents to enable him to prepare the reply, which according to the respondents were not found relevant in the light of the nature of the charges against the petitioner and the Appellate Authority after for long, passed the impugned order dated 27.1.90. 10. The petitioner in the appeal specifically raised the point that the bank did not supply document/records to submit explanation at the time of charge-sheet and also at the time of show cause of dismissal was issued by the Disciplinary Authority, as is evident from the impugned order of the Appellate Authority itself. From the statement made in paragraph 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner had demanded certain more documents to enable him to prepare the reply, but the same were not supplied to him as the Bank authority considered those documents to be not relevant in the light of the nature of the charges against the petitioner as mentioned in the chargesheet. However, the respondents did not say that the petitioner was ever communicated about the fact that those documents were not relevant in the light of the nature of the charges against him. 11. It is also not claimed by the respondent bank that the petitioner made the demand for the aforementioned documents after the expiry of the period fixed by them in the last letter dated 13.11.89 (Annexure A ). Once the petitioner had demanded for certain more documents before the expiry of the time as mentioned in annexure A, but according to the respondents the said documents were not relevant, it was incumbent upon the authorities in the bank to have communicated about the same to the petitioner. This having not been done, in my opinion, there has been denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to effectively defend his case. It is no doubt that earlier, the disciplinary proceeding had proceeded ex parte, but at the same time, in my opinion, once the petitioner was given a second show cause notice against the proposed punishment, the denial of reasonable opportunity would vitiated the final decision of the Disciplinary authority. It appears that the appellate Authority in his order contained in Annexure 22 has also omitted to deal with this aspect. One does not know as to what would have weighed with the Disciplinary and/or/with the Appellate Authority in awarding punishment to the petitioner, had the aforementioned aspect been taken into account by them. 12. Accordingly, the impugned orders, contained in annexures 20 and 22 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision after complying with the aforementioned formalities and giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner from the stage of second show cause. The writ application is accordingly, allowed, but without costs. Writ Application Allowed