Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge his dismissal from the service of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter to be referred as the Bank) following a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges. 2. At the material time the petitioner was an officer in the Middle Management Grade II and was posted as Branch Manager at the Grugru Branch of the Bank falling under its Gaya region. He was put: under suspension on certain charges and later a charge-sheet dated 31-1-1983 (Annexure 4) containing the articles of charges were served upon him. Omitting the material details the charges against the petitioner were as follows: (i) He made advance in connivance with the middle men and suppliers. (ii) He made irregular advances against banks interest. (iii) He misutilised his official position and, thus, mis-conducted in terms of Regulation 3(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. (iv) He ignored to observe pre/post sanction norms as prescribed by the bank thus jeopardizing the interest of the bank. 3. It may be noted here that charge No. (ii) included sanctioning loans to persons who were minor and charge No. (iii) included the petitioner helping himself to advances for periods ranging between one month to three months by debiting the suspense account. 4. The petitioner submitted his statement of defense on 26-4-1983 (Annexure 5) denying the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, not being satisfied with the petitioners denials and explanations instituted a departmental enquiry to examine the charges against the petitioner appointing as the enquiry officer one Shri A.L. Thipathi who at that time was posted as Manager, Punjab National Bank, Gaya. At the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 14-8-1985 recording his findings as follows: Charge No. 1: Made advances in connivance with the middlemen and suppliers-proved. Charge No. II : Made irregular advances against banks interest- proved. Charge No. III : Misutilised his official position and, thus, mis-conducted in terms of Regulation 3(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977-proved. Charge No. IV: ignored to observe pre/post sanction norms as prescribed by the bank, thus, jeopardizing interest of the bank-sub-charges (1)(II) and (III) proved and (IV) not proved. 5. Charge No. III : Misutilised his official position and, thus, mis-conducted in terms of Regulation 3(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977-proved. Charge No. IV: ignored to observe pre/post sanction norms as prescribed by the bank, thus, jeopardizing interest of the bank-sub-charges (1)(II) and (III) proved and (IV) not proved. 5. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Deputy General Manager (Bihar Zone), being the disciplinary authority, issued order, dated 31-12-1985 (Annexure 7) imposing on the petitioner the major penalty of "dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment with immediate effect." The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of his dismissal which was rejected by order, dated 1-9-1986 passed by the appellate authority. The appellate order was communicated to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 25-9-1985 (Annexure 8). He then filed this writ petition challenging his dismissal from service by the order dated 31-12-1985 passed by the disciplinary authority and its confirmation by the order dated 1-9-1986 passed by the appellate authority. 6. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the petitioners dismissal from service on some technical grounds besides the ground that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and the petitioner was denied opportunity to properly defend himself. Before proceeding to examine the question of fairness of the departmental enquiry it would be appropriate to dispose of the petitioners challenge to his dismissal on other grounds. 7. Mr. Sunil Kumar submitted that under Regulation 6.2 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1977 (for short the Regulation) an enquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct against an officer employee could be conducted either by the disciplinary authority himself or by a public servant appointed by the disciplinary authority as enquiring authority. He then referred to Regulation 3(m) to point out that public servant was given the same meaning as under Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, Mr. Sunil Kumar submitted that Shri A.L. Tripathi (the enquiry officer appointed in this case) being an officer of the bank was not a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Penal Code. His appointment as enquiry officer was, therefore, in contravention of Regulation 6.2 and had vitiated the departmental proceedings. In this regard, Mr. Sunil Kumar submitted that Shri A.L. Tripathi (the enquiry officer appointed in this case) being an officer of the bank was not a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Penal Code. His appointment as enquiry officer was, therefore, in contravention of Regulation 6.2 and had vitiated the departmental proceedings. In support of the submission that an officer of the bank was not a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Penal Code, he relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr. V/s. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. 1982 Cr. L.J. 2230. 8. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the bank pointed out that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Limited V/s. Punjab National Bank -- , held that a nationalized bank was a Corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government. The Constitution Bench expressly over ruled the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce (relied upon by the petitioner) on that question. Further by a later decision in Union of India and Anr. V/s. Ashok Kumar Mitra -- , a Division Bench of the Supreme Court following the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Punjab National Bank held that an employee of a nationalized bank would be a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Penal Code. The two Supreme Court decisions brought to our notice by Mr. Sinha fully answer the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Sunil Kumar then submitted that the appellate order was a non-speaking order passed without any application of mind and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. We are unable to accept the submission and in our opinion it would be hardly justified to describe an order running into nine pages as a non-speaking order. From a perusal of the order we are satisfied that the appellate authority gave full application of mind to the matter and considered each and every point raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. 11. As regards opportunity of hearing, it may be noted that the statutory regulations governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings do not provide for an opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority. 11. As regards opportunity of hearing, it may be noted that the statutory regulations governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings do not provide for an opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority. We, therefore, find no substance in the petitioners challenge to the order passed on his appeal. 12. Mr. Sunil Kumar next submitted that a copy of the enquiry report was not given to him. before the disciplinary authority passed the order of his dismissal from service. According to him the petitioner was thus denied an opportunity to point out the lacunae in the enquiry report and on that score alone the impugned order of dismissal was liable to be struck down. We find no substance in this submission either. 13. In the State of Karnataka and Ors. V/s. V.B. Hiregowdar -- , the Supreme Court held as follows: The rule laid down in Ramzan Khan case on 20-11-1990 that non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report to a delinquent employee would render the final order void is only applicable prospectively after the date of the decision in Ramzan Khan case. Hence, no order of punishment passed on a delinquent employee before 20-11-1990 is challengeable on the basis of the judgment in Ramzan Khan case and proceedings in such cases are to be decided on the basis of the law as it existed prior to the decision in Ramzan Khan case except in cases where the certain rule themselves provide for supply of copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent employee before imposing punishments. (Emphasis added) 14 In the present case Regulation 6 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties; Regulation 7 deals with the action on the enquiry report; Regulation 8 contains provisions concerning procedure for imposing minor penalties and Regulation 9, with the marginal heading communication of orders, provides as follows: Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 shall be communicated to the officer employee concerned, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of enquiry, if any. 15. From Regulation 9, it is manifest that a copy of the enquiry report is to be given to the concerned employee along with the order passed by the disciplinary authority under Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 as the case may be. 16. Mr. 15. From Regulation 9, it is manifest that a copy of the enquiry report is to be given to the concerned employee along with the order passed by the disciplinary authority under Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 as the case may be. 16. Mr. Sunil Kumar, however, submitted that Regulation 9 must be interpreted to mean that a copy of the enquiry report was to be given to the employee before any order was passed by the disciplinary authority otherwise the provision, according to him, would be meaningless. The submission must be rejected for the simple reason that it is contrary to the plain language of Regulation 9. Further, it is obvious to us that the supply of a copy of the enquiry report along with the order passed by the disciplinary authority would be far from being meaningless. It would be quite useful and meaningful for filing an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority as provided under Regulation 17. It is not stated on behalf of the petitioner that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him along with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 17. Mr. Sunil Kumar finally assailed the departmental enquiry on the ground of its fairness. According to him the departmental enquiry was held in an unfair-manner and the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself. He questioned the propriety of the departmental enquiry alleging as follows: (i) A list of documents and witnesses was not furnished to the petitioner, at the commencement of the enquiry proceedings or even before the examination of the 1st witness on behalf of the bank. According to him, additional lists of documents and witnesses were introduced in course of the proceedings. (ii) The documents asked for by the petitioner and directed by the enquiry officer to be given to him were not produced Some of these documents, according to the Counsel, were: (a) Copy of T.F.O. report, dated 10-4-1984 which formed the basis of the charges against the petitioner. (b) Copy of the Inspectors reports dated 18-8-1982 and 23-3-1983. (c) Term loan ledger to show that the loan amount was actually paid to the suppliers. (iii) The petitioner was asked to examine witnesses in support of this defense before the closure of the banks case. (iv) Instead of filing the original documents, only their Photostat copies were filed before the enquiry officer. (c) Term loan ledger to show that the loan amount was actually paid to the suppliers. (iii) The petitioner was asked to examine witnesses in support of this defense before the closure of the banks case. (iv) Instead of filing the original documents, only their Photostat copies were filed before the enquiry officer. Later on the petitioners objection the originals were called for by the enquiry officer and were submitted before him. The petitioner, however, was not allowed opportunity to compare them with their photo copies in order to verify their veracity. (v) Person named as one of the banks witness was not examined by the bank. Later, no heed was paid to the petitioners request to the enquiry officer to have him examined. 18. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Counsel for the bank produced for our perusal the complete record of the departmental enquiry which is spread over three note books of the full scope size. The proceedings of the departmental enquiry appear to have-been recorded meticulously and every page of the proceedings bears the signature of the petitioner. 19. We have minutely perused the record of the proceedings and we find that the objections raised by the petitioner are wholly unfounded. From the record, it appears that the enquiry which commenced on 21-11-1983 was considerably delayed simply to accommodate the petitioners representative. The proceedings were adjourned on several dates at considerable expense of time and money to the bank as on each date of adjournment the borrowers who were villagers and were required to be examined as witnesses had to be paid TA. and D.A. etc. The examination of witnesses finally commenced on 17-8-1984. In the meanwhile, it appears from the proceeding dated 22-3-1984, that a list of photo copies of the original documents was handed over to the petitioner on his written request on 13-1-1984, with the advice that in case he so desired he could examine the original documents at the banks office. It further appears from the proceeding recorded on that date that the enquiry officer asked the presenting officer on behalf of the bank to accompany Shri V.D. Ramamurthy, representative of the petitioner, for examination of the original documents at the Stanch office. Guraru on the next day. It further appears from the proceeding recorded on that date that the enquiry officer asked the presenting officer on behalf of the bank to accompany Shri V.D. Ramamurthy, representative of the petitioner, for examination of the original documents at the Stanch office. Guraru on the next day. On the dates fixed in the proceeding, thereafter, Shri Murthy did not appear for one reason or the other and finally the enquiry officer commenced the examination of witnesses on 17-8-1984. On that date five villagers, loans granted to whom, were the subject matter of the charges were examined as bank witnesses. On the same day the petitioner also examined two witnesses who were not the personnel of the bank. 20. From the record of the proceedings it appears that all those persons, though coming to attend the proceedings on every date fixed in the case, were not being examined because the proceeding was adjourned due to the no availability of the petitioners representative. In those circumstances when the examination of witnesses commenced all such persons were examined either on behalf of the bank or on behalf of the petitioner as the case may be. From the record of the proceedings it does not appear that the petitioner did not wish to examine his witnesses on that date or he had made any protest in that regard or even that he was asked by the enquiry officer to examine his witnesses on that date. It is also clear to us that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by examining those two witnesses on that date. After the examination of the villagers on that date further witnesses were examined by the bank in support of the charge. After the close of the banks case, the petitioner got full opportunity to lead evidence in his defense and in fact he examined three more witnesses in his defense. The enquiry was finally concluded when he said that no more witnesses were to be examined by him and then the enquiry officer asked both the presenting officer and the defense to file their written briefs. 21. The petitioners grievance regarding non-production of certain documents is equally unfounded. All the three documents mentioned by Mr. Sunil Kumar appear to have been duly produced before the enquiry officer. 22. 21. The petitioners grievance regarding non-production of certain documents is equally unfounded. All the three documents mentioned by Mr. Sunil Kumar appear to have been duly produced before the enquiry officer. 22. As regards non-examination of a witness by the bank, it was always open to it either to examine or not to examine a particular witness and in case the petitioner wanted him to be examined as a witness, it was up to the petitioner to produce him before the enquiry. 23. We also find no substance in the plea that the petitioner was not allowed opportunity to verify the original documents from their Photostat copies. 24. Having heard Mr. Sunil Kumar at some length on this aspect of the matter and having perused the record of the proceedings, we are satisfied that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and we find no infirmity in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry. 25. For the reasons discussed above, we find this writ petition without any merit or substance. It is accordingly dismissed.