Judgment N. PANDEY, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have questioned the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority, contained in annexure 1 series, whereby they have been imposed punishment of withdrawal of special allowance/stoppage of increments. A prayer has also been made to quash the order of the appellate authority, contained in Annexure 2 series, whereby appeals preferred by them against the orders of the disciplinary authority were dismissed. 2. The petitioners at the relevant time, were working at the local head office of the state Bank of India, Patna. As there was an unfortunate incident in the premises of the bank, on September 3, 1986 the petitioners are departmentally proceeded for the following charges:- " (i) At about 2.30 P. M. on the 3rd september you reportedly entered the 4th floor of the LHO building of the Bank at j. C. Road, Patna, alongwith about 40 other members of the staff, shouted slogans including the following in loud and threatening tone using abusive language in front of the official chamber of the General manager (Operations) and disturbed the working of office and the General Manager (Operations) at that floor. Your these actions were disorderly and violent. You, besides others, reportedly were active and violent. Some of the slogans shouted by you (a) Bank Management Murdabad. (b) Illegal charge-sheet vapas lo. (c) Khoon bhi denge, jaan bhi denge, apna hak lake rehenge. (d) Charge-sheet phar do, jala do etc. etc. (ii) Your aforesaid acts committed in the banks premises were disorderly, menacing and highly indecent and were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and have also tarnished the image of the Bank. You have thus indulged in acts of gross misconduct in terms of paragraph 521 (4) (c) and (j) of the sastri Award as retained by the Desai Award. " 3. Grievance of the petitioners is since in spite of their request, copies of relevant documents were not supplied, they could neither file effective show cause nor get appropriate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the management to prove the charges. " 3. Grievance of the petitioners is since in spite of their request, copies of relevant documents were not supplied, they could neither file effective show cause nor get appropriate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the management to prove the charges. From the relevant materials it would further appear that the alleged inquiry was carried out ex-parte even without notifying any date to give opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the proceeding and to produce materials in support of their claim. 4. On the other hand, it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the writ petitioners in spite of ample opportunity and notices from time to time, did not appear before the Inquiring Officer to participate in the proceedings. Petitioner No.3 P. S. Pal of course appeared at the initial stage but, later, in spite of several adjournments, he did not appear. Therefore, in such circumstances, the inquiring Officer had no option but to proceed ex-parte. It was pointed out, even from the findings of the Inquiring Officer it would appear that several adjournments were granted affording opportunity to the petitioners to defend their cases. But they did not care to appear. Therefore, after examining relevant materials regarding charges and evidence of the witnesses, he found them guilty. It would further appear that on receipt of the findings of the Inquiring Officer, the disciplinary authority vide notices contained in Annexure 7 series, extended full opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as to why appropriate punishment be not imposed for the act of gross misconduct, as defined in paragraph 521 (4) (c) (e) and (j) of the Sastri Award, as modified by paragraph 3 (i) (a) of the memorandum of settlement dated october 31, 1979, between IBA and the workmen. 5. Petitioners undisputedly as would appear from the averments made in the writ application, filed show cause denying the allegations as made out in the charge. It was also pointed out that the petitioners are representatives of the registered Union, therefore, they raised their grievances, if certain illegal and motivated orders were passed to transfer some of the employees in a mala fide manner. 6. Dr. It was also pointed out that the petitioners are representatives of the registered Union, therefore, they raised their grievances, if certain illegal and motivated orders were passed to transfer some of the employees in a mala fide manner. 6. Dr. Jha, besides the grievance of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, in the matter relating to supply of relevant documents or a chance to the petitioners to cross examine the witnesses, also alleged that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority have taken discriminatory and arbitrary decision while exonerating other employees who were also proceeded alongwith the petitioners for the same charges. But as the petitioners are office bearers of the Union, in order to victimise them, the impugned punishments have been awarded. In this regard, he pointed out that one Narendra kumar Singh, a clerk-typist of the said branch was also awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect but later the respondents exonerated him of the charges. Similarly, one Kamla Prasad Singh, another clerk, working at the same Branch, was also awarded punishment of reduction in basic pay to the next lower stage for two years, but this punishment was also not implemented and he was let off after recovery of a sum of Rs.3608.64 from his salary. 7. It is stated, petitioners also having learnt about the modification of the punishment of the aforementioned two persons, filed representations but no such relief was granted. Dr. Jha in this regard, while referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of director General of Police and others V/s. G. Dasayan (1998-II-LLJ-1) (SC), pointed out that such a discrimination in the matter relating to quantum of punishment has been severely disapproved by the Apex Court from time to time. Therefore, in order to maintain parity and justice as also equal treatment, it would be proper for the authority to modify the punishment of the petitioners to the extent it was modified in the case of Narendra Kumar singh and Kamla Prasad Singh. 8. Mr. Therefore, in order to maintain parity and justice as also equal treatment, it would be proper for the authority to modify the punishment of the petitioners to the extent it was modified in the case of Narendra Kumar singh and Kamla Prasad Singh. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the bank contended that a bare reference to the findings of the Inquiring Officer and the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority would indicate that the petitioners were given full opportunity but in spite of full opportunity and adjournments of the proceeding from time to time, the petitioners did not choose to appear before the inquiring Officer. Therefore, he had no option but to dispose of the proceeding ex-parte. That apart, undisputedly, the petitioners were given full opportunity twice to file show cause i. e. one before the Inquiring Officer and the other with regard to the proposed punishment. Therefore, it would not be open to them to allege that the respondents have failed to comply with the requirement of principles of natural justice. He further contended that there is no substance with regard to the allegation of the petitioners with respect to discrimination as well. Because from a bare reference to the facts noticed in the counter-affidavit, it would appear that Kamla Prasad Singh and Narendra kumar Singh had expressed regret before the disciplinary authority about their participation in the alleged incident. It was pointed out that in fact they were misguided by the fellow members. 9. In my view, the stand taken by Mr. Sinha appears justified. Because from different materials brought on record, it is evident that petitioners maintained defiance all the time and in spite of the adjournments of the proceedings from time to time, they did not care to co-operate. Therefore, no grievance can be made if the proceeding was decided ex-parte. Similarly, there is no substance with regard to the grievance of the petitioner for non- supply of the copies of documents. Because from a bare perusal of the entire writ application, it would appear that they have not been able to show actually use of which document by the inquiring Officer or the Disciplinary Authority has prejudiced their case. Similarly, there is no substance with regard to the grievance of the petitioner for non- supply of the copies of documents. Because from a bare perusal of the entire writ application, it would appear that they have not been able to show actually use of which document by the inquiring Officer or the Disciplinary Authority has prejudiced their case. On the other hand, from a bare perusal of the writ petition, copies of orders passed by the appellate authority and the second show cause filed on behalf of the petitioners, it would appear that petitioners have from time to time assailed the findings of the Inquiring Officer and sought to project that they are totally innocent. But at no point of time they could make out case of any prejudice which was caused to their case due to non-supply of the copies of documents. 10. Therefore, to my mind, the petitioners having availed opportunities from time to time to assail the findings of the Inquiring Officer in statutory appeal including this writ petition, it would not be open to them to raise any grievance in this regard. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to a decision in the case of Union Bank of India V/s. Vishwa Mohan, (1998-I-LLJ-1217) (SC ). 11. Similarly, there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioners with regard to allegation of discrimination against the respondents. Because from a bare reference to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it would appear that other employees had expressed regret regarding their participation at the time of incident and assured the authorities to maintain discipline. Therefore, the petitioners cannot equate their cases with those employees who come in the aforesaid category. It is needless to say that in the Banking business, absolute devotion, discipline, diligence with integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every employee. The act of indiscipline and misconduct by the employees which had taken place during business hours is really very serious. Therefore, in order to inspire confidence in the depositors, it is the duty of the employees to avoid such incident. 12. I, therefore, for the reasons stated above, find no merit in this case and the same is hereby dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.