Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner cashier of the respondent Bank has cha- llenged in this petition the impugned order of penalty at Annex.8 dated 3.4.79 and the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority on 22.2.80 (Annex. 10). The aforesaid orders are challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. (2). Learned counsel Shri Mridul raises the foremost contention that both the impugned orders at Annex. 8 and 10 are non-speaking orders, therefore, they are liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, however, submitted that when the disciplinary authority was concurring with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, who found the charges no.1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner to be proved then there was no need for him to record his own reasons. Regarding order at Annex.10 he submitted that the appellate authority did consider the contentions raised by the petitioner and, thereafter, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, he submitted than it cannot be sa- id that the appellate order at Annex.10 was also a non-speaking order. It is true that the Inquiry Officer found the charges no. 1 and 2 to be proved against the petitioner which may be seen from his detail enquiry report annexed alongwith the order at Annex.6 dated 8.3.97 passed by the disciplinary authority. By an order at Annex. 6 the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry offi- cer, however, did not record its own reasons. Regulation 7 (3) of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short `the Regulations, 1976) clearly provides that disciplinary authority has to record its own findings on all or any of the article of charge, when it is of the opinion that none of the penalty specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee. Similarly, Regulation 17 (ii) provides that the appellate authority has to consider whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority were justified or not. Consideration means the authority has to deal with the submissions raised in appeal and argued before him . Similarly, Regulation 17 (ii) provides that the appellate authority has to consider whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority were justified or not. Consideration means the authority has to deal with the submissions raised in appeal and argued before him . In the impugned order at Annex.10 the appellate authority has simply stated that he has gone through the appeal preferred by the delinquent and the comments of the disciplinary authority thereon, also the charge sheet and reply of the delinquent, and the record of enquiry proceedings and the final order passed by the disciplinary authority. But, he has not dealt with any of the contentions raised in appeal by the delinquent before him. In last para of the impugned order, he has observed that, ``Charges numbers 1 and 2 have been pro- ved and as such the delinquent was guilty of gross mis-conduct. He did not find any extraneous circumstances to interfere with or modify the order passed by the disciplinary authority. This is no way of dealing with the appeal. The appellate authority is bound to deal with the contentions raised before him by the delinquent and then to give his own findings after brief discussion. That has not been done in the present case. Thus, it is clear that both the impugned orders at Annex.8 and 10 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority respectively are non-speaking order. Hence, they are liable to be quashed and set aside. (3). The petitioner has also prayed in this petition to direct the respondents to release his grade increment from 1975 and to pay commercial interest on the said amount. However, it is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi that the grade increments of the petitioner were stopped after the orders regarding that were passed, but the same are not challenged in this petition. He, however, submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the respondent Bank had already released the grade increments of the petitioner, therefore, there is no question of granting that relief. He submitted that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest should not be given to the petitioner. Once the grade increment are released then there is no question of granting any relief regarding the same. He submitted that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest should not be given to the petitioner. Once the grade increment are released then there is no question of granting any relief regarding the same. The question of interest on the said amount looses its importance when the Bank itself released the grade increments during the pendency and final disposal of the writ petition. (4). There is also a prayer regarding granting promotion to the petitioner to the cadre of Officers Gr. `D from the date on which his juniors were promoted after the petitioner had passed the selection test. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been denied promotion only because of pendency of departmental proceedings and the order of punishment. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent Bank be directed to consider his case for promotion. This relief can be granted by the respondent bank if ultimately petitioner is exonerated. (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annex.8 dated 3.4.79 imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and the order at Annex.10 dated 22.2.80 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of disciplinary authority are hereby quashed and set aside. At this stage a request was made by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi that on technical ground this Court has set aside the impugned orders, therefore, Bank may be allowed to pass fresh speaking orders in accordance with law. Mr. Mridul for the petitioner objected to this on the ground that the mis-conduct alleged against he petitioner was of 1975 and the petitioner was punished in 1979 and this petition was filed in 1980, which was pending before this Court for all these 19 years, therefore, he submitted that it would be travesty of justice if the respondent Bank is allowed to pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law after so many years. It is true that after the punishment order was passed in 1979 almost 20 years have passed. However, it may be stated that this petition was earlier allowed by my learned brother Honble R.S. Verma, J. (as he then was) on 23.10.1991, but on review petition the said order was re- called on 3.8.93. Thereafter, this matter could not be heard and decided till today for several reasons. (6). However, it may be stated that this petition was earlier allowed by my learned brother Honble R.S. Verma, J. (as he then was) on 23.10.1991, but on review petition the said order was re- called on 3.8.93. Thereafter, this matter could not be heard and decided till today for several reasons. (6). Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondent Bank may be given an opportunity to pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation/reply against the report of Inquiry Officer and the show cause notice at Annex.6. The respondent Bank shall pass such order on or before 30.6.99 as the petitioner, who is present in person, states that he is going to retire on 30.6.99. If the respondent Bank is satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and if his explanation is accepted then the petitioner shall be given all benefits of service including promotion. With these observations and directions, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.