JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J.) (Oral): The petitioner in this petition has challenged orders dated December 26, 1989 (annexure P-15); enquiry report dated October 11, 1989 (Annexure P-16); and appellate order dated June 16, 3989 (Annexure P-10) and has prayed for quashing them. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the petitioner has been serving as Junior Management Grade Scale-1 Officer with respondent No. J since November 30, 1981. The respondent No. 1 has been constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer" of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and is owed and controlled by the Central Government. The Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 in exercise of the policy under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 have framed Punjab National Bank Officers, Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1977 (here-after referred to as Conduct Regulation 1977). Similarly, the said Board has framed Punjab National Bank Officers, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (here-after referred to as Discipline & Appeal Regulation, 1977). 3. In the year 1986, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager in Una Branch of the respondent No. 1. At that time the Self Employment Scheme for Educated Unemployed Youths (here-after referred to as SEUY Scheme) was in vogue. Under this scheme, nationalised banks, as the respondent No. 1 is, used to grant loan to educated unemployed youths. The concerned District Industries Center used to sponsor the unemployed educated youths for grant of loan. On November 27,1986, the District Industries Centre, Una sponsored the name of Hari Dev Sharma and two others for loan of Rs. 25,000/- each from Una Branch of Respondent No.l and from that day the said Branch of respondent No.l started processing the case for loan and on grant of No Due certificate by different Banks at Una on December 5, 1986, the loan case of Hari Dev Sharma was finalised on December 9, 1986 and as per the practice prevalent at that time, the name of the loanee was entered in the Register for Receipt of Credit Proposals on December 9,1986, i.e. the date of the finalisation of his loan case. 4. It is further averred that on the basis of complaint made by one Mr. 4. It is further averred that on the basis of complaint made by one Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, the Officers of respondent No. 1 took action against the petitioner who was charge-sheeted on March 1, 1989 as per charge sheet Annexure P-3 for acting fraudulently in connivance with the borrower and thereby jeopardising the interest of the respondent Bank. The charge sheet served on the petitioner did not contain the list of witnesses and list of documents filed or relied upon. The statements of witnesses were also not attached with the charge sheet. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply dated March 22, 1989, a copy whereof is Annexure P-4, whereby the article of charge was denied. As usual, the respondent No.4 appointed respondent No.5 as Inquiry Officer and one Mr.K.K.Jain was appointed as Presenting Officer. It was on August 5, 1989 that the Presenting Officer for the first time disclosed some of the documents which he wanted to produce in the inquiry vide application dated April 3, 1989 (Annexure P-6) and also filed the list of witnesses dated May 3, 1989 (Annexure P-7). 6. On May 6, 1989, the Presenting Officer submitted another application (Annexure P-9) before the Inquiry Officer to file some more documents. On August 16, 1989 the Inquiry Officer took on record 22 copies of documents vide Annexure P-10. The petitioner himself submitted a list of documents relied upon by him in his defence on July 17, 1989. Thereafter, after recording the statements of witnesses, the enquiry was conducted and report dated October 11, 1989 (Annexure P-16) was submitted to respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated December 26, 1989 (Annexure P-14) forwarded a copy of the order of penalty dated December 28, 1989 (Annexure P-15) to the petitioner. The penalty imposed is reduction of salary by three stages in time scale in which the petitioner was placed at that time. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order imposing the penalty to respondent No.5 and the said appeal was rejected on May 8, 1991 vide order Annexure P-19. 8. The penalty imposed is reduction of salary by three stages in time scale in which the petitioner was placed at that time. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order imposing the penalty to respondent No.5 and the said appeal was rejected on May 8, 1991 vide order Annexure P-19. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1977 and the provisions of Regulations 6(V), Regulation 14, Regulation 6(x) (a) and (b) have been violated and the inquiry has been conducted in an illegal and arbitrary manner in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. The respondents filed the reply and contested the claim of the petitioner, by denying all the allegations and contentions made in the writ petition and also took the preliminary objections that the petitioner has invoked extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court for the sole purpose of re-appraisal of evidence which is impermissible in law and that the petition is otherwise untenable because after filing of the writ petition, review petition filed by the petitioner has been decided by the Reviewing Authority in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner filed rejoinder wherein while denying the contentions raised in the reply of the respondents, it was also averred that the review petition has wrongly been rejected vide order Annexure R-2, therefore, order passed on review dated October 31, 1991 (Annexure R- 2) may also be quashed. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the list of the documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges were proposed to be substantiated, was not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet, thus, the charge sheet was not complete. 12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the list of the documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges were proposed to be substantiated, was not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet, thus, the charge sheet was not complete. The contention is unsustainable for the simple reason that such lists are required to be attached with the charge sheet when an inquiry is conducted under the CCS (CCA.) Rules, 1965 whereas, admittedly, the proceedings against the petitioner were to be regulated by the Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1977 which provides a slightly different procedure regarding presentation of the list of documents by which and the list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are to be sustained. The relevant provisions are contained in Regulation 6(3) ! (5) (iii) which reads as follows: "6 Procedure for imposing major penalties. (1) ** ** ** (2)** ** ** (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the Officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defence. (4) ** ** ** (5) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forwarded to the inquiring authority: (i) *** *** *** (ii) *** *** *** (iii) a list of documents by which had and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated;" 13. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that where an inquiry is proposed to be held, the disciplinary authority shall after framing definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the delinquent communicate to the delinquent the articles of charge together with the statement of allegations on which they are based and shall require him to submit within such time as may be specified a written statement of his defence. The list of documents by which and the list of witnesses by whom articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated, are thus not required to be furnished to the delinquent official along with the charge-sheet as is in the case of an inquiry held under CCS (CCA.) Rules, 1965. 14. The lists of such documents and witnesses are to be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the enquiring authority only after the written statement has been received and it has been thought necessary to hold a regular inquiry and the inquiring authority has been appointed for the purpose under Regulation 6(4). Thus this contention does not hold good. 15. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the list of documents by which and the list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge were proposed to be substantiated, were not forwarded to the inquiring authority by the disciplinary authority but this part of the function of the disciplinary authority was performed by the Presenting Officer and thus the Presenting Officer usurped the powers of the discipliner authority, therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Regulation 6(5). 16. It is not disputed that after receipt of the written statement of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority - respondent No.4 appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated March 30, 1989 (Annexure P-5). By the order appointing the Presenting Officer, the disciplinary authority advised the said Presenting Officer to collect and supply the documents required in terms of Regulation 6(5) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1977 to the Inquiry Officer immediately, i.e. a period of fifteen days on receipt of the order Annexure P-5. Thus, the presenting officer who presented the lists of documents by which and the list of witnesses by whom the charge was to be sustained, has not acted of his own accord in supplying the said lists to the Inquiry Officer, but he did so under the authority of the disciplinary authority and, thus, being the Presenting Officer while presenting the said lists to the Inquiring Officer, the Presenting Officer was evidently acting for and on behalf of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Presenting Officer usurped the powers and authority of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Presenting Officer usurped the powers and authority of the disciplinary authority. On the contrary, the Presenting Officer in fact acted as per directions of the disciplinary authority that he was representing before the Inquiry Officer. 17. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the inquiry proceeding, the provisions of Regulations 6(10) (a) (b) have been violated. This contention for the petitioner also appears to be without any substance. It may be seen from Annexure P-8 i.e. the proceedings of the Inquiry held on May 3, 1989 that the list of documents by which and the list of witnesses by whom the charges were to be proved, were submitted by the Presenting Officer on that day and were taken on record and copy of the same was provided to the charged officer, i.e. the petitioner. Even an objection was taken by the Defence Assistant to the averments in the list that he would adduce more documents and witnesses in future and it was urged that the Presenting Officer should not be allowed to alter his gist at a later stage. On this objection, the Presenting Officer undertook to prepare the lists as exhaustive as possible and submit list by post and that he would introduce only such additional documents which were very much necessary. It was not disputed that the Inquiry Officer could allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence before the close of the case as provided under Regulation 6(14). It was, thus, decided that the Presenting Officer shall forward the copies of the said list to the charged officer at his place of posting as submitted by the Defence Assistance and such copies were to be sent by post. It was also decided that the inspection of the documents shall be done by the Defence Assistant and the charged officer on a date mutually agreed by them and the Presenting Officer. rThere is no allegation that the copies as agreed to be supplied by Post and the inspection as permitted was subsequently not furnished/permitted. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did submit a list of evidence in his defence. Therefore, the contention that there has been violation of Regulation 6(10) is devoid of any merit. 18. rThere is no allegation that the copies as agreed to be supplied by Post and the inspection as permitted was subsequently not furnished/permitted. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did submit a list of evidence in his defence. Therefore, the contention that there has been violation of Regulation 6(10) is devoid of any merit. 18. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of Regulation 6(10) and the Inquiry Officer had without any application of mind taken on record the documents. It is evident from Annexure P-10 that the supplementary list of documents dated May 6, 1989 and the documents enclosed therewith were taken on record by the Inquiry Officer on June 16, 1989 when the proceedings were held and the charged officer and the Defence Assistance were present and the documents were inspected in the presence of all concerned. At the time of such proceedings no objection about taking in record of any document was taken on record by the Inquiry Authority without application of mind.. It was at a later stage that the charged officer got the opportunity to lead his defence. Thus, there has been no violation of the provisions of Regulation 6(14) as contented. 19. Next, it was contended that non-supply of the requisite documents relied upon to prove the charge against the petitioner vitiates the proceedings and there being violation of the mandatory provisions of the Regulations, the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence, therefore, the inquiry is vitiated and the consequential findings of Inquiry Officer, the order regarding imposition of penalty and the orders rejecting the appeal and review petition respectively passed by appellate authority and the Reviewing Authority are all illegal and liable to be set aside. 20. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a considerable number of pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court viz. (1982) 2 SCC 375, (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif through Lrs.) (1986) 3 SCC 229, Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Ors; 1987 (Supp) SCC 518, Chandrama Twari v. Union of India; 1990 (1) SLR 24, Rajeshwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors; (1994) 5 SCC 118, (Mohd. quara-muddin v. State of A.P.); and (1999) 2 SCC 10, (Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors). 21. quara-muddin v. State of A.P.); and (1999) 2 SCC 10, (Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors). 21. The law as laid down in (1982) 2 SCC 376, (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif) is not attracted to the present case. In the said case in the charge sheet served on the delinquent employee, firstly, sufficient particulars about date, time and location of the alleged incident which constituted the charge of misconduct were not indicated and, secondly, the copies of statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary inquiry were not furnished to the delinquent and even his request for supply of such copies were turned down. The identical lapses are not shown to have been .committed in the present case. 22. Similarly, the law laid down in (1986) 3 SCC 229, (Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Ors) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case the copies of statements of witnesses recorded exparte at pre-inquiry stage and documents relied upon by the department to establish charges were refused to be supplied to the delinquent. However, it is not the case of the petitioner here that his request for supply of the copies of statements, if any, recorded at pre-charge stage during the course of any exparte preliminary inquiry or the documents relied upon by the department to prove the charge was refused. 23. In 1987 (Supp) SCC 518, (Chandrama Twari v. Union of India), it was again a case for non-supply of a copy of document which was mentioned in the memo of charge coupled with refusal to permit the delinquent to inspect the same. The document, however, was found to be not relevant and material for the purpose of the inquiry against the delinquent therein nor was it taken into account by the Inquiring Authority. Thus, it was held that non-supply of such a document to the delinquent had not resulted in any prejudice and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the law laid down in this case is also of no help to the petitioner. 24. Thus, it was held that non-supply of such a document to the delinquent had not resulted in any prejudice and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the law laid down in this case is also of no help to the petitioner. 24. In 1990 (1) SLR 24, (Rajeshwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), as per the enclosed annexures with the charge sheet, five witnesses were proposed to be examined in support of the charge whereas seven witnesses were examined after dropping one of the named witness and by introducing three witnesses who were not named in the list. It was, therefore, held that the act of non-examination of one of the named witness and by introducing three new witnesses, prejudice to the petitioner therein had been caused and the principles of natural justice would be deemed to have been violated by adoption of such a course. However, it could not be clarified therein as to under what circumstances the change of the witnesses was brought about in the said case. Therefore, the change of the witnesses which remained unexplained could definitely be deemed to have violated the principles of natural justice and having caused prejudice to the delinquent. In the instant case, however, no evidence has been brought on record at the stage of inquiry nor it has been alleged to be so about which the petitioner had not prior knowledge/notice. Thus, the ratio of the case supra is also not applicable to the present case. 25. The facts of the case (1994) 5 SCC 118, (Mohd. Quaramudding v. State of A.P.) are also distinguishable from the present case. Therein the involved departmental inquiry was conducted under A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1963. The delinquent was not supplied with a copy of the vigilance commission report which had formed a part of the record of the inquiry and was taken into account by the disciplinary authority. In the present case there is no similar omission on the part of the disciplinary authority or the inquiry authority. Hence, the ratio of this is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in mind. 26. In (1999) 2 SCC 10, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. In the present case there is no similar omission on the part of the disciplinary authority or the inquiry authority. Hence, the ratio of this is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in mind. 26. In (1999) 2 SCC 10, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. a document which was not referred to in the charge sheet, was relied upon and it was held that such a document could not be relied upon and has to be excluded from consideration. In the instant case no such document has been pointed out at the time of arguments which might have been taken into account or relied upon for holding the petitioner guilty about which mention was not made in the list of documents filed by the Presenting Officer. Thus, the law laid down in this case is also not applicable to the present case. 27. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when irregularities in conducting a departmental inquiry have been found, the burden of proof that charged employee is not prejudiced in his defence is on the department. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has laid reliance on (1998) 6 SCC 651, State of U.P. V. Shatrughan Lal and Ans. Since no irregularity in the conduct of the inquiry which may be result of violation of any mandatory provision of the Regulations, has been found having been committed in the case, therefore, the law as laid down in the case supra is also not applicable to the present case. 28. That apart, the learned counsel appearing on either side invited our attention to the contents of the report as also the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. On going through the same we are convinced of the fact that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer otherwise are based on sufficient and relevant material. Neither it could be stated that such findings were based on no evidence nor it could be said that any vital and relevant material in favour of the petitioner has been over-looked or eschewed from consideration in ultimately recording the findings of fact against the petitioner. Neither it could be stated that such findings were based on no evidence nor it could be said that any vital and relevant material in favour of the petitioner has been over-looked or eschewed from consideration in ultimately recording the findings of fact against the petitioner. The materials on record are found to have been considered and appreciated also in their proper perspective and the findings ultimately recorded, therefore, could not be said to be vitiated on account of any perversity of approach in the matter of the appreciation of the material, too. 29. Consequently, we see no merit what-so-ever-in the challenge made to be impugned orders. Having regard to the charges found proved and established, the punishment imposed could not be said to be also either disproportionate or to harsh. 30. No other point has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the parties. 31. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed