( 1 ) BOTH these appeals being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE delinquent-Writ Petitioner Mr. Kanumetta Jagannadham (hereinafter referred to as jagannadham for the sake of brevity) filed a writ petition questioning inter alia an order dated October 4, 1994 whereby and whereunder he was directed to be dismissed from service. ( 3 ) AT the time of his dismissal from service jagannadham was working as Branch Manager in Sri Visakha Grameena Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity) and in all seventeen (17) charges were framed against him. Except Charge Nos. 4 and 11, the enquiry Officer held that the other charges of misconduct are proved. The disciplinary authority, however, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in relation to the said two charges and came to the conclusion that the said charges had also been proved. Prior to arriving at the aforementioned finding, however, the disciplinary authority did not issue a notice to show-cause upon jagannadham. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, various contentions were raised on behalf of the delinquent officer including non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge, however, confined the matter only with regard to the findings of the disciplinary authority as regards the charges 4 and 11, having regard to the decision of the apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj behari Misra AIR 1998 SC 2713 : 1998 (7) scc 84 and held that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh enquiry with an observation that the period from the date of dismissal till the date of completion of proceedings shall be treated as suspension and the delinquent officer shall be entitled for subsistence allowance as per rules. ( 5 ) THE only contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank in support of the appeal is that as the punishment of dismissal had been inflicted upon jagannadham in respect of seventeen (17) charges, even assuming that charge Nos. 4 and 11 had not been proved, the impugned order of dismissal could not have been set aside. Strong reliance, in this connection, has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in K. S, N. Sarma v. S. B. I. 2000-II-LLJ-482. 4 and 11 had not been proved, the impugned order of dismissal could not have been set aside. Strong reliance, in this connection, has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in K. S, N. Sarma v. S. B. I. 2000-II-LLJ-482. ( 6 ) IT was further submitted mat as regards the direction for payment of subsistence allowance the learned single Judge failed to take notice of the decision of the Apex Court in-Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar air 1994 SC 1074 : 1993 (4) SCC 727 : 1994-1-LLJ-162 (SC ). ( 7 ) MR. Sudheer, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Jagannadham on the other hand submitted that the learned single judge could not have directed the order of suspension to continue for a long time despite the fact that the order of dismissal has been set aside on merit. According to the learned counsel, in any event, as large number of contentions have been raised before the learned single Judge, even assuming that the appeal preferred by the Bank has to be allowed, such contentions must be gone into. ( 8 ) IN view of the rival contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether having regard to the order of the disciplinary authority the learned single Judge was correct in issuing the impugned direction. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to a catena of decisions of the Apex Court there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that when a delinquent officer is charged with various misconducts, the question as to what should be the quantum of punishment would depend upon the gravity of each charge and finding thereupon. However, if the disciplinary authority imposes a punishment having regard to the cumulative effect of all the charges levelled against the delinquent officer, in the event one of the charges fails, the order of punishment has to be set aside. However, in the event, the gravity of each charge levelled against the delinquent officer is such that it would entail punishment of dismissal on each count, the same cannot be interfered with. However, in the event, the gravity of each charge levelled against the delinquent officer is such that it would entail punishment of dismissal on each count, the same cannot be interfered with. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Binny Limited v. Their Workmen AIR 1972 SC 1975 : 1972 (3) scc 806 : 1972-I-LLJ-478 in the following terms at p. 483 of LLJ:"9. . . . . . . . Although the Enquiry Officer found in fact that the respondent had behaved insolently towards the Warehouse master, he did not come to the conclusion that this act of indiscipline on a solitary occasion was sufficient to warrant an order of dismissal. He expressly recorded that the delinquent had been guilty of absenting himself without leave, that he had taken 25 days sick leave in a span of six months and that "much more than all these, he (the warehouse Master) had let Kuppuswamy off only a month earlier for behaving insolently towards him purely because of request of the departmental workers representative" and it is in these circumstances that the Manager did not consider the delinquent to be a person fit to be retained in service. The language of the order leaves no doubt in our mind that it was the cumulative effect of the lapses on the part of the respondent that had resulted in the order of termination of service. It was not a case where two separate charges had been framed against the delinquent and they were of such a serious nature that the finding of guilt on any one would warrant the dismissal of the delinquent from service. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of punishment held:"03. Thus, the charged officer has violated the Regulation Nos. 17, 19, 27 and 30 (1) of the Sri Visakha Grameena Bank Staff service Regulations, 1980. 04. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of punishment held:"03. Thus, the charged officer has violated the Regulation Nos. 17, 19, 27 and 30 (1) of the Sri Visakha Grameena Bank Staff service Regulations, 1980. 04. After carefully going through all the prima facie aggravating and extenuating circumstances that were led into the enquiry proceedings, I propose to impose the following punishment (s) in respect of the charges proved as under: Charge No. 1 Proved "dismissal" Charge No. 2 Proved -do- Charge No. 3 Proved -do- Charge No. 4 Proved -do- Charge No. 5 Proved -do- Charge No. 6 Proved -do- Charge No. 7 Proved -do- Charge No. 8 Proved -do- Charge No. 9 Proved -do- Charge No. 10 Proved -do- Charge No. 11 Proved -do- Charge No. 12 Proved -do- Charge No. 13 Proved -do- Charge No. 14 Proved -do- Charge No. 15 Proved -do- Charge No. 16 Proved -do- Charge No. 17 Proved -do- 05. Taking an overall view of the punishments in respect of the charges proved, I inflict the following punishment as laid down in Regulation No. 30 (i) (f) of Sri visakha Grameena Bank Staff Service regulations, 1980 - "dismissal" this order takes effect from today i. e. , january 3, 1994. Place : Srikakulam Sd/- date : 3-1-1994 Chairman and disciplinary Authority" ( 11 ) PRIOR thereto, in his report, the disciplinary authority had dealt with each charge and recorded his findings in relation thereto in great detail. ( 12 ) WE, although, having regard to the order proposed to be passed by us, do not intend to goin to the merits of the case, we may point out that as noticed here in above, if each misconduct levelled against the delinquent officer in relation whereto the charges have been framed and proved, an order of dismissal could be passed. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank must be accepted. However, as stated by Mr. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for delinquent officer, that several other contentions had also been raised before the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that such contentions, which may be available to Jagannadham, may be raised before the appropriate Bench. However, as stated by Mr. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for delinquent officer, that several other contentions had also been raised before the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that such contentions, which may be available to Jagannadham, may be raised before the appropriate Bench. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed and the writ petition riled by jagannadham viz. , W. P. No. 1920 of 1998 is remitted to the appropriate Bench for consideration of the matter afresh. However, having regard to the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, we direct the Registry to place the matter before an appropriate Bench within two (02) weeks from date, subject to part heard cases. No order as to costs.