Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by the respondents as disciplinary authority and the appellate authority awarding punishment of demotion and deduction of two annual increments in the basic pay of the petitioner and treating the entire period as a period of suspension. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was in the service of the respondent-Bank according to him he was the elected treasurer of the Palamu Kshetriya gramin Bank Workers Organisation, daltonganj, a registered organization. On 14/02/1992 the petitioner along with five others was placed under suspension with effect from 15/02/1992. By memo dated 20/02/1992 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by respondent No. 4, general Manager, Palamu Kshetriya Gramin bank, Daltonganj-cum-Disciplinary Authority. The charges inter alia were that: (1) On 13/02/1992 he along with other employees entered into the office of the General manager in relation to a matter of transfer of dilip Kumar Das and attempted to put pressure without any authority upon the said General manager to cancel the order of transfer: (ii)when the General Manager expresses his inability to cancel the order of transfer then the petitioner along with other persons became very angry and threatened that if the transfer order was not cancelled then all of them would harass him and in future if any disciplinary action is initiated against any member of the staff then the petitioner and his friends would implicate him in a number of case (iii) on 13/02/1992 the petitioner and his friends remained absent from their work seats without permission of the senior officers from 3. 15 p. m. to 3. 50 p. m. and kept the General manager under Gherao till 6. 15 p. m. and they all continued to command and raise slogans against him as a result of which the working atmosphere of the Bank came to a stand still after 3. 15 p. m. (iv) It is further alleged that all of them through one Badri Narayan Pandey, an outsider, put pressure on General Manager to cancel the order of transfer. The aforesaid acts constituted misconduct under Regulations 17, 19 and 22 of the Staff Regulation Act, 1980 and clause 7 read with Regulation 4 (1) of the palamu Regional Rural Bank Officers and employees Staffs Service Regulations, 1980. The aforesaid acts constituted misconduct under Regulations 17, 19 and 22 of the Staff Regulation Act, 1980 and clause 7 read with Regulation 4 (1) of the palamu Regional Rural Bank Officers and employees Staffs Service Regulations, 1980. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, on receipt of the charge-sheet, submitted his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him. The explanations of the show-cause filed by the petitioner was rejected and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. It was decided that the Chairman would be the disciplinary Authority and the Board of directors would be the Appellate Authority in the said proceeding as the General Manager was himself a party in the said proceeding. One mr. Mridul Kumar Sinha was appointed as enquiry Officer for conducting the disciplinary proceeding. However, in the meantime, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked vide office order dated 19/08/1992. The enquiry Officer after making inquiry, submitted his report recording a finding that all the four charges were not proved excepting that the charge of the petitioner being present in the official chamber of the General Manager was found to be probed. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner who submitted his written submission to the disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary authority differed with the enquiry report and held that the charges have been proved. He accordingly passed an order reverting the petitioner below to four annual increments with effect from 29/07/1994 and also observing that his period of suspension will be treated as a period of suspension. ( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate authority, however, reduced the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority by deduction of two annual increments with effect from July 29, 1994 and upholding the punishment of the Disciplinary Authority to the effect that the suspension period of the petitioner will be treated as has been ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. ( 5 ) MR. A. K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment as being illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner demanded certain documents by filing application before the Enquiry Officer. On 8/11/1993 the petitioner submitted an application before the Enquiry Officer with a list of witnesses to be examined which was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner demanded certain documents by filing application before the Enquiry Officer. On 8/11/1993 the petitioner submitted an application before the Enquiry Officer with a list of witnesses to be examined which was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer also refused to produce (sic) documents to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in spite of the fact that enquiry-officer after considering the entire evidence recorded a finding in his report that the charges have not been proved but even then the disciplinary Authority abrupt without any basis, disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry officer, passed the order of punishment. ( 6 ) MR. S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him which, inter alia, included the charge of unauthorisedly pressurising the General manager to set aside the transfer order of an officer. It was further found that the petitioner along with others threatening in angry and aggressive manner raising abusive slogans against the General Manager. Learned counsel contended that the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, sent a second show-cause notice and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed. ( 7 ) FROM perusal of the enquiry report, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-23 to the writ application, it appears that the Enquiry Officer recorded a very detailed finding after considering the evidence and found that none of the charges has been proved excepting the presence of the petitioner in the chamber of the General Manager. The disciplinary Authority in his second show-cause notice has not disclosed that he differed with the finding recorded by the enquiry Officer, rather, on the basis of said finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was called upon to file his second show-cause. When the charges against the petitioner were not proved then for his mere presence in the chamber of the General Manager, the impugned order of punishment could not have been passed. Besides the above, the punishment of treating the entire period as period of suspension is also wholly unjustified for the reason that admittedly the order of suspension was revoked on 19/08/1992 and the petitioner resumed his duty. The matter, therefore, needs reconsideration by the appellate authority. Besides the above, the punishment of treating the entire period as period of suspension is also wholly unjustified for the reason that admittedly the order of suspension was revoked on 19/08/1992 and the petitioner resumed his duty. The matter, therefore, needs reconsideration by the appellate authority. The impugned order of punishment is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner particularly when those charges were not at all proved. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Authority to pass fresh order on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the enquiry Officer. --- *** --- .