H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) AN officer of the respondent Syndicate bank, aggrieved by the orders made by the revisional authority, appellate authority and the disciplinary authority dated October 13, 1998, may 17, 1996, and September 28, 1992 respectively, is before this Court. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are:while he was working at Vrindavan branch, Uttar Pradesh, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated May 24, 1989. In the charge memo, there were nearly 15 accusations against the petitioner. In the charge memo, it was alleged that petitioner has committed certain acts of omissions and commissions and those acts would amount to misconduct. The sum and substance of the charge memo as stated in the charge memo itself is as under:"1. Without authority and/or exceeding authority. 2. By contravening the rules, regulations and procedures laid down by the bank in the matter of availing/sanctioning sundry advance, loans and advances;3. By misrepresenting the facts; 4. Without obtaining proper securities more fully described in the statement of Imputations of Misconducts mentioned herebelow; and5. Committing various other irregularities more fully described in the statement of imputations of Misconducts herebelow: that in the process you availed and made available to others undue pecuniary gains/advantage to be derived by the parties concerned at the seal of the Bank and by your above acts, you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of a Bank officer and thus contravened Regulation no. 3 (1) read with Regulation No. 24 of the syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976". ( 3 ) ALONG with the charge memo, petitioner was also issued with the statement of imputations, list of documents and the list of witnesses. Petitioner was asked to file his reply, if any, to the charge memo within a particular time frame. ( 4 ) INSPITE of service of the charge memo, petitioner did not choose to file his reply or his explanation. ( 5 ) THE disciplinary authority in order to hold an enquiry into the allegations made in the charge memo, had appointed one Sri U. B. Mallya, Chief Manager of the Bank as enquiry officer. The management had produced three witnesses in support of the charges and had also marked through them nearly 529 documents. ( 6 ) THE delinquent officer had examined four witnesses in support of his defence. The management had produced three witnesses in support of the charges and had also marked through them nearly 529 documents. ( 6 ) THE delinquent officer had examined four witnesses in support of his defence. He had also produced nearly 27 documents, which were marked as DX-1 to DX-27. ( 7 ) AFTER completion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer had submitted his report and the findings thereon to the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank. According to the enquiry officer, the management has substantiated fourteen charges alleged against the petitioner. ( 8 ) AFTER receipt of the report of the enquiry officer and the records of the proceedings, a second show cause notice had been issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank inter alia directing the petitioner to show cause why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and a major penalty should not be imposed. The second show cause notice had been replied by the petitioner by his reply letter dated March 31, 1992. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the findings of the enquiry officer and the reply filed by the petitioner to the second show cause notice, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank has passed an order dated September 28, 1992, retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the services of the respondent Bank. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed an appeal as provided under the provisions of Syndicate bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 ('regulations' for short ). The appellate authority by his order dated May 17, 1996 has confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority by rejecting the appeal filed by the delinquent officer. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, petitioner had also preferred a Revision Petition as provided under the Regulations of the Bank. The revisional authority by his order dated January 13, 1998 has rejected the Revision Petition. It is the correctness or otherwise of these orders which are the subject matters of this Writ Petition before this Court. ( 11 ) SRI Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two issues for consideration and decision of this Court. They are: i. Firstly, it is stated that the enquiry proceedings held by the enquiry officer are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is illegal. II. ( 11 ) SRI Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two issues for consideration and decision of this Court. They are: i. Firstly, it is stated that the enquiry proceedings held by the enquiry officer are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is illegal. II. Secondly it is stated that during the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer has not scrupulously followed the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty. Therefore, it is stated that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and based on such proceedings, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. In support of the aforesaid legal issues, learned counsel has taken me through the proceedings of the enquiry officer. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent Bank ably justifies the impugned orders. ( 13 ) THE charges alleged against the petitioner are too many and at the same time serious also. In the charge memo it is alleged against the delinquent officer that while he was functioning as Manager of Vrindavan Branch of the respondent Bank, he had sanctioned certain loans, advances and overdraft facilities and further had availed Sundry Advances/loans and overdrafts without authority and in exercise of authority and thereby has contravened the rules, regulations and instructions issued by the head office of the Bank. The delinquent officer had not denied those charges inspite of service of charge memo. The only explanation offered in evidence seems to be that he had to indulge himself in all these primarily to uplift the vrindavan Branch of the Bank, which was in critical state of affairs, and to make it the best branch in a short period. The other explanation is that, he could not adhere to the rules and instructions issued by the Bank, in view of the inordinate delay in responding to his letters and sanctioning of the claims made by him by the controlling office concerned. The explanation offered by the delinquent officer cannot absolve him from the serious lapses, irregularities committed by him while dealing with the funds of the Bank. It is now well settled law that a bank employee acting beyond his authority is a serious misconduct. This is kept in mind by the disciplinary authority while appreciating the findings of the enquiry officer and also for awarding major penalty. It is now well settled law that a bank employee acting beyond his authority is a serious misconduct. This is kept in mind by the disciplinary authority while appreciating the findings of the enquiry officer and also for awarding major penalty. Therefore the explanation offered by the delinquent officer would not absolve him from the serious misconduct alleged against him. ( 14 ) SRI S. M. Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that non furnishing of the documents requested for by the petitioner by the disciplinary authority had prevented the delinquent officer from effectively participating in the enquiry proceedings and therefore enquiry proceedings are vitiated. ( 15 ) A request had been made by the delinquent officer before the enquiry officer for directing the Presenting Officer to supply certain documents in order to facilitate him to participate in the enquiry proceedings held against him. In response to the same, the enquiry officer taking into consideration the relevancy of each one of the documents requested for by the delinquent officer for the purpose of the enquiry by his note dated April 9, 1991 directs the management to make available some of the documents to the delinquent and further had directed the management to permit the delinquent to verify and make notes of certain documents and had rejected the request of the delinquent officer only with reference to one document. Even for rejecting the request, the enquiry officer assigns appropriate and cogent reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said non-furnishing of one document to the delinquent has vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings. In my view, non furnishing of one document which has no relevancy whatsoever for the proceedings in question has not caused any prejudice to the defence of the delinquent officer because his main defence before the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer was that he conducted certain transactions by violating the guidelines issued, rules and regulations only in the best interest and upliftment of the Branch office of the Bank. Therefore on this score I cannot hold the enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer is contrary to 'c' and 'd' Rules of the Bank and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore on this score I cannot hold the enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer is contrary to 'c' and 'd' Rules of the Bank and in violation of principles of natural justice. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel Sri S. M. Babu, nextly contends that the rejecting of reasonable request of the petitioner to hold one session of the enquiry proceedings at the head office of the Bank at Mangalore or at Udupi or at manipal by the enquiry officer is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and the punishment imposed based on such proceedings is illegal and invalid. In support of this assertion, the learned counsel invites my attention to the request letter made by the petitioner dated March 1,1991 and the note made by the enquiry officer dated April 11, 1991. ( 17 ) THIS is the only submission of the learned counsel, which requires to be taken note of by this Court, and a decision requires to be given. Therefore, not only to appreciate the submission made but also to give a finding, the request made by the delinquent officer in his letter dated March 1, 1991 and the ruling given by the enquiry officer in that regard requires to be noticed. Therefore, they are extracted and they are as under:"in the course of your ruling you have ruled that "the defence has already submitted that the proceedings relating to production of defence witnesses be held at Vrindavan branch so that it is easy for them to procure the attendance of the defence witness". You may appreciate here, that this ruling has definitely made the job easy for those witnesses who are residing in and around vrindavan. You may not be surprised to get reminded that 3 of my witnesses who are in the Bank are stationed at HO. They are:1) Sri P. S. V. Mallya. 2) Sri T. J. A. Ganiga 3) Sri M. R. Pai i request you to facilitate them to lead, evidence on my behalf, which is necessary for me to prove my innocence. Therefore, i pray that one session of the future enquiry may be held at Mangalore, Udupi or manipal to suit them to lead my evidence in the interest of justice. Therefore, i pray that one session of the future enquiry may be held at Mangalore, Udupi or manipal to suit them to lead my evidence in the interest of justice. " ( 18 ) THE ruling of the enquiry officer in this regard is dated April 11, 1991. The same is as under:"with regard to the first letter cited above, as per the procedure, both the parties i. e. the management as well as the defence are expected to procure the attendance of their respective witnesses. As such, it is for the defence to make their own arrangement for procuring the attendance of their witnesses. Hence, it is not possible to issue summons to the defence witnesses nor is it possible to fix the enquiry at Manipal etc. " ( 19 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contends that the Bank had conducted preliminary enquiry before framing the charges against the delinquent officer at bangalore and thereafter, the enquiry was shifted to a branch office at New Delhi and on a request made by the petitioner, the enquiry was shifted to Vrindavan, where petitioner was working as Branch Manager during the period between October 17, 1983 and April 29, 1988 and the accusations made pertains to functioning of the petitioner during that period. Again on a request made by the petitioner, the enquiry was shifted from Vrindavan Branch to mathura Branch and therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no justification on the part of the delinquent officer in requesting for shifting of the enquiry proceedings to the head Office at Mangalore or at Manipal. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the Bank further submits since the accusation is entirely based on documentary evidence, which has already been part of the record and copies thereof had already been supplied to the delinquent officer, the mere non examination of Superior Officers of the Bank as defence witnesses would not vitiate the enquiry proceedings, since the same has not caused any prejudice to the delinquent officer. In aid of his submission, the learned counsel invites my attention to the observations made by the Apex court in the case of Tarachand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and others, 1997 (4) SCC 565 : 1997-II-LLJ-26 reported in State Bank of India v. Tarunkumar banerjee and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3028 : 2000 (8) SCC 12 : 2000-II-LLJ-1373 and the observation of Apex Court in the case of director General, Indian Council of Medical research and Others v. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Another, AIR 1998 SC 2592 : 1998 (7) SCC 97 : 1999-I-LLJ-1036. ( 21 ) THE only question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is: whether the rejection of the request made by the delinquent officer has violated any one of the concepts of the principles of natural justice and thereby has vitiated the enquiry proceedings and the conclusions of the disciplinary authority? ( 22 ) TO answer this precise question, let me first advert to the request made by the delinquent officer in his request letter dated march 1, 1991. Firstly, the delinquent officer states that three of the witnesses cited by him in the list of witnesses furnished before the enquiry officer are stationed at Head Office namely Manipal and therefore, requests the enquiry officer to shift the enquiry proceedings to 'manipal' so as to facilitate him to lead their evidence to prove his innocence and therefore requests the enquiry officer to have one session of the enquiry proceedings either at Mangalore, udupi or Manipal. Curiously in his request letter, he would not request the enquiry officer to summon the witnesses listed by him nor request the enquiry officer to direct the employer to direct those witnesses to participate in the enquiry proceedings. Keeping in view the request so made, the enquiry officer in his ruling observes that it is for the defence to procure their witnesses. ( 23 ) THE settled position of law is, the parties have freedom to select their own witnesses and request the enquiry officer to permit them to examine their witnesses in support of their case and defence. It is the duty of the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority to receive all the evidence tendered unless the object of the party is only to protract the enquiry proceedings or to harass a witness. It is the duty of the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority to receive all the evidence tendered unless the object of the party is only to protract the enquiry proceedings or to harass a witness. Secondly, normally it is for the parties to bring their witnesses in support and defence of the allegations made in the charge memo but under certain circumstances, the enquiry officer may issue summons to the witnesses to appear before him or request the employer to direct the witnesses to appear before him for the purpose of examination in the inquiry. Now the questions are: what is the request made by the delinquent officer? What is the answer of the enquiry officer? And whether the same has prejudiced the delinquent officer to declare that the entire proceedings are vitiated on this sole score alone? ( 24 ) THE Courts and the Tribunals have time and again observed that if the allegations are made and properly disclosed and if the reply is not filed and substantial facts are admitted at any stage of the proceedings, it may not be necessary to lead evidence and non-examination of witnesses in such cases will not vitiate the enquiry proceedings and such cases cannot be construed as breach of principles of natural justice. ( 25 ) KEEPING all these settled principles in view, let me notice the fact situation. First and foremost, the enquiry officer had shifted the sitting of the enquiry proceedings firstly from new Delhi to Vrindavan Branch of the respondent Bank and thereafter to Mathura branch. While doing so, he had made it known to the delinquent officer that the defence should lead their defence at Vrindavan Branch and the enquiry is held in that place only to facilitate the delinquent officer to produce defence witnesses. Inspite of this ruling, in the ends of justice, had shifted the enquiry proceedings to the Mathura Branch of the respondent Bank to facilitate the defence to produce their witnesses. Once again, the delinquent officer requests the enquiry officer to shift the venue of the enquiry proceedings either to mangalore, Manipal or Udupi to examine three witnesses stationed at Head Office. In the request so made, he does not even suggest the role of these witnesses and how they would be useful in his defence in the enquiry proceedings. Once again, the delinquent officer requests the enquiry officer to shift the venue of the enquiry proceedings either to mangalore, Manipal or Udupi to examine three witnesses stationed at Head Office. In the request so made, he does not even suggest the role of these witnesses and how they would be useful in his defence in the enquiry proceedings. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, the enquiry officer has rejected the request of the petitioner for shifting of the venue of the inquiry and summoning the superior officers of the Bank. The question is whether the same has vitiated the enquiry proceedings and the end result? In my opinion, the answer is positively 'no', for the reason the delinquent officer had only requested the enquiry officer for shifting the enquiry proceedings and not for issuing summons to the superior officers of the Bank to appear before the enquiry officer for examination. Secondly, the enquiry proceedings were conducted by the enquiry officer at Vrindavan Branch at mathura Branch only on the request made by the delinquent officer and thirdly, the charges alleged against the petitioner was mainly based on the documentary evidence and those documents were part of the records and the copies of which had been supplied to the delinquent officer during the enquiry proceedings. In matter of this nature, the Apex court in the case of Tarun Kumar Banerjee (supra) was pleased to observe in 2000-11-LLJ-1373 at 1377:"it is submitted that even if evidence is withheld, the conclusion of the inquiry officer would be correct is a perverse approach. We do not think so. What is stated therein is that when sufficient evidence was produced to conclude one way or the other, the evidence not produced will not be of any significance unless there was such evidence, which was withheld, would have titled the evidence adduced in the course of domestic enquiry. No such evidence is forth coming in this case. Therefore, this argument deserves to be rejected. " ( 26 ) FURTHER, the Apex Court in the case of tara Chand Vyas (supra) has stated as under 1997-II-LLJ-26 at 28 :"3. Shri B. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that for proof of the charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any opportunity was given to cross-examine them and the petitioner has disputed his liability. Shri B. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that for proof of the charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any opportunity was given to cross-examine them and the petitioner has disputed his liability. As a consequence, the entire enquiry was vitiated by manifest error apparent on the face of the record. We find no force in the contention. The thrust of the imputation of charges was that he had not discharged his duty as a responsible officer to safeguard the interest of the Bank by securing adequate security before the grant of the loans to the dealers and had not ensured supply of goods to the loanees. It is based upon the documentary evidence, which has already been part of the record, and copies thereof had been supplied to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. It is then contended that no reasons have been given in support of the conclusions to substantiate the charges. The enquiry officer had elaborately discussed each charge and given reasons, which were considered by the disciplinary authority and reached the conclusion that the charges were proved. So had the appellate authority. They are not like a Civil Court. " ( 27 ) IN the present case, in my opinion, the rejection of the request of the delinquent officer for shifting of the venue of the enquiry proceedings by the inquiry officer has not caused any prejudice to the delinquent officer in the enquiry proceedings and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, even this issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner has no merit. ( 28 ) THESE are the only issues canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner. Since I have negatived all of them, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the following: orderi. Writ Petition fails. Accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged. II. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .