GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent bank as a Clerk in 1976 and was promoted as an Officer in 1979 in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. He worked as Branch Manager (officiating) at the Guntur Branch during the period 1987-88. The Brach was a medium sized branch to be manned by M. M. Grade Scale-II Officer, but he was officiating as Manager in that Branch and he was the only Officer in that Branch during that period and consequently there was lot of work pressure on him. He worked sincerely and to the best of his ability keeping in view the best interests of the Bank. ( 2 ) ACTED as per the practices prevailing in the Bank to the satisfaction of the customers of the Bank while protecting the interests of the Bank. It is stated that it is not uncommon in the Banks that sometimes the Manager of the Branch will have to take independent decisions to meet the demands of the customers and to increase the business of the Branch even beyond his discretionary powers. The decisions are taken keeping in view the solvency position of the particular customer and the same will be ratified by the controlling authority. This is inevitable in view of the competition among the Banks and to attract more customer, and in that process, the petitioner too has sanctioned certain overdrafts in exercise of his discretionary power only to the solvent parties and the same were ultimately ratified by his superiors. Such an act of a Branch Manager may at the most amount to an irregularity in following the procedure but cannot be termed as misconduct. The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 14. 4. 1988 stating that certain irregularities, committed by him while officiating as Branch Manager of Guntur Branch, were found out and sought for his explanation. The first irregularity was sanctioning cash credits to two sister concerns namely; S. V. Chillies Trading Company and Vignayeswara Trading Co. beyond the sanctioned limits. ( 3 ) THE second irregularity was that certain bills purchased by the Branch was without prior sanction and reporting. The 3rd charge was that certain cheques of various parties received through clearing house were debited to the Branch Account instead of returning them for want of funds. He submitted explanation on 2. 6. beyond the sanctioned limits. ( 3 ) THE second irregularity was that certain bills purchased by the Branch was without prior sanction and reporting. The 3rd charge was that certain cheques of various parties received through clearing house were debited to the Branch Account instead of returning them for want of funds. He submitted explanation on 2. 6. 1988 explaining the practice prevailing and the circumstances in which the decisions were taken by him keeping in view the demand of the customers and the interests of the Bank. It is submitted that all the cash credits given by him to S. V. Chillies Trading Company and Vignayeswara Trading Company beyond his discretionary powers were ratified by the 3rd respondent even before the show cause notice was issued as the parties were old customers with adequate solvency. All the amounts advanced to them were recovered with interest. All the bills purchased by the Branch got realised on the maturity dates without any failure. Similarly, in respect of the cheques debited to the Branch Accounts, where the party s Accounts were having debit balance were also recovered fully with interest. ( 4 ) THE Bank did not suffer any loss on account of these allegations and the amounts were recovered in the normal course without involving any litigation. Thus, he requested the 3rd respondent to consider the above facts and to drop further proceedings. Not being satisfied with his above mentioned explanation, the 3rd respondent has issued charge sheet on 27. 8. 1988 levelling the charges against him related to the allegations made in the earlier show cause notice. ( 5 ) HE has been charged with breach of regulations 3 (i) and 3 (iii) of Conduct Regulations, 1976. He has not violated the above conduct regulations since he did not commit anything which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer and he had acted to his best judgment in performance of his duties. ( 6 ) THE misconduct alleged against him are incorrect and untenable. He submitted his explanation on 11. 10. 1988 to the above mentioned charge sheet in detail. Not being satisfied with his explanation, the 1st respondent has ordered a dome stic enquiry into the charges levelled against him and requested that in view of these lapses, he may be pardoned. Accordingly, the petitioner gave a letter dated 10. 12. He submitted his explanation on 11. 10. 1988 to the above mentioned charge sheet in detail. Not being satisfied with his explanation, the 1st respondent has ordered a dome stic enquiry into the charges levelled against him and requested that in view of these lapses, he may be pardoned. Accordingly, the petitioner gave a letter dated 10. 12. 1988 at the residence of the Regional Manager as dictated by him. The petitioner retained a copy of the same with him though no acknowledgment was given to him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer commenced proceedings at Zonal Office, Bangalore. ( 7 ) THE petitioner was advised to plead guilty even before the enquiry officer in continuation to the letter above mentioned and accordingly he pleaded guilty before the enquiry officer on 10. 1. 1989. He did so only on account of the promise made to him by the Regional Manager with the hope of getting out of the case without any serious punishment though the petitioner has been contending from the beginning that he did not commit any misconduct and he did not put the Bank to any financial loss. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 17. 1. 1989 to the 3rd respondent herein finding him guilty of all the charges. He was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report at that stage by the 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) THE 3rd respondent had straightaway passed the order dated 25. 5. 1989 removing him from service on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer on the basis that the petitioner pleaded guilty before the enquiry officer. He was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report at that stage by the 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) THE 3rd respondent had straightaway passed the order dated 25. 5. 1989 removing him from service on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer on the basis that the petitioner pleaded guilty before the enquiry officer. The petitioner pleaded guilty before the Enquiry Officer only at the instance of the Regional Manager with the hope that he would be let off with minor punishment in view of the fact that the allegations against him do not constitute any serious misconduct except procedural irregularities and the circumstances which warranted him from discharge of his duty while he was officiating as Branch Manager were properly explained and that subsequently amounts were realised and there is no loss to the bank and he did not put up any defence before the enquiry officer and in that process he lost the right to defend himself in the enquiry on account of the misrepresentation made to him by the then Regional Manager and hence the order of removal is liable to be set aside. He preferred detailed appeal to the second respondent against the order by the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected by the second respondent and he requested personal hearing and explained the circumstances and he requested the appellate authority to set aside the punishment. It is in that context, he seeks Writ of Mandamus praying that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) IN the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the misconduct in respect of series of transactions wantonly committed by the delinquent officer are grave and serious in nature, but in utter violation of the instructions of the bank. Since the bank s interests were in jeopardy, the delinquent officer was given due opportunity by the show cause notice dated 14. 4. 1988 and for the same reasons the explanation of the delinquent officer was considered and found to be not satisfactory and hence the charge sheet was issued on 27. 8. 1988 with four articles of charges as follows:i. You have allowed over-drawings in various accounts beyond your discretionary powers without taking prior permission from higher authorities. 4. 1988 and for the same reasons the explanation of the delinquent officer was considered and found to be not satisfactory and hence the charge sheet was issued on 27. 8. 1988 with four articles of charges as follows:i. You have allowed over-drawings in various accounts beyond your discretionary powers without taking prior permission from higher authorities. No prior confirmation was also obtained by you for such over-drawings. You have totally ignored the instructions of higher authorities issued from time to time advising you not to allow any over-drawings without prior sanction or post ratification especially in view of credit restrictions. Instead of bringing down the limits as advised repeatedly in some accounts, you have still allowed over-drawings on your own in a highly disproportionate way, to the limits sanctioned and thus flouted the instructions of higher authorities. II. You have not submitted weekly TOD/eod statements regularly. In fact, weekly statements were taken possession by the officers who have visited your branch on certain occasions. Despite clear instructions from the Regional Officer to submit the weekly statements regularly, you have failed in your promise of submission of statements. Even the nothings submitted on a few occasions were neither noted nor ratified since you could not put up any efforts in recovering the over-drawings allowed by you which are beyond your sanctioning powers. III. You have purchased bills without obtaining prior permission from higher authorities which is beyond your sanctioning powers as an officiating Manager. You have not reported the statements of BPS/bds made also. You have failed to obtain documents while allowing BPS. IV. Cheques received of various parties through clearing have been debited by you to the office account from 19. 9. 87, instead of returning the cheques for want of sufficient funds. These cheques were subsequently passed by reversing the entries as and when balance was available in the account of the party concerned, which practice you have followed, is violative of the procedure laid down by the bank. You have not over charged interest on the amount allowed in each account until our office advised you to do so which showed your scant and callous attitude in observing the norms of the bank. ( 10 ) IN view of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 11. 10. You have not over charged interest on the amount allowed in each account until our office advised you to do so which showed your scant and callous attitude in observing the norms of the bank. ( 10 ) IN view of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 11. 10. 1988, which was found to be not reasonable, and hence domestic enquiry was ordered and one Sri R. K. Desai duly conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the delinquent officer and the petitioner was also entitled to be represented by any officer. It is submitted that the petitioner was offered opportunity to defend himself. All the principles of equity and natural justice were duly observed in the course of enquiry and the petitioner unconditionally admitted the guilt before the enquiry officer and hence the enquiry officer by his report dated 17. 1. 1989 found all the charges having been proved and accordingly the disciplinary authority considered the report of the enquiry officer and passed order of removal from service considering the nature of misconduct. ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED by that, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, after examining the merits of the matter independently, upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. While considering the nature of misconduct and the allegations, which seriously jeopardized the interest of the bank transactions, the punishment was imposed. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on the ground that the second show cause notice was not issued proposing the major punishment of removal from service and consequently contended that before the ap pellate authority he sought personal hearing and explained the circumstances and to consider the merits of the appeal, the appellate authority being empowered to examine the proportionality or disproportionality of the punishment whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is justified or not, as per Regulation 17 (i) of the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. He further contends that mere admission of the circumstances under which he was officiating as the Branch Manager and the practice and the precedent followed by the previous manager and ultimately there was no financial loss caused to the bank and mere admission at the instance of Regional Manager does not amount to admitting guilt before the enquiry officer and in view of the circumstances in which he was placed before the Regional Manager, who promised him with the imposition of minor punishment, it is in that context he has explained and by that itself, does not establish the fact that the petitioner has admitted the guilt, but he merely explained the circumstances under which he was placed because of the shortage of the staff, and no loss is caused to the bank in view of the subsequent repayment made by the customers and to substantiate those conditions, he relied upon the judgment of the Full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in RAM NIWAS BANSAL VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA and ANOTHER, where in while dealing with the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, particularly Regulation 70, it was held that right of hearing before appellate authority was not specifically provided, but, however, considering the facet of the principles of natural justice, the full bench held that non-adherence to maxim of audi alteram partem is per se prejudicial and affects appellate authority s order and non-furnishing of enquiry report and opportunity of hearing before appellate authority, prejudice is caused to the delinquent and accordingly quashed the order of punishment and held that in the absence of any specific exclusion in the regulations, it has to be imported and the delinquent officer has to be given personal hearing so as to defend his case before the appellate authority and to explain the circumstances under which the punishment awarded is justified, warranted or excessive or disproportionate and to examine the proportionality of the punishment, that power was given under the regulations to the appellate authority. ( 12 ) THE appellate authority merely confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority without considering the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. While considering several decisions of the Apex Court and other courts, the Full Bench held:"the fairness in administrative action has been enunciated as an absolute rule without exceptions. ( 12 ) THE appellate authority merely confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority without considering the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. While considering several decisions of the Apex Court and other courts, the Full Bench held:"the fairness in administrative action has been enunciated as an absolute rule without exceptions. Must the authority take unto itself the responsibility of attaching finality as to a matter of fact, of evidence and punishment, would ipso facto impose upon it the responsibility of a higher degree to do substantial justice. A pragmatic approach in consonance with the principles of natural justice cannot exclude the rule of hearing of the appellant. "the Full Bench further held as follows:"before the punishment awarded to him is affirmed or modified against the delinquent officer to grant him a hearing would be the minimum that the benevolent State needs to sanction. In relation to the question of prejudice the consistent position of law is that denial of hearing ipso facto results in prejudice to the person concerned against whom the order is likely to be passed. In the case of S. K. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136 , the element of prejudice in cases of violation of maxim of Audi Alteram Partem was held to be one which does not need any further proof of prejudice. While expressing their views their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:"the principles of natural justice know no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will come from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. "learned counsel further relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in THE NAGARJUNA GRAMEENA BANK VS. M. P. BRUCE, wherein the Division Bench while relying on the decisionin Jagdishprasad V. State of M. B ( AIR 1961 SC 1070 ), held as follows:"in the above said judgments, it has been laid down that the statement made by a delinquent officer would amount to admission of guilt only when the said statement is made voluntarily and in unequivocal terms. The entire statement made by the delinquent officer must be considered in toto to come to the conclusion that such statement amounts to admission of guilt. In case, after recording the entire statement, the only conclusion that could be reached is that the delinquent officer has accepted the guilt, then it has to be held that the delinquent officer has admitted the guilt in unequivocal terms and that no further enquiry is necessary and the enquiry officer can submit his report without conducting further enquiry. Otherwise, the enquiry officer has to conduct enquiry by examining the witnesses to prove the charge and shall give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to cross-examine the said witnesses and to lead his evidence and shall proceed further in accordance with law. But, where the enquiry officer, merely on the basis of a vague statement made by the delinquent officer, or considering only a part of the statement, without taking the statement in toto into account, comes to the conclusion that the delinquent officer has admitted the guilt and on such a footing, proceeds, without conducting further enquiry, to make a report finding the delinquent officer guilty of the charges, it has to be held that such an enquiry is no enquiry in the eye of law as it is not a fair enquiry. " ( 13 ) HOLDING so, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge and quashed the dismissal order. Mr. A. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank, contended that the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority having considered the gravity of punishment, particularly in view of the petitioner admitting the guilt before the enquiry officer, submitted that nothing remains and with regard to the procedure of following the principles of natural justice, he has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS VS. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK, wherein the Apex Court held that acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and breach of Regulation 3 and constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24, and the counsel contended that there is no justification warranting interference in such a situation when the officer exceeded jurisdiction/powers. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK, wherein the Apex Court held that acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and breach of Regulation 3 and constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24, and the counsel contended that there is no justification warranting interference in such a situation when the officer exceeded jurisdiction/powers. ( 14 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel further relied on a decision reported in DHARMARATHMAKARA RAIBAHADUR V. EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, wherein it was held that where the charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned, no further enquiry is warranted and also there is no violation of principles of natural justice as ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend her case. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel further relied on a decision reported in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN. In this case, the controversy is with regard to the applicability of 42nd amendment and the scope thereof with regard to the furnishing of copy of the enquiry report if the enquiry is conducted by the disciplinary authority and which is only prospective. If the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, the report of the enquiry officer has to be furnished to the delinquent employee following the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL V. B. KARUNAKAR, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:" Mohd. Ramzan Khan s ratio giving the benefit to him and companion appellants was valid in law and not, therefore, per inquarium and was legally given the reliefs. The contention of the counsel for the employees/govt. Servants that the denial of Ramzan Khan s ratio to the pending matters offend Art. 14 is devoid of substance. It is seen that placing reliance on the existing law till date of Ramzan Khan, the employers treated that under law they had no obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty. Reversing the orders and directing to proceed from that stage would be a needless heavy burden on the administration and at times encourage the delinquent to abuse the office till final orders are passed. Accordingly, I hold that the ratio in Mohd. Reversing the orders and directing to proceed from that stage would be a needless heavy burden on the administration and at times encourage the delinquent to abuse the office till final orders are passed. Accordingly, I hold that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan s case ( AIR 1991 SC 471 ) would apply prospectively from the date of the judgment only to the cases in which decisions are taken and orders made from that date and does not apply to all the matters which either have become final or are pending decision at the appellate forum or in the High Court or the Tribunal or in this Court. " ( 16 ) THE learned counsel also drawn my attention to the decision reported in MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. K. S. GANDHI AND OTHERS dealing with the fabrication of mark sheets and with regard to the students found to be fabricated and the guilt was admitted by the students, in such situation, the Court held that when the students have admitted the guilt, the question of recording reasons by the authorities is not warranted and no enquiry be held and it does not violate the principles of natural justice. ( 17 ) IN C. A. T. A. SALES CO-OP. SOCIETY V. A. P. GOVT. , the Apex Court observed to the effect that personal hearing sought for by the delinquent employee before the appellate authority is impermissible since the same is not provided under the regulations. While dealing with the rival contentions advanced by both the counsel, now the controversy rests on a narrow compass as regards the procedure adopted by the appellate authority. The Regulation 17 (i) and (ii) of the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, reads as follows: (I) An officer employee may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 or against the order of suspension referred to in regulation 12. The appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority. (II) An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority. (II) An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. " ( 18 ) A perusal of the above provisions clearly postulates that the appellate authority has to examine the proportionality of the punishment, adequacy or otherwise of the material with regard to the alleged misconduct and to impose suitable punishment and that power is vested independently with the appellate authority. Here, though there is no specific exclusion under the regulations, the facet of principles of natural justice has to be imported and the personal hearing has to be provided when a major punishment of removal is inflicted against the delinquent employee so as to give a fair hearing and to represent his case before the appellate authority. In the circumstances of the case, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited 2 supra and the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court cited 1 supra and also the subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate authority has not followed the procedure contemplated under the relevant regulations and not applied its mind with regard to the proportionality or otherwise of the punishment with regard to the alleged misconduct, while the appellate authority is empowered to decide whether the punishment imposed is grave or disproportion, its adequacy or otherwise of the punishment to be inflicted and since the appellate authority failed to afford personal hearing, the order of the appellate authority thus vitiates on two counts. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to re-examine and re-consider the matter afresh and after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and rely upon the material placed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to dealt with the matter afresh on merits taking into account the above principles enunciated and in accordance with Rule 17 of the relevant regulations, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.