JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admitted facts of this case are, that petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Garhjamula Branch of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter to be referred as "PNB") on 16.6.1997. Since departmental action against him was envisaged regarding his working as Officer-in-charge of the said branch therefore, he was put under suspension vide communication dated 10.2.1998 Annexure P-l. This was followed by a charge sheet dated 20.7.1998 Annexure P-2. Articles of charges and statement on imputations of each charge were also attached with Annexure P-2. This notice dated 20.7.1998 Annexure P-2 allowed 15 days time to the petitioner to file reply to this charge sheet. 2. Admittedly no reply was filed by the petitioner to this charge sheet. However, along with Annexure P-l6, a letter from Regional Manager of PNB, Dharamshala dated 22.8.1998 (at page 196) a copy of the letter dated 18.8.1998, Annexure P-3 from the Zonal Office of the bank was forwarded to the petitioner. Annexure P-16 was sent by registered AD post to him. This according to the petitioner, was received by him on 24.8.1998. 3. It is further admitted case of the parties that 15 days further time was allowed vide Annexure P-16 to the petitioner to file reply to the charge-sheet, Annexure P-2. However, without waiting for the time to expire in terms of Annexure P-16, Enquiry Officer was appointed by the PNB vide Annexure P-4. 4. From narration of these facts it is clear that 15 days time allowed vide Annexure P-16, was to expire on 8.9.1998. However, vide Annexure P-4 Enquiry Officer had already been appointed. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Annexure P-8 to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter vide Annexure P-9 dated 16.7.2000, petitioner was removed from service with the observation that it shall not be disqualification for future employment as specified under Regulation 4(1) of PNB Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). 5. Having felt aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with Annexure P-9 petitioner preferred statutory appeal under the Regulations vide Annexure P-10. The matter came up before the appellate authority who after consideration, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. Petitioner feeling dis-satisfied with appellate orders preferred review petition. This was also dismissed on 27.8.2001. 5. Having felt aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with Annexure P-9 petitioner preferred statutory appeal under the Regulations vide Annexure P-10. The matter came up before the appellate authority who after consideration, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. Petitioner feeling dis-satisfied with appellate orders preferred review petition. This was also dismissed on 27.8.2001. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent-bank in ordering the removal of the petitioner. 7. The respondents, when put to notice in this case have justified their action, as according to them the petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands and in the face of the facts proved and looking to the circumstances which came to light during the course of enquiry under the Regulations charges against the petitioner stood proved to the hilt. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in this writ petition. 8. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Counsel, at the time of hearing of this writ petition raised number of pleas in support of the case of his client. One such plea was, that holding of the enquiry had already been determined by the authorities and action taken on the basis of the enquiry report is nothing but a sham, and to legalize their this design firstly to hold the enquiry and then to throw his client out of his job. This plea has been seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Here the purpose of serving charge sheet and giving an opportunity to the delinquent to file reply needs to be examined. By serving a charge sheet along with statement of imputations, as in the present case, like Annexure P-l, the intention and object behind it is that such delinquent is made aware as to what is the case against him and how and on what basis i.e. witnesses and documents, what is intended to be established. This is in consonance with the principles of fair play, equity and good conscience and above all, is also as per principle of natural justice as well. On receipt of such charge sheet like Annexure P-2, a delinquent like petitioner is then called upon to explain as what he has to state in reply to it (the charge sheet). This is in consonance with the principles of fair play, equity and good conscience and above all, is also as per principle of natural justice as well. On receipt of such charge sheet like Annexure P-2, a delinquent like petitioner is then called upon to explain as what he has to state in reply to it (the charge sheet). Reason being that in a given case he may be in a position to satisfy the authority concerned, that charges are either untenable or his explanation justifies the dropping of the charge-sheet or that enquiry is not required to be undertaken. It is neither a mere formality nor a ritual. Rather, the disciplinary authority is required to then decide, whether it intends to appoint an Enquiry Officer or not. In either case he has to take a conscious and just decision after due consideration of the reply of the delinquent. 10. Here the case of the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings of the parties needs to be examined in the light of what has been said in the preceding paras. In my considered view, as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinbelow it does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 15 days time for filing the reply was initially allowed, and on the failure of the petitioner to do the needful it was further extended by another 15 days. This position is clearly made out from the documents placed on the record. However, without waiting for the reply or expiry of extended time vide Annexures P-3 and P-l 6, the disciplinary authority issued Annexure P-4 on 7.9.1998. 11. Faced with the situation Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel urged that extension of time vide Annexure P-16 was only an indulgence shown to the petitioner. He had no right to ask for the extension of time initially allowed to him for filing reply to the charge-sheet Annexure P-2. After having been shown indulgence the petitioner should not be allowed to use and misuse, muchless abuse this concession. He further submitted that after having participated in the enquiry, he has waived of his right, if any, to raise such a plea in this writ petition. He further submitted that this plea was never raised as a ground of appeal or review before the Bank authorities by the petitioner under Regulations. He further submitted that after having participated in the enquiry, he has waived of his right, if any, to raise such a plea in this writ petition. He further submitted that this plea was never raised as a ground of appeal or review before the Bank authorities by the petitioner under Regulations. According to him, grant of time vide Annexure P-16 or otherwise was not warranted looking to Rule 6(3) of the Regulations. As such this argument raised in this writ petition is nothing but purely an afterthought. Therefore no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure P-4 on 7.9.1998. 12. All these submissions prima facie appear to be attractive and impressive however, the action of the respondents in issuing Annexure P-4 cannot be upheld. In case rigour of Rule 6(3) of the Regulations was so harsh as was urged, nothing prevented the bank to have appointed an Enquiry Officer when reply was not filed by the petitioner, still time was extended for filing the reply vide Annexures P-3 and P-16. No doubt the learned Counsel for the petitioner controverted the plea of the respondents, by pointing out to Regulation 6(3), that the competent authority had the power to extend the time so as to enable a delinquent, like petitioner for submitting written statement of his defence. For ready reference Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of the Regulations are extracted hereinbelow : "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) On receipt of the written statement of the officer employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself or if it considers it necessary so to do appoint under sub-regulation (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose : Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an enquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge. (5) to (1) ............................................" (Emphasis supplied) 13. As already observed, it is only on receipt of written statement of an officer employee, that an enquiry is to be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself or if it considers necessary so to do appoint under Sub-regulation (2) an Enquiry Officer for the purpose. 14. Furnishing of the reply is a valuable right of the delinquent Officer, and the Disciplinary Authority is bound to then consider the same before appointing the Enquiry Officer. Reason to take this view is that under Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Regulations, notice of major penalty was served upon the delinquent-petitioner. As such, it was expected, that instead of taking hasty step in appointing an Enquiry Officer vide Annexure P-4, reply of the delinquent-petitioner should have been awaited till the expiry of extended period, i.e., up to 8.9.1998. And then to have dealt with the matter. 15. The only and irresistible conclusion that follows from this discussion is that the Disciplinary Authority had already made-up its mind to appoint an Enquiry Officer, irrespective of the fact what is the reply of petitioner to the charge-sheet Annexure P-2. 16. Mr. Ajay Kumar learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that whether the Enquiry Officer was appointed before or after the receipt of the reply, loses its significance in this case. Because the petitioner participated in the enquiry without any objection in this behalf. As already noted, the respondent-bank as a limb of the welfare State, is expected to act as a model employer and as such all its actions have to be tested on mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further it cannot be allowed to violate the Regulations framed by it to justify its action on proof of such violation. Rules and Regulations are meant to be followed in their letter and spirit. Further it cannot be allowed to violate the Regulations framed by it to justify its action on proof of such violation. Rules and Regulations are meant to be followed in their letter and spirit. Otherwise those become redundant. 17. Argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner that action of the Disciplinary Authority in appointing an Enquiry Officer without waiting for his reply having then looked into it being ultra vires of the Regulations framed by the Bank is based on mala fide in law also appears to be well founded. He further submitted that what was the hurry for the Disciplinary Authority to have issued Annexure P-4 when the extended period for filing the reply to the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) was to expire on 8.9.1998. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this plea is not open to the petitioner, because admittedly he did not furnish his reply even within the extended period i.e. by 8.9.1998. As according to him, the reply to the charge sheet was filed by the petitioner on 12.9.1998. Therefore, whether the Enquiry Officer is appointed on a date prior to 8.9.1998 or subsequent thereto, makes no difference. In my considered view, this is an argument of frustration on the part of the respondents. Reason being that they cannot be allowed to raise this plea by saying that though they have violated their own Regulations by appointing the Enquiry Officer in terms of Annexure P-4. Rather it indicated their mind-set, that they were giving legal shape to their decision of holding enquiry and were merely performing a ritual by having called upon the petitioner to file reply to charge-sheet (Annexure P-2). Such an action on the part of respondents was not only unwarranted but also was arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld. 18. Such a situation came up before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, AIR 2001 SC 343. Relevant Para 24 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow : "Before delving into the contentions, we feel it proper to note that the general principles of law as recorded by the High Court pertaining to discharge of duty of a civil servant, the High Court observed: "Indisputably, duty is like debt. It must be discharged without delay or demur. A civil servant must perform his duties honestly and to the best of his ability. He must abide by the Rules. It must be discharged without delay or demur. A civil servant must perform his duties honestly and to the best of his ability. He must abide by the Rules. He should live by the discipline of the service. He must act without fear or favour. He must serve to promote public interest. He must carry out the lawful directions given by a superior. In fact, the Constitution of India has a chapter that enumerates the Duties of the Citizens of this country. Article 51-A contains a positive mandate. It requires every citizen "to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement." This provision can be the beacon light for every citizen and the "mantra" for every civil servant. So long as he performs this duty as imposed by the Constitution and strives towards excellence, he has none and nothing to fear. Even God would be by his side. At the same time it is undeniably true that whenever there is a dereliction in the performance of duties by the civil servant, the State Government has the right to intervene and punish the guilty. This is the undoubted prerogative of the State. But, to borrow the words of Professor Wade, this power has to be used "for the public good." The action of the authority must be fair and reasonable. It should be bona fide. It should not be arbitrary. It should not be based on extraneous considerations. It should be for public good. Bias or personal malice should not taint. Bias is like drop of poison in a cup of pure milk. It is enough to ruin it. The slightest bias would vitiate the whole action." 19. No other point is urged. 20. Without going into the merits of other contentions raised on behalf of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of purely on what has been stated hereinabove and is not to be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case as set up in their pleadings by the parties. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and as a result of it the impugned orders as contained in Annexures P-9, P-11 and P-13 are hereby quashed and set aside. What follows from this is that position as it existed prior to passing of Annexure P-9 is restored. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and as a result of it the impugned orders as contained in Annexures P-9, P-11 and P-13 are hereby quashed and set aside. What follows from this is that position as it existed prior to passing of Annexure P-9 is restored. It is also clarified, that if the respondents decide to go ahead with the charges as contained in Annexure P-2, they will be free to deal with the matter after looking to the reply submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5. Then after taking stock of the whole situation, the Disciplinary Authority may take such action as it thinks fit under law. In such a situation this order will not come in its way. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client had approached this Court during the pendency of this writ petition, for payment of Employers share of provident fund. It was ordered to be released in the first instance. However, on a review of this order at the instance of the respondents, the Court ordered that the amount be deposited in the Registry of this Court in short term fixed deposit with automatic renewal in a bank other than Punjab National Bank until further orders it shall not be disbursed to any party. As such he has urged that direction may be issued to the Registry to release this amount. 21. This plea was contested and resisted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. He pointed out that so far the aforesaid amount is concerned, the same cannot be released to the petitioner as the parties have been relegated to the position as it existed while issuing Annexures P-3 and P-16. And further according to him, the PNB has a lien on such amount therefore, on this ground alone the petitioner is not entitled for its release. 22. Be that as it may, after the disposal of the writ petition the parties having been relegated to a stage, as noted above, as such, nothing is being said regarding the release of the amount which is lying in deposit in the Registry of this Court. 22. Be that as it may, after the disposal of the writ petition the parties having been relegated to a stage, as noted above, as such, nothing is being said regarding the release of the amount which is lying in deposit in the Registry of this Court. However, petitioner if so advised may approach the authority for release of this amount, and such authority will be free to deal with the claim of the petitioner for release of this amount strictly in accordance with Rules/Regulations of the bank framed in that behalf and will pass appropriate order. It hardly needs to be clarified that since the parties have been relegated to the stage of reply having been filed to the charge-sheet, vide Annexure P-5, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including financial benefit of suspension allowance etc. as per Regulations. 25. All interim orders passed in this writ petition from time to time, shall stand vacated and all the miscellaneous application(s) shall stand disposed of. Registry is directed to remit deposited amount with up to date interest to the PNB, Lift Branch, The Mall, Shimla forthwith.