H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was working as Manager in the espondent-Syndicate Bank. While he was working in that capacity in Gundlupet Branch of the respondent-Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated January 29, 1999 containing charges of misconduct as Manager, bannimantap Branch, Mysore, during the period April 30, 1994 to May 28, 1994. The allegation in the charge memo is as under: "charge-sheet vide Regulation 6 of the syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Whereas, it is proposed to hold an enquiry c against you under Regulation 6 of the syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976; and whereas, the Articles of Charges and statement of Imputations of Misconduct in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held are mentioned here below. Now, therefore, you are hereby directed to 15 submit your written statement of defence if any, within 15 days of receipt of this charge-sheet showing cause as to why regular Departmental Proceedings should not be initiated against you and appropriate 20 action should not be taken against you. Articles of charge that you were functioning as Manager of bannimantap Branch, Mysore, during the 25 period between June 30, 1992 and June 12, 1996 and that while in your said position by misusing your official position during the period April 30, 1994 to May 28, 1994 you signed and released six loans for amounts 30 aggregating to Rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the name of six persons to unduly accommodate yourself and Smt. Sulochana Murthy, the then Clerk, Bannimantap Branch, Mysore, and/or others well- known to you, without 35 proper pre-sanction appraisal and post- sanction follow-up. At present amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,05,716/- are stuck to the books of the bank proving difficult of recovery. The 40 full/more details of the above are furnished in the statement of imputation of misconduct on your part appended here below. By your above acts you failed to discharge ,. your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer 50 employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. By your above acts you failed to discharge ,. your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer 50 employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Statement of Imputations of Misconduct on your part: that you were functioning as Manager at our Bannimantap Branch, Mysore during the period between June 30, 1992 and June 12, 1996, and that while functioning in your position as such, you sanctioned and arranged 6 loans for amount aggregating to rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the names of six persons, the details of which are furnished in annexure enclosed. Following circumstances appear on record in respect of the above circumstances: 1. All the SB accounts of the borrowers were introduced by Smt. Sulochana murthy, Clerk of the branch. The loans were sanctioned within 2 to 6 days of the opening of SB accounts without proper processing of the loan proposals. ( 2 ) THERE is nothing on record to indicate that any enquiries were made to ascertain the antecedents of the borrowers/sureties and their reported business. ( 3 ) BORROWERS/sureties creditworthiness was not ascertained. ( 4 ) THE loan proceeds were released to the sb accounts of the borrowers and post-sanction follow-up made if any is not on record. ( 5 ) IN the loan ledger folio of loan a/c. OSL 29/94 in the name of Sri Ravindra Setty, the name of Smt. Sulochana Murthy, Clerk with telephone number is recorded. ( 6 ) ON October 6, 1994 Smt. Sulochana murthy, Clerk remitted Rs. 1,000/- to SB a/c. No. 5990 of Sri T. Vishwanath through sri C. Devaraj, Pigmy Agent of the branch and the said amount was credited to OSL 20/94 of Sri T. Vishwanath by debiting to his SB a/c. No. 5990 on the same day. ( 7 ) THE credit vouchers of Rs. 1,000/- each dated July 2, 1994 for credit of S B account nos. 6011 of Sri R. P. Shivakumar, 6032 of sri A. Krishna and 6033 of Sri Ravindra shetty i. e. , borrowers under OSL CGC 23/1994, 28/1994 and 29/1994 respectively are in your hand-writing without their signatures and on the same day said amounts were adjusted to respective loan accounts by debiting to the said SB accounts. 6011 of Sri R. P. Shivakumar, 6032 of sri A. Krishna and 6033 of Sri Ravindra shetty i. e. , borrowers under OSL CGC 23/1994, 28/1994 and 29/1994 respectively are in your hand-writing without their signatures and on the same day said amounts were adjusted to respective loan accounts by debiting to the said SB accounts. ( 8 ) ON July 28, 1994, Smt. Sulochana 5 murthy, Clerk, remitted Rs. 1,550/-each to sb a/c. No. 5990 of Sri T. Vishwanath and sb a/c. No. 5991 of Sri G. L Rajesh through sri C. Devaraja, Pigmy Agent and the said 10 amounts were credited to their loan accounts osl 20/94 and 21/94 on the same day by debiting their respective SB accounts. ( 9 ) ON October 6, 1994, you withdrew Rs. 5,000/- from your OD a/c. No. 177 and on 15 the same day credited Rs. 1,000/- to OSL 20/1994, 21/1994, 22/1994, 23/1994 and 28/1994 by cash and the relevant vouchers are in your handwriting without the signatures of the respective depositors. 20 ( 10 ) THERE are cash credit entries of Rs. 5,000/- to SB account Nos. 6032 of Sri A. Krishna and 6033 of Sri Ravindra Setty on october 7, 1994 and the relevant vouchers 25 are in the handwriting of Smt. Sulochana murthy without the signatures of the depositors. The amount so credited to the sb accounts were debited to the respective accounts and credited to the loan accounts osl 28/1994 and OSL 29/1994 of the borrowers concerned. Following irregularities are observed in respect of the above transactions: (I) You sanctioned, arranged and released the above loans in haste soon after opening of SB accounts by the borrowers without properly appraising the credit proposals, without obtaining proof of place of business, copies of Municipal licence, lease deed of business premises/rent agreement etc. (ii) The branch records do not indicate your ensuring end use of funds financed by the 45 bank. (iii) The circumstances of sanctioning loans to the borrowers whose SB accounts have been introduced by Smt. Sulochana Murthy, clerk of the branch, the repayments received to the said loan accounts through smt. Sulochana Murthy and from the amounts drawn, from your account etc. , indicate that the loans were sanctioned and arranged in the names of the concerned parties for accommodating yourself and smt. Sulochana Murthy and/or some others well-known to you. Sulochana Murthy and from the amounts drawn, from your account etc. , indicate that the loans were sanctioned and arranged in the names of the concerned parties for accommodating yourself and smt. Sulochana Murthy and/or some others well-known to you. (iv) All the 6 loans with total balance of Rs. 2. 05 lakhs in aggregate have stuck to books without any security to fall back upon and the bank had filed suits for recovery in 4 cases. You exposed the Banks funds to the risk of financial loss. Yours faithfully, sd/- assistant General Manager". 2. The charge memo was replied by the )etitioner by his reply letter dated February 12, 1999. It reads as under: "1. It is true that I have sanctioned six loans mentioned in the Annexure to your above letter during my tenure as manager of bannimantap Branch, Mysore, in the normal course of my managerial duties. The account holders were introduced by one of the branch staff Smt. Sulochana Murthy and i made detailed oral enquiries and permitted opening the account with the introductions of staff as the manual of instruction permits introduction by staff. After the accounts were opened, I have visited the business premises of the parties and only after satisfying about the genuinely of the purpose and only after satisfying about the bona fides of the borrowers the loan was sanctioned. It is in the normal course of business after prospective borrowers are introduced, who do not maintain accounts with us, which is not a mandatory condition for sanctioning small loans under priority sectors, they are asked to open SB accounts first and later the loan is sanctioned duly verifying the bona fides and visiting the place. In the instant cases also the loan was sanctioned after a gap of 2 to 7 days. Further, since the loans are small loans, I have visited the place of the borrowers and then the loans were sanctioned and as they did not possess municipal licence/lease deed though they were maintaining business at the addresses. The discretionary powers were judiciously used by me. It is therefore 5 not correct to state that the loans are arranged and released hurriedly soon after opening SB accounts. 2. The discretionary powers were judiciously used by me. It is therefore 5 not correct to state that the loans are arranged and released hurriedly soon after opening SB accounts. 2. Since the loans were small loans for improvement of business/working capital, specific release were not feasible, the proceeds were released to SB accounts and end utilisation was ensured by inspection after release of the loans and reports are available in the branch records. 3. It is true that Smt. Sulochana Murthy, had introduced the borrowers and hence the repayment collected by her or Pigmy Agents might have been remitted by her/pd agents 2c to the loan accounts, as it was a moral obligation on her part. In view of the above reasons, it is only a figment of imagination that the loans were sanctioned for accommodating me, because I happened to 25 be the Manager who sanctioned the loan and some repayments/credit slips bear my handwriting. 4. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- drawn by me on October 6, 1994 was for meeting my personal expenses and it does not have any relation whatsoever with the credits received to various loan accounts on the said day. When the repayments are received through Pigmy Agent or staff members I have prepared the challans in the capacity of the Manager of the branch. 5. I have sanctioned the above 6 loans in terms of Banks circular which stipulates that loans upto Rs. 25,000/- has to be secured by the assets created out of the loan proceeds and taking a co-obligant. Since the loans are sanctioned under priority sector covered by DICGC, the collateral security could be insisted. If the loans are struck to the books of the Bank it is not due to any irregularity in sanctioning the loans as can be seen that repayments were forthcoming to the loans till I was there due to regular follow-up. The Bank has still the legal remedy to recover the loans as the borrowers are very much available. In view of the above reasons, I submit that i have not exposed the Bank funds to risk of financial loss nor violated any circular/guidelines of the Bank in sanctioning the loan. I also deny that the loans were sanctioned to accommodate me or Smt. Sulochana Murthy. In view of the above reasons, I submit that i have not exposed the Bank funds to risk of financial loss nor violated any circular/guidelines of the Bank in sanctioning the loan. I also deny that the loans were sanctioned to accommodate me or Smt. Sulochana Murthy. I request you to drop further proceedings in the matter by viewing the foregoing facts explained to you in a positive manner" 3. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank had appointed one Sri K. P. Acharya, as an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. Before the enquiry officer, the management had examined one Sri P. N. Bhat, deputy Chief Officer, who had conducted preliminary investigation into the matter. Through him, they had also got marked several documents namely, Exhibits MEX. 1 to MEX. in support of their allegations in the charge memo. The delinquent employee officer had not examined himself but had produced sixteen (16) documents, which were marked as exhibits DEX. 1 to DEX. 16 during the cross-examination of M. W. 1-Sri P. N. Bhat. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry proceedings and on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, is of the view that petitioner is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. With these findings, he submits his report dated September 20, 1999 and records of the enquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority. 4. The disciplinary authority, as required under the regulations of the respondent-Bank, had issued a notice dated October 27, 1999 to the employee officer along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, inter alia directing him to show cause why the findings of the Enquiry officer should not be accepted and major penalty should not be imposed on him. After receipt of the notice and the report of the enquiry Officer, petitioner had filed his detailed reply, by his reply letter dated november 12, 1999. In that, he states that the enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner points out the procedural irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings and various discrepancies and unreasonable assumptions of the Enquiry Officer in the report, while finding him guilty of the charges alleged against him in the charge memo. Further, the petitioner points out the procedural irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings and various discrepancies and unreasonable assumptions of the Enquiry Officer in the report, while finding him guilty of the charges alleged against him in the charge memo. The disciplinary authority, as usual, proceeds to confirm the findings of the Enquiry Officer and then frames the impugned order dated November 22, 1999. In that, he imposes a major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank with immediate effect against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the delinquent employee officer had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority by its order dated January 31, 2000 confirms the order made by the disciplinary authority dated November 22, 1999. It is the correctness or otherwise of these orders, which are called in question by the delinquent employee officer before this Court, being aggrieved by the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri P. S. Rajagopal, has raised the following five issues for consideration and decision of this Court. They are as under: i. Though certain documents were sought for, two documents were not furnished to the petitioner on the ground of privilege and the other two documents were not furnished to him on the ground that they are not available in the Branch and thereby petitioner was prevented from effectively defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. II. Investigating Officer was the sole witness examined and a copy of his preliminary investigation report was not furnished to the petitioner before the commencement of the enquiry proceedings, and thereby petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to effectively cross-examine the sole management witness. III. Investigating Officer, who had conducted preliminary investigation was senior to the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry proceedings. He is examined as sole management witness. Therefore, there is likelihood of bias writ large in the present case. Therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. IV. Certain documents relied on by the petitioner in the enquiry was not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer while framing his report and therefore the findings of the Enquiry Officer is wholly perverse and based on such perverse findings, the disciplinary authority could not have passed the impugned order. V. The Appellate Authority is bound to support his order with cogent reasons while confirming the order made by the disciplinary authority. V. The Appellate Authority is bound to support his order with cogent reasons while confirming the order made by the disciplinary authority. Since that has not been done, the order made by the Appellate authority is wholly arbitrary, illegal and invalid. 6. Reg. First Contention.- It is now well-settled position of law that the furnishing of the documents to the charge-sheeted officer can be denied either on the ground of irrelevancy or on the ground of public interest in a domestic enquiry proceedings. In the present case, petitioner by his request letter dated April 10, 1999 had requested the Enquiry officer to direct the Presenting Officer to supply six documents to enable him to defend himself effectively in the enquiry proceedings. The documents requested were, complaints, if any, by any parties against him, copy of the charge-sheet issued and served against one smt. Sulochana Murthy, who was also an official working in the respondent-Bank along with him at the relevant point of time in order to prove that there was no collusion with her, copy of the charge-sheet of the year 1994 against Smt. Sulochana Murthy issued to her on his complaint for her indiscipline in the office, copies of loan documents of all the parties only to prove that they have availed loan after executing necessary documents as per the norms of the Bank, copies of AB 1026 of relevant month, acknowledgment/approval to prove that there was proper reporting and approval, and copy of cash scroll dated October 6, 1994 to find out the terms of passing of slips. The charge-sheeted officer in his request letter had also stated in whose custody the aforesaid documents are available and the relevancy of those documents. In response to his request, the presenting Officer of the Bank furnishes the charge-sheeted officer four documents and in respect of two other documents, the same are: not furnished on the ground of non-availability and privilege over the production of the documents. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner, would contend that the respondent-Bank had not filed non-availability certificate either from the Branch Office or from the person, in whose custody the documents were supposed to be available and therefore, adverse inference, requires to be drawn that the Presenting Officer had deliberately withheld those documents from the charged official and the charged official was thus deprived of his valuable rights to defend himself in an effective manner. . Insofar as privilege claimed by the Bank over the other documents are concerned, the learned counsel would contend, that the privilege in regard to certain documents can be claimed either in the public interest or in the interest of the Bank. Since both these elements are not involved in the documents sought for by the charge-sheeted officer, the denial to supply the same has vitiated the enquiry proceedings. 8. The settled position of law is that,: where the disciplinary authority failed to furnish the charged official the copies of relevant documents on the ground of non-availability but no reasons for non-availability were disclosed, the inference1 could be drawn that the Enquiry Officer has deliberately withheld those documents from the charged official and the charged official was deprived of his valuable right to defend himself in an effective manner. Nextly, privilege in regard to certain documents can be claimed in the interest of the Bank or in the public interest, if their disclosure would cause possible injury to public interest or impair the functioning of the Bank. In the present case, what is denied to the charge-sheeted officer is the copies of the complaints made against him, on the ground no such complaints are received by them and insofar as copies of AB 1026 for the relevant month is concerned, the same is denied to the charge-sheeted officer on the ground of its non-availability. Thirdly, disciplinary authority claims privilege over the charge-sheet served on Smt. Sulochana Murthy. Though the 1 reasoning of the disciplinary authority in not supplying the aforesaid documents may not be wholly justified, that by itself would not vitiate the entire inquiry proceedings. The burden is on the petitioner and his learned counsel to prove how the non- supply of the aforesaid documents by the disciplinary authority has caused any prejudice to the charge-sheeted officer to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings in an effective manner. In the i absence of any prejudice shown by the delinquent official on account of non-supply of the aforesaid documents, cannot be said that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and the order passed by the disciplinary authority would be liable for interference. In that view of the matter, in my view, the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel has no merit whatsoever and the same is rejected. I 9. Reg. In that view of the matter, in my view, the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel has no merit whatsoever and the same is rejected. I 9. Reg. Second Contention.- The learned counsel for petitioner would nextly contend that both the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have relied on the preliminary investigation report submitted by the i Investigation Officer, but that report is not furnished to the charge-sheeted officer before or during the enquiry and failure to do so, has vitiated the enquiry proceedings. In reply to this issue, Sri Radhesh Prabhu, learned counsel i appearing for the respondent-Bank, would submit, that the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have not relied on the preliminary investigation report while recording their findings that the charge-sheeted i officer is guilty of the offence alleged in the charge memo. The learned counsel would further submit that the officer, who had made preliminary investigation was examined by the disciplinary authority in support of their j charges in the charge memo in the enquiry proceedings and that witness was sufficiently cross-examined by the charge-sheeted officer and it is only based on the evidence recorded during the enquiry proceedings, the respondent-Bank has concluded that the charge-sheeted officer is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. Therefore, non-furnishing of copy of the. said preliminary investigation report to the charge-sheeted officer cannot be said to have vitiated the enquiry proceedings. . 10. Non-supply of copy of preliminary investigation report to the delinquent official, if it is relied on either by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority for holding that the, charge-sheeted official is guilty of the charges, it will definitely prejudice the case of the delinquent official, and the order of punishment imposed would be illegal, since the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, a perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the order passed by the disciplinary authority would not show that they have relied upon the preliminary investigation report to conclude that the delinquent official - is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. In the present case, a perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the order passed by the disciplinary authority would not show that they have relied upon the preliminary investigation report to conclude that the delinquent official - is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. Secondly, the Investigating Officer was the sole witness for the management and the delinquent officer was given full opportunity to cross-examine the management witness and it- is only based on his oral evidence and the" documents marked through him in the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the delinquent official is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. Therefore, in my view, as the Enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority have not relied upon preliminary investigation report while recording their findings, the copy of such report need not be supplied to the delinquent official and its non-supply cannot be said to have vitiated the proceedings. In that view of the matter, even the second contention canvassed by the learned counsel has no merit and the same is rejected. ( 11 ) REG. Third Contention.- The learned counsel Sri Rajagopal, at the time of hearing of the case, would submit, that in view of the stand of the respondent-Bank in their statement of objections, he would not press for an answer. on this issue. Accordingly, this issue need not be answered by me. ( 12 ) REG. Fourth Contention.- The learned counsel Sri Rajagopal nextly contends that the enquiry Officer while framing his report has. not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the delinquent official in the enquiry proceedings and secondly, has not considered the answers elicited by the chargesheeted officer while cross-examining the management witnesses. In other words, what the learned counsel intends to convey is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and not based on the evidence on record. In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, what the learned counsel intends to convey is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and not based on the evidence on record. In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the material available on record reasonably supports the conclusion and the findings of the Enquiry officer that the delinquent official is guilty of the charges, the High Court cannot sit as an appellate Authority to review the entire i evidence on record to arrive at an independent finding and then again the High Court is expected not to enter into adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, since in departmental enquiries, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. A Writ Court while exercising its power of judicial review of findings of the enquiry Officer and the orders made by the disciplinary authority, the minimum it expects is that the report must be a reasoned one; in the sense, it should indicate as to what is the evidence on which he is relying upon to arrive at his conclusion. The Court normally will not scrutinise minutely the entire evidence on record to find out whether the Enquiry Officer is justified in finding that the charge-sheeted officer is guilty of the offence alleged against him. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. It is only in such of those cases, where the Enquiry Officer, while arriving at his conclusion excludes the relevant materials, but takes into consideration the irrelevant material and bases his findings on mere assumptions and presumptions, this Court would interfere with such findings, since those findings are perverse. Keeping in view these aspects, I have perused the report and the findings of the enquiry Officer. The accusation against the petitioner is that while functioning as a Branch manager, he had sanctioned six loans for amounts aggregating to Rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the name of six persons, to unduly accommodate himself and one other official without pre-sanction appraisal and post-sanction follow up. The accusation against the petitioner is that while functioning as a Branch manager, he had sanctioned six loans for amounts aggregating to Rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the name of six persons, to unduly accommodate himself and one other official without pre-sanction appraisal and post-sanction follow up. The Enquiry Officer based on oral and documentary evidence produced by the management in the enquiry proceedings, proceeds to hold as under:"those facts had given rise for suspicion regarding the genuineness of the purpose and parties for which loans were sanctioned by the CSOE. I find the entire evidence on record produced by the Management has duly established the accommodative nature of the financial assistance extended to the parties, violating the procedure therefor. It has come in the evidence of MW-1 that, the whereabouts of certain parties are also not known. Further, circumstantial evidence with regard to the repayment of the loan and withdrawal of amount by the CSOE, non-availability of parties at the address given, all points to the irregularities committed by the CSOE. As the evidenc on record remains unrebutted by the defence and the entire arguments contained in the written brief submitted by the defence did not indicate any bonafide action on the part of the CSOE while sanctioning the loan in a hurry. Hence, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that, the statement of imputations and the articles of charge levelled against Sri B. Krishnamoorthy beliya are fully established in the inquiry" ( 13 ) IN my view, even if the defects pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner is taken note of and accepted it would not alter the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in my view, this contention of the learned counsel has no merit and therefore cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is rejected. ( 14 ) REG. Fifth Contention.- The learned, counsel would nextly contend that the" appellate Authority has not given any reason while confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and alternatively it is contended that the Appellate Authority has not adverted to the contentions canvassed in the memorandum of appeal and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and invalid. Fifth Contention.- The learned, counsel would nextly contend that the" appellate Authority has not given any reason while confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and alternatively it is contended that the Appellate Authority has not adverted to the contentions canvassed in the memorandum of appeal and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and invalid. It is now well-settled by judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court that if the Appellate Authority concurs with the view of the disciplinary authority, it may not be necessary to give any elaborate independent reasoning of its own, but from the appellate. order, it must appear that the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal have been adverted to either on independent reason given by the Appellate Authority or on reasoning given by the disciplinary authority and such contentions have not been accepted by the appellate Authority. In the present case, the appellate Authority concurs with the findings of the disciplinary authority and while doing so, considers the contentions urged in the ; memorandum of appeal though briefly. Since the Appellate Authority has not discussed all the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, elaborately, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers ) from any of the vices pointed out by the learned counsel. The Apex Court in the case of State bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others v prabhu Dayal Grover AIR 1996 SC 320 : 1995 (6) SCC 279 , has pointed out that: that brings us to the order of the Appellate authority. Under Regulation 70 (2), the appellate Authority is required to consider whether the findings recorded against the concerned officer are justified and/or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate 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 directions as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. This Regulation also does not obligate the appellate Authority to give any reasons for its order. Assuming, that by necessary implication this Regulation also requires the appellate Authority to give the reasons, still its order cannot be invalidated, as we find that it has discharged its obligation by considering the records and proceedings pertaining to the disciplinary action and the submissions made by Grover. Assuming, that by necessary implication this Regulation also requires the appellate Authority to give the reasons, still its order cannot be invalidated, as we find that it has discharged its obligation by considering the records and proceedings pertaining to the disciplinary action and the submissions made by Grover. In other words, the order clearly demonstrates that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind not only to the proceedings of the enquiry, but also the grounds raised by Grover in his appeal and on such application found that there was no substance in the appeal. ( 15 ) IN the result, writ petition fails and accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .