JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case it appears to this Court that there are five charges against the petitioner. While the petitioner was working at Padrauna Branch during the period from 12.9.1985 to 22.6.1991 he committed lapses and accordingly five charges were levelled which are as follows : “(1) While working at Padrauna Branch Sri Pandey was deputed to Vishunpura Branch occasionally as officiating Branch Manager from where he took cash of Rs. 13,450/- Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- on 18.2.91, 21.2.91 and 10.4.91 respectively to deposit the same at Padrauna Branch. Though he reached at Padrauna Branch well in the office hours on all these dates, but he did not deposit the cash and kept the same with him unauthorisedly and deposited on 20.2.91, 22.2.91 and 11.4.91 respectively and thus defalcated Bank’s money, temporarily. (2) Sri Pandey misappropriated a credit entry of Rs. 800/- dated 24.3.90 from term loan (Tractor) A/C Radha Kishan Singh & others to term loan (Kirana ship) A/C Chhedi Yadav by altering the credit voucher dt. 23/24.3.90 for Rs. 800/- and making a fake entry in C/D sundry creditors of the same on 29.1.91 and withdrew the same on 29.1.91 itself through a debit cash voucher putting his signature on overleaf as a taken of having received the amount for Chhedi Yadav and thus, withdrew Rs. 800/- in a fraudulently. (3) Sri Pandey to minimize the overdrawing in his personal overdraft account, credited Rs. 11,000/- on 13.11.1990 which was deposited by M/s. Patna Pharmacy for credit to their overdraft Account and to cover-up the same he posted Cheque No. 0515435 for Rs. 6,831/- issued by M/s. Patna Pharmacy for issue of demand draft in his personal overdraft account on 13.11.1990 and thus Sri Pandey had acted unlawfully. (4) Sri Pandey passed his own conveyance reimbursement bill on 2.2.91 for the month of January 1991 for Rs. 887.60 in the capacity of branch manager (C) though no power was vested in him. He had thus intentionally taken the conveyance reimbursement and derived undue pecuniary benefit. (5) Sri Pandey released a voucher for Rs. 800/- on 21.1.91 being the medical aid for the year 1991 in his favour without any sanction from the competent authority. He has thus, abused his official position.” 2. He had thus intentionally taken the conveyance reimbursement and derived undue pecuniary benefit. (5) Sri Pandey released a voucher for Rs. 800/- on 21.1.91 being the medical aid for the year 1991 in his favour without any sanction from the competent authority. He has thus, abused his official position.” 2. The inquiry officer found that the charge No. 1 is not proved. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned he said that it was proved to the extent that CSO has altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but is not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- fraudulently. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned the inquiry officer said that charge was proved to the extent that CSO has posted the voucher/Cheque in wrong account but mala fide intention has not been proved. So far as charge No. 4 is concerned he has said that CSO was not having power to pass conveyance bill, thus he was found him guilty to pass his own conveyance bill without any power but the other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved. So far as charge No. 5 is concerned the inquiry officer has not found guilty for abusing his official position. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and in its order the disciplinary authority awarded the following punishment : In respect of charge No. 1 - Discharge from service In respect of charge No. 2 - Discharge from service; In respect of charge No. 3 - Reduction of two increments in a time scale; In respect of charge No. 4 & 5- The order of censure entries. 3. After perusing the material available on the record particularly the order of disciplinary authority, we are not very much pleased with the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. No proper reasoning has been given for disagreement. On the other hand the punishment of reduction of two increments and censure entries have also been merged with the ultimate punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the order of dismissal has been passed despite the fact that the inquiry officer was very much specific in not awarding such punishment. In such circumstances the disciplinary authority should have been very much careful in recording proper reasonings. Therefore, the order of dismissal has been passed despite the fact that the inquiry officer was very much specific in not awarding such punishment. In such circumstances the disciplinary authority should have been very much careful in recording proper reasonings. Accordingly, we do not find any proper reason for awarding such punishment, whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority. 4. Admittedly it is not a case of defraud or embezzlement or misappropriation of fund. It appears to this Court that it is a case of one or two days delay in depositing the cash amount from one Branch of the Bank to other. Admittedly he has not withheld the amount with him and kept the same in iron safe of the Bank. Therefore, no mal intention is proved. Under such circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of disciplinary authority cannot be said to be very much speaking and reasoned order in that way. Accordingly we feel that in the interest of justice the disciplinary authority should rehear the matter afresh after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in the light of the judgment and order passed by this Court to the extent as to whether the award of punishment is disproportionate to the guilt or not. 5. In the result, the impugned orders dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure 28 to the writ petition) passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 11.3.2002 (Annexure 32 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment as observed herein above by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order and in case any appeal is filed the appellate authority will decide the same in the same manner positively within a period of one month from the date of filing of such appeal. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court will not have any binding effect on the disciplinary authority or in case of appeal upon the appellate authority and it will reconsider the matter afresh in the same manner. 6. With the above observations/directions the writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court will not have any binding effect on the disciplinary authority or in case of appeal upon the appellate authority and it will reconsider the matter afresh in the same manner. 6. With the above observations/directions the writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. Honble V.C. Misra, J.—I agree Order Accordingly. ———