ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is the initiation of departmental proceeding, conduction of inquiry and the final order passed in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined United Bank of india as Senior Engineer in the year 1972. The petitioner ultimately was confirmed in the post after probation and in the year 1981 he was promoted to the post of Assistant General manager (Engineering and Estates ). The petitioner was selected by the departmental promotion committee and was promoted to the post of Top Management Grade Scale-VI from senior Management Grade Scale V. Ultimately, the petitioner was confirmed in the bank's top management Grade Scale VI as deputy General Manager (Reconstruction and counselling) w. e. f. July 11, 1990. At this stage the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the General Manager (Credit) and disciplinary authority of the petitioner. In the charge-sheet dated December 22, 1990 the petitioner was charged with certain alleged events/incidents relating to the period prior to his promotion and confirmation to the post of deputy General Manager (Reconstruction and counselling) in Top Management Grade Scale v. The said charge-sheet was issued by the then General Manager (Credit ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner challenged the said charge-sheet in the writ petition before Hon'ble justice KALYANMOY GANGULI (As His Lordship then was) on August 23, 1991. After hearing the parties His Lordship passed an interim order to the extent that proceeding would continue but no final order should be passed without the leave of this High Court. The disciplinary proceedings were directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. ( 4 ) THE Bank did not act in terms of the order of this Court passed in August 23, 1991 and ultimately, filed and application for modification and on January 6, 1992 the hon'ble Justice MONORANJAN MULLICK (as His lordship then was) directed to complete the inquiry by two months from January 6, 1992. ( 5 ) ON December 22, 1995 the Hon'ble justice HARM GHOSH (As His Lordship then was) directed the Bank authorities to pass the final order on or before January 5, 1996 and also directed not to give the effect to same until january 29, 1996. ( 5 ) ON December 22, 1995 the Hon'ble justice HARM GHOSH (As His Lordship then was) directed the Bank authorities to pass the final order on or before January 5, 1996 and also directed not to give the effect to same until january 29, 1996. It was recorded by His lordship that the petitioner would accept the final order without prejudice to his rights and contentions as His Lordship did not go into the merits of the writ petition. ( 6 ) IN pursuance of the order of this High court dated December 22, 1995 passed by hon'ble Justice BARIN GHOSH, a major penalty of reduction of the petitioner's basic pay by one stage lower in his present scale of pay with immediate effect in terms of regulation 7 (3) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was imposed upon the petitioner on January 4, 1996 by the disciplinary authority. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner moved a writ petition before Hon'ble justice D. P. KUNDU and upon hearing His lordship issued Rule and the respondents were directed to file affidavit-in- opposition. Liberty was given to the petitioner to pray for interim order by a separate application. The said C. R. No. 1939 (W)/1995 is still pending. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, pursuant to the liberty granted to him, the petitioner filed an application for interim order for release of the entire retirement benefits after deducting the benefits covered by the order dated January 4, 1996. The said application was taken up for hearing by Hon'ble Justice D. P. KUNDU and upon hearing His Lordship directed that on retirement of the petitioner from service, the bank authorities would pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner under Regulation 20 (iii) of the said Regulations of 1976 and his own contribution of provident fund. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when he was posted as Zonal Manager at Bhubaneswar, orissa, the petitioner was served with a letter bearing Ref. No. Vig. /4080/ (3)/93 dated october 6, 1993 issued by the General Manager (Operations) of the said Bank wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was involved in certain irregularities in the borrowal accounts. of Bhalotia Group with the overseas branch of the said Bank. No. Vig. /4080/ (3)/93 dated october 6, 1993 issued by the General Manager (Operations) of the said Bank wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was involved in certain irregularities in the borrowal accounts. of Bhalotia Group with the overseas branch of the said Bank. The petitioner was advised to explain the circumstances under which he failed to detect and rectify the shortcomings, suppressions of material facts/irregularities while passing the note stated in the said letter recommending enactment in the accounts of bhalotia Group concerned at overseas branch and also with regard to his alleged failure to supervise and control the branch as Controller within ten days from the date of receipt of the said letter. ( 10 ) THE petitioner by a letter dated October 13, 1993 stated that it was not possible for him to furnish the reply to the letter dated October 6, 1993 regarding operation in the concerned accounts after lapse of about 3/4 years without going through the relevant records and the petitioner sought for permission to examine the records and time till November 10, 1993. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the said letter dated October 19, 1993. ( 11 ) THEN by a letter dated October 19, 1993 the General Manager (Operations) extended the time to submit the reply by november 10, 1993 and allowed the petitioner to take inspection of the documents in the chamber of General Manager (Inspection) and the Chief Vigilance Officer from October 26 to october 28, 1993. ( 12 ) ON October 19, 1993 the petitioner wrote a letter to the General Manager (Personnel) of the Bank and sought for permission to inspect the official documents between October 26, 1993 and October 28, 1993. ( 13 ) AFTER about eight months. e. on July 30, 1994 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the General Manager (Operations) and disciplinary authority of the said Bank. The said charge-sheet contains 7 charges. ( 14 ) THE General Manager (Operations) and disciplinary authority under the cover of a letter dated August 16/17, 1994 furnished the petitioner with photocopies of some documents relevant for the purpose of petitioner's written statement of defence. The petitioner was advised to submit his written statement within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. ( 14 ) THE General Manager (Operations) and disciplinary authority under the cover of a letter dated August 16/17, 1994 furnished the petitioner with photocopies of some documents relevant for the purpose of petitioner's written statement of defence. The petitioner was advised to submit his written statement within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner by a letter dated August 25, 1994 he dealt with the said letter of the Bank dated August 16/17, 1994 pointing out that the petitioner was not supplied with the documents as sought for and some of the documents were supplied in part. Again the petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to ensure supply of all the documents asked for by him in due deference to the principles of natural justice and/or procedural justice. ( 16 ) ON October 3, 1994 the petitioner received a letter issued by the General Manager (Operations ). According to the petitioner some documents withheld earlier were supplied under the cover of the said letter but the Bank authorities stated that all the documents on which the charges were framed against the petitioner were supplied. The petitioner was requested to furnish the written statement of defence within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. ( 17 ) BY an Office Order No. PD/dir/vig. /2/7/94 dated December 15, 1994 the General Manager (Operations) and disciplinary authority of the Bank in exercise of power under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 6 of the said Regulations of 1976 appointed Sri p. M. Rangasami, Commissioner for departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance commission and Sri Dipak Kumar bhattacharya, Deputy General Manager and chief Regional Manager, Calcutta Region-1, as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, the Inquiry Officer submitted report and the disciplinary authority passed the final order relying on the report. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, the Inquiry Officer submitted report and the disciplinary authority passed the final order relying on the report. The final order has been made annexure 'z-17' to the writ petition and in the concluding portion of the said order the following observation was made: "considering the nature of misconducts proved and established against you at the enquiry, it warrants imposition of major penalty as contained in Regulation 4 (h) of the United Bank of India Officer employees' (Discipline and Appeal) regulations, 1976, Accordingly, in terms of regulation 7 (3) of the United Bank of India officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) regulations, 1976, I hereby imposed upon you the major penalty of 'dismissal' from the service with immediate effect. Yours faithfully, executive Director and disciplinary Authority," ( 19 ) THE writ petitioner challenged the entire proceeding including the final order on different grounds. ( 20 ) ON behalf of the Bank affidavit-in- opposition was filed, allegations were denied and the Bank authorities stated in the opposition that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. The authorities in the opposition relied on the inquiry report. ( 21 ) IN the opposition the Bank authorities submitted that they have complied with the united Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. In the opposition the Bank authorities also submitted that the regulations mentioned above provide for appeal against the final order but without taking recourse to the said provision of appeal the petitioner has moved this writ petition and as such the instant writ is not maintainable. ( 22 ) THE Bank authorities in their opposition dealt with all the paragraphs of the writ petition and denied each and all the allegations made against them. ( 23 ) THE writ petitioner in turn filed affidavit-in-reply against the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. In reply, the writ petitioner reiterated his stand taken in the writ petition. In the reply the petitioner also annexed a letter dated november 19, 1993 addressed to the General manager (Operations ). ( 24 ) ON behalf of the petitioner written notes of argument was filed. In fact, the petitioner through his learned counsel made oral submission as well as filed a notes of argument. In the reply the petitioner also annexed a letter dated november 19, 1993 addressed to the General manager (Operations ). ( 24 ) ON behalf of the petitioner written notes of argument was filed. In fact, the petitioner through his learned counsel made oral submission as well as filed a notes of argument. ( 25 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that supervisory lapses do not constitute misconduct. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the charges contained in the charge-sheet dated July 29, 1994 are in respect of certain supervisory lapses on the part of the petitioner. The language of the charge-sheet clearly establishes this contention. Ultimately, it has been alleged in the charge-sheet "thus you have failed to detect and rectify shortcomings/suppression of material facts/relaxation irregularities and you failed to undertake proper supervision and control of the branch as overall in-charge of the said branch. . . . . " This establishes that the petitioner has been charged with the lapses of certain procedural aspects and supervisory duty. The inquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of some supervisory lapses and it would appear from the inquiry report that the lapses on the part of the petitioner were not done with any ill motive or mala fide intention. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that lack of efficiency, failure to attend the highest standard for administrative ability while holding the high post would not themselves constitute misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relating to the petitioner's supervisory duty which cannot come within the purview of the word 'misconduct'. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported In Union of India and Others v. J. Ahmed AIR 1979 SC 1022 : (1979) 2 SCC 286 : 1979-II-LLJ-14. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this high Court reported in Dipankar Sengupta v. United Bank of India and Others 1999-I-LLJ-208. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the articles of charges as quoted in this judgment are more or less similar to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this high Court reported in Dipankar Sengupta v. United Bank of India and Others 1999-I-LLJ-208. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the articles of charges as quoted in this judgment are more or less similar to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned counsel also relied on an unreported judgment dated June 22, 2001 delivered by Hon'ble Justice SAMARESH banerjee (As His Lordship then was) in W. P. No. 2864/1994 (Manas Kumar Basu v. United bank of India and Others ). ( 27 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the charges levelled against Manas Kumar Basu were not only similar to the charges of the petitioner but also the charges were related to self-same accounts of Bhalotias. ( 28 ) THE learned counsel then submitted that findings of inquiry officer are perverse: charge No. I has been said to be fully proved. According to this charge, the petitioner failed to detect the loan proposal recommended by overseas Branch allowing working capital limits fully flexible against stock/book debts. In paragraph 23 at page 246 of the report the inquiry Officer recorded that the "state witness sri Shantanu Guha, AGM had confirmed that no restriction had been placed on Exhibit S-2 in respect of drawings against stocks and book debts. " The said witness had laid over-emphasis on the conduct of the account of bhalotia Timber Works Pvt. Ltd. and Associate firms. "even the Presenting Officer justified the flexibility in respect of the Health Code". The Inquiry Officer clearly ignored the evidence adduced by the management witness shantanu Guha and it has been recorded that the factors considered by both these officials do not justify the omission/irregularities. The inquiry Officer has shown his overjealousness to bring home the charge and records. ( 29 ) THE learned counsel submitted that charge No. 2 alleges that the petitioner neither inquired nor ensured whether the borrowing concerns were regularly submitting the stock statements. The Inquiry Officer had recorded that Exhibit S-1 has been relied upon by the presenting Officer in support of the charge which is an official note/proposal for ad hoc additional L/c facility of Rs. 200 lakh. The Inquiry Officer had recorded that Exhibit S-1 has been relied upon by the presenting Officer in support of the charge which is an official note/proposal for ad hoc additional L/c facility of Rs. 200 lakh. The inquiry officer recorded that the "state witness himself had clarified that in the short memoranda prepared for urgent disposal of the credit proposal, detailed inputs were not given and the sanctioning authorities relied upon the indicators given in the note; and no contradictory evidence were produced during rh regular hearing indicating that stock statements were not submitted; (b) stocks were not insured; (c) stocks were not inspected regularly and (d) that QIS (Quarterly Inspection statements) were not submitted. " ( 30 ) THE learned counsel submitted that from prosecution evidence therefore, it is clear that ad hoc additional L/c facility detailed inputs are not given and sanctioning authorities relied upon indicators given in the note. ( 31 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer himself has recorded that "no contradictory evidence has been produced during regular hearing indicating that stock statements were not submitted, stocks were not insured, stocks were not inspected regularly and quarterly inspection statements were not submitted. " ( 32 ) AS against this clear finding, the learned counsel submitted that the Inquiry officer has come to a clear conclusion. This conclusion of the Inquiry Officer contradicts his own finding and hence perverse. The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, according to the learned counsel, is also contrary to the prosecution evidence. ( 33 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in his written notes submitted that charge No. 4 was partly proved. ( 34 ) THE learned counsel now detailed his submissions regarding the withholding of documents and bias on the part of the disciplinary authority and submitted it to be the violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that the charge-sheet starts with "it proposed to hold an enquiry". The petitioner was advised to submit his written statement of defence within ten days. By the letter dated August 8, 1998 the petitioner sought for the documents contained in the list of documents annexed to the charge-sheet as also twenty other documents for giving effective reply to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority under the cover of a letter dated August 16/17, 1994 had furnished the photocopies of the listed documents. By the letter dated August 8, 1998 the petitioner sought for the documents contained in the list of documents annexed to the charge-sheet as also twenty other documents for giving effective reply to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority under the cover of a letter dated August 16/17, 1994 had furnished the photocopies of the listed documents. The other documents required for the petitioner's defence were denied. The documents denied included the preliminary inquiry report and documents/statements/records referred to in the charge-sheet. This was specifically pointed out by the petitioner through a letter dated august 25, 1994. ( 35 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the petitioner again wrote back to the disciplinary authority on October 10, 1994 pointing out that he was not supplied with all the documents and the written statement of defence could not be submitted by him without having access to the documents requisitioned by him. Thus, the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity at the threshold of the conduction of departmental inquiry. In this context the petitioner relied on an Apex Court decision reported in State of u. P. v. Satrughan Lal AIR 1998 SC 3038 : (1998) 6 SCC 651 : 1998-II-LLJ-799. ( 36 ) THE learned counsel submitted that denial of documents sought for by the petitioner is also in violation of the girder passed by hon'ble Justice S. B. SINHA (As His Lordship then was ). In this context, the learned counsel relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan kumar Kisker AIR 1994 SC 1837 . The learned counsel laid stress on the observations made in paragraph 29 of this decision. ( 37 ) THE learned counsel then submitted that the disciplinary authority disclosed bias by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting officer before receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet. The learned counsel in this regard relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 : (2001) 2 SCC 330 . ( 38 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority acted as disciplinary authority only for passing the final order. The learned counsel in this regard relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 : (2001) 2 SCC 330 . ( 38 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority acted as disciplinary authority only for passing the final order. The learned counsel submitted that General manager (Operations) was the disciplinary authority and the Executive Director was the appellate authority of the petitioner but on september 12, 1996 the Executive Director had stated that he would act as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner in place of Sri A. K. Sengupta, General Manager (Operations) who was relieved on the ground of indifferent health. ( 39 ) THE learned counsel lastly submitted that the Second Schedule to UBI Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 shows that disciplinary authority of the petitioner is officer in the Scale VI, viz. General manager and the Executive Director is the appellate authority. In the present case only by passing the final order of dismissal the executive Director acted as the disciplinary authority resulting in discrimination. ( 40 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has lost the forum of appeal and the impugned order of dismissal suffers from inherent defect. In this regard reliance placed on the decision of Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others AIR 1995 SC 1053 : (1995) 2 SCC 474 : 1995-II-LLJ-68. ( 41 ) CONCLUDINGLY, the learned counsel submitted that in the case of U. P. State Road transport Corporation and Others v. Mahesh kumar Mishra and Others AIR 2000 SC 1151 : (2000) 3 SCC 450 : 2000-I-LLJ-1113, it has been laid down that the High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee if that penalty shocks the conscience of the Court and he submitted that alternative remedy is not a bar to maintenance of the present writ petition. ( 42 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal should be set aside. ( 43 ) HOWEVER, on April 30, 2004 the delinquent employee Sri Satyabrata Sen expired and by way of an application being can 4605/2004 under the order of the Court his wife Smt. Nandha Sen, son Sri Gautam Sen and daughter Sampa Chakraborty were substituted. ( 43 ) HOWEVER, on April 30, 2004 the delinquent employee Sri Satyabrata Sen expired and by way of an application being can 4605/2004 under the order of the Court his wife Smt. Nandha Sen, son Sri Gautam Sen and daughter Sampa Chakraborty were substituted. ( 44 ) NOW, I am to decide as to whether the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is bad in law or valid and the writ petition is maintainable or not. First of all, it is to be noted as to what is the basis of disciplinary proceeding. If a person commits any illegality or irregularity during his office tenure, the service jurisprudence says that firstly a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted and explanation is to be called for from that employee. If the authority is not satisfied with the explanation then the question of charge-sheet arises and when charge-sheet arises there lies the question of inquiry. Deviation from this principle of service jurisprudence brings over-jealousness or bias. Here, let us examine what happened. ( 45 ) ONE fine morning the officer was issued a charge-sheet and he was asked to submit his answer. He does not know as to whether the preliminary inquiry has been made or not and whether his authorities are satisfied about his offence. This entails the case of V. K. Khanna (supra ). In this case the Hon'ble Apex court observed that initiation of the inquiry and naming the inquiry officer or disclosing inquiry in the charge-sheet brings about bias. Insofar as service of preliminary inquiry report is concerned reference may be drawn to the Apex court decision reported in Managing Director, ecu, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar AIR 1994 sc 1074 : (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1994-1- llj-162. In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that service of inquiry report is not mandatory but if it causes prejudice to the delinquent then the copy of the inquiry report must be served. In the instant case, when the question of prejudice arises it seems that obviously the petitioner must have been prejudiced inasmuch as his penalty went to the extent of dismissal. ( 46 ) IT is clear or admitted that the authority is to go by the inquiry report but when the authority goes against the inquiry report the authority is to give reasons. ( 46 ) IT is clear or admitted that the authority is to go by the inquiry report but when the authority goes against the inquiry report the authority is to give reasons. In this case, the inquiry officer did not find the delinquent officer guilty of all the charges-some of the charges were partly proved, two charges at least appeared to be perverse. It is not known that when some charges are partly proved that means some portions of the charges were not proved. Then how the authority inflicted capital punishment on the unproved charges? The authority should have given reasons for their acceptance of these unproved portions. In identical circumstances and in identical charges three other officers moved the Court of law. In the case of Dipankar Sengupta (supra) one of such officers moved this Hon'ble Court and the hon'ble Division Bench presided over by hon'ble Justice S. B. SINHA As His Lordship then was observed that procedural and supervisory lapses do not constitute misconduct under United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. In this judgment reliance was also placed in the Apex Court judgment of J. Ahmed (supra ). In this judgment, of Justice AHMED the Hon'ble Apex court in paragraphs 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 made the position clear by observing that failure to attain highest standard of administrative ability does not constitute misconduct. In fact, the Division Bench presided over by Justice SINHA adopted the same view as taken in J. Ahmed (supra ). ( 47 ) IN another unreported decision, where one Manas Kr. Basu, another officer of United bank of India moved before this Court, hon'ble Justice SAMARESH BANERJEA (as His lordship then was) also expressed the similar view. In this case of Manas Basu even if not only the charges were identical with the petitioner herein but also both the cases of Mr. Basu and the petitioner related to the accounts of Bhalortias. In fact, four officers of the united Bank of India were issued identical charge-sheet and ultimately, they were done away with. From the charges, it would clearly appear that the authority of United Bank of india wanted to victimise four officers and as such all of them were served with identical charge-sheets. In fact, four officers of the united Bank of India were issued identical charge-sheet and ultimately, they were done away with. From the charges, it would clearly appear that the authority of United Bank of india wanted to victimise four officers and as such all of them were served with identical charge-sheets. ( 48 ) IN view of the fact stated above and he legal position discussed above, I am of the view that this impugned order of dismissal is not tenable in law and in fact, the proceeding starting from the charge-sheet till the impugned order of penalty and entire thing is biased and illegal. ( 49 ) I, therefore, set aside the entire proceeding including the inquiry finding and the order of dismissal. ( 50 ) I, also direct the authorities of the united Bank of India to pay the legal heirs of. Satyabrala Sen the entire retiral dues and/or any other dues which were due or payable to Sri satyabrata Sen (presently deceased) during his tenure of service. Such payment is to be made within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order. ( 51 ) WHEN calculating the amount the authorities will pay interest on the entire amount @ 12% from the date when it was due (taking it that there was no disciplinary proceeding) till the date of payment. ( 52 ) HOWEVER, there will be no order as to costs. ( 53 ) URGENT xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon usual undertaking. ( 54 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the ubi prays for stay of operation of the Judgment and order. Since the order has been passed on discussion of everything and the original petitioner Satyabrata Sen has expired in the meantime and has been substituted, considering the question of equity and propriety, I am not inclined to grant stay. The prayer for stay is refused.