Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The respondent/writ petitioner, A.Lawrence, having been found guilty in a departmental proceeding, was inflicted with minor penalty, which was affirmed by the appellate authority. The reviewing authority enhanced the minor penalty to a major penalty of reduction in lower stage of pay. The said order was challenged by the respondent/writ petitioner in W.P. No.13098/98 on the ground that the reviewing authority altered the charges and enhanced the punishment. By the impugned order and judgment dated 5th April, 2004, learned single Judge held that the reviewing authority had no power to alter the charges and to enhance the punishment on the basis of such altered charges. 2. The only question required to be determined in this case is : Whether an order of punishment will render illegal and void if reference of an extraneous charge is made in the show cause notice, but not taken for the purpose of punishment ? 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/writ petitioner, who was posted as Branch Manager in Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), Tirunelveli Junction Branch, was proceeded departmentally in respect of acts of omission and commission as took place during the period he was posted at Aloor. A charge-memo was issued by the disciplinary authority on 25th Jan., 1982, in which while various lapses were alleged, it was also alleged that he abused his official position and exposed the bank to risk by sanctioning loans/advances without adhering to the lending norms of the bank. A number of instances were shown therein. A supplementary charge-memo contained in memorandum dated 14th May, 1982, was also communicated vide letter dated 20th May, 1982, alleging further lapses, omissions and commissions. It was followed by another charge-memo contained in memorandum dated 11th Jan., 1983, communicating further lapses, omissions and commissions. In the departmental proceeding, the charged employee (respondent) appeared, denied the charges and took part in such proceeding. The enquiry officer, on appreciation of evidence, submitted his findings vide letter dated 19th June, 1985. In respect of charge-memo dated 25th Jan., 1982, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner had not adhered to lending norms, but otherwise not guilty of the other allegations. Similarly, with respect to charge-memo dated 14th May, 1982, the charge relating to grant of jewel loans without following norms, was held to be proved. In respect of charge-memo dated 25th Jan., 1982, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner had not adhered to lending norms, but otherwise not guilty of the other allegations. Similarly, with respect to charge-memo dated 14th May, 1982, the charge relating to grant of jewel loans without following norms, was held to be proved. So far as the charge-memo dated 11th Jan., 1983, was concerned, all the charges were held to be proved. The disciplinary authority, having agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, by order dated 24th July, 1985, inflicted the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages and on appeal the appellate authority confirmed the punishment. 4. The reviewing authority is empowered to call for records of any case and in appropriate cases, may, enhance penalty under Regulation 18 of Central Bank of India Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1976), as quoted hereunder :- "REVIEW : 18. Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit : Provided that :- .(i) If any enhanced penalty which the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in Clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) or (j) of Regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under Regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 6 and thereafter, consider the record of the enquiry and pass such order as it may deem proper. .(ii) If the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee." 5. In the present case, the reviewing authority, having noticed the charges and the report of the enquiry officer, observed that the charges discussed thereunder having been held to be proved, and being serious in nature, show cause notice was issued as to why the punishment be not enhanced. The following proposed order was made by the reviewing authority :- "ORDER : In view of the foregoing since malafide intention on the part of the Branch Manager have been conclusively proved on the basis of overwhelming evidences adduced during enquiry, I observe that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not all commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved in the enquiry. Accordingly I propose to award the following enhanced penalties. 6. The charged employee/(respondent) having received the show cause notice, while did not choose to file any specific reply, by his letter dated 21st Aug., 1986, only requested to grant time till 30th Sept., 1986, to submit reply. Time was not allowed by the reviewing authority, who issued an order on 4th Sept., 1986, imposed punishment of reduction to lower pay by few stages in the time scale of pay in respect to some of the charges and in respect of three proved charges, dismissal from service was ordered. 7. The respondent/writ petitioner, thereafter, preferred a writ petition, W.P. No.10907/86 before this Court and challenged the said order. Learned single Judge, vide judgment dated 11th July, 1994, having noticed that there was no allegation against the respondent/writ petitioner to show undue favour to any of the customer and that the reviewing authority in his show cause notice alleged mala fide intention on the part of the Branch Manager, which was not part of the charges, held that the entire proceeding arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th Aug., 1986, was null and void and was without jurisdiction. The order of dismissal passed on 4th Sept., 1986, was set aside and the respondent/writ petitioner was reinstated. A writ appeal, W.A. No.1446/94 as was preferred by the bank against the said judgment was also dismissed on 12th Aug., 1997. 8. The bank, being not satisfied, preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23796/97 before the Supreme Court, renumbered as Civil appeal No.73/98. Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 12th Jan., 1998 :- "ORDER Special Leave granted. 8. The bank, being not satisfied, preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23796/97 before the Supreme Court, renumbered as Civil appeal No.73/98. Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 12th Jan., 1998 :- "ORDER Special Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. It appears to us when the Reviewing Authority issued a show cause notice proposing enhancement of punishment on the respondent No.1, it was only desirable to give delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to file his reply by allowing time as prayed for since such opportunity was not given, there was justification on the part of the High Court to set aside the order passed by the Reviewing Authority. But in facts of this case, it appears to us that the High Court should have also given a direction to the Reviewing Authority to reconsider the proceedings after giving the respondent delinquent officer an opportunity of being heard. We, therefore, modify the order of the High Court by directing that the respondent will submit his reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from today. The Reviewing Authority thereafter will consider the same and pass reasoned order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost." 9. After the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, the reviewing authority issued a letter on 28th Jan., 1998, and asked the writ petitioner to submit his reply. A show cause reply was submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner on 12th Feb., 1998, wherein after the reviewing authority reconsidered the matter. Being not satisfied with the show cause reply, the reviewing authority, by impugned order dated 8th June, 1998, while observed that in normal course no leniency was warranted, but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, imposed comparatively lesser penalty as quoted hereunder:- Reduction to a lower stage, by four stages, in the time scale of pay, till the date of his retirement and during the period of such reduction he will not earn increments, in terms of Reg.4 (f) of Central bank of India Officer employees (Discipline & appeal) Regulations, 1976 as amended upto date. I, therefore, modify the consolidated penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment originally proposed in the Show-Cause Notice dated 8. 86 and hereby award the penalties listed hereinabove on Shri.A.Lawrance. All the aforesaid penalties shall run consecutively. I, therefore, modify the consolidated penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment originally proposed in the Show-Cause Notice dated 8. 86 and hereby award the penalties listed hereinabove on Shri.A.Lawrance. All the aforesaid penalties shall run consecutively. With the result, THERE WILL BE A TOTAL REDUCTION OF NINETEEN STAGES IN THE TIME SCALE OF PAY, i.e., from the basis pay of Rs.1,800/= to Rs.740/=. Shri.a.Lawrance will also not earn any increments during the period of reduction i.e. till his retirement in terms of Regulation 4 (f) of Central Bank of India Officer employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as amended upto date, which according to the undersigned will meet the ends of justice. In view of the above, the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27. 85 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 20.1.86 stand accordingly modified. The above order is passed in pursuant to the order of Honble Supreme Court dated 11. 1998." 10. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred writ petition in question (W.P. No.13098/98). Learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th April, 2004, referring to Regulation 18, while held that the reviewing authority ought to have directed a fresh enquiry before inflicting major punishment, further held as follows: - "15. In terms of Second Proviso, in the event the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment in case enquiry was already held, he shall give show cause notice to the Officer Employee as to the enhancement of penalty. A plain reading of the above Regulation shows that in case where an enquiry was held, the Reviewing Authority is only entitled to issue a show cause notice to the Officer Employee as to the enhancement of penalty, except such power, there is no power under the said Regulation for the Reviewing Authority to alter the charges. Even when charges were issued to an Officer Employee and in the event the Reviewing Authority found that no enquiry was held on such charge or charges, he can only direct the enquiry to be held again and after considering the report of the Enquiry as well as the records, he can pass orders. In view of the above Regulation, there is no scope for the Reviewing Authority to alter the charge, much less to enhance the punishment on the basis of the altered charges. In view of the above Regulation, there is no scope for the Reviewing Authority to alter the charge, much less to enhance the punishment on the basis of the altered charges. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner has to succeed on both the grounds that the Reviewing Authority has exceeded in his jurisdiction in considering the alteration of charges as well as imposing enhancement of major penalty of dismissal without there being any enquiry. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs." 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-bank assailed the judgment mainly on two grounds -- i) the procedure for major penalty as provided under Regulation 6 having been followed before enhancement of penalty there was no necessity to conduct any further or fresh departmental enquiry; and ii) it it always open to the reviewing authority to enhance the punishment, if punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not commensurate with the gravity of charges proved during the enquiry. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-bank, the reviewing authority, while passed impugned order dated 8th June, 1998, has not taken into consideration any charge other other than the charges for which departmental proceeding was initiated and proved. In fact, lenient view having been taken by the reviewing authority, interference with the impugned order was uncalled for. 13. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, the reviewing authority altered the charges while issued show cause notice on 7th Aug., 1986. Additional charge was framed alleging mala fide intention on the part of Branch Manager, i.e., the respondent/writ petitioner. Without holding an enquiry in respect of such additional charge, i.e., mala fide intention, there was no occasion to relate such charge to enhanced punishment. This was noticed by the learned single Judge, while judgment was passed on 11th July, 1994, in W.P. No.10907/86, who declared the show cause notice as null and void and set aside the order of dismissal. 14. This was noticed by the learned single Judge, while judgment was passed on 11th July, 1994, in W.P. No.10907/86, who declared the show cause notice as null and void and set aside the order of dismissal. 14. Further it was submitted that once the show cause notice for enhancement of punishment dated 7th Aug., 1986, was declared null and void; on the basis of the same show cause notice order of dismissal was set aside and such decision of this Court having been upheld by the Supreme Court, the appellant cannot enhance the punishment on the basis of same show cause notice. 15. Though such argument seems to be attractive, but it cannot be accepted in view of the order passed by the Supreme court on 12th June, 1998 in Civil Appeal No.73/98. In the said case, the Supreme Court has not upheld the finding relating to the show cause notice, on the other hand directed the respondent/writ petitioner to file his reply to the show cause notice dated 7th Aug., 1986. The reviewing authority was directed to reconsider the proceeding after giving the delinquent officer an opportunity of being heard. In view of such finding of the Supreme Court, it will be deemed that the finding of learned single Judge in respect to the show cause notice dated 7th Aug., 1986, as made in W.P. No.10907/86 and affirmed in W.A. No.1446/94 was overruled by the Supreme Court and the proceedings stand restored to the show cause notice stage. 16. In a notice under Regulation 18, for enhancement of punishment, the reviewing authority is supposed to give the grounds after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the charges, reply, if any, submitted and the enquiry report. If there is any infirmity in the show cause notice or any extraneous matter, including additional charge, is taken into consideration, it is open to the delinquent employee to bring it to the notice of the reviewing authority in his show cause reply and may request the authority not to take into consideration such extraneous matters or charges, which were not part of the proceeding. Even after receipt of such objection, if the reviewing authority takes into consideration such extraneous matters or charges, which are not part of the proceeding, it may vitiate the penal order of enhancement of punishment. Even after receipt of such objection, if the reviewing authority takes into consideration such extraneous matters or charges, which are not part of the proceeding, it may vitiate the penal order of enhancement of punishment. However, if the reviewing authority accepts such objection and do not take into consideration such extraneous matters or charges for coming to a conclusion and pass order independently on the basis of the records of the proceeding, including the charges, which has been proved, such order, ipso facto will not become illegal merely on the ground that reference of extraneous matters or additional charges were made in the show cause notice. 17. Learned single Judge having failed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 5th April, 2004 passed in W.P. No.13098 of 1998. The writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.