ORDER: Three important questions arise for consideration in this writ petition; viz; a) whether it is obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer in departmental proceedings, to base his conclusions upon the discussion with reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him; b) whether it is permissible in law for the disciplinary authority, to impose separate punishments for individual charges; and c) whether the appellate authority can impose more severe punishment on an employee, without issuing notice, indicating his mind and proposal. 2. The facts that have given rise to filing of the writ petition are, in brief, as under. The petitioner was appointed initially as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 22.11.1978. Thereafter, he was promoted to the cadres of JMG Grades I and II. In the year 2002, he worked as Assistant Manager at Rajahmundry Branch of the bank, and was designated as Recovery Officer. 3. The bank introduced a scheme "UCO Mega Cash Loans" and the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of assisting the branch manager, to process loan applications, under the Scheme. He states that out of several applications received by the branch, two applications viz; those of Sri K. Mohan Babu and Sri P. Narasimha Murthy, were assigned to him for verification, and rest verified by the Branch Manager and others. 4. Doubt was expressed, at a later pint of time, as to the propriety in sanctioning loans, to six borrowers. Alleging that the petitioner did not exhibit the required amount of care and caution in discharge of his duties, i) in processing the applications for the said six loans; ii) in the matter of recommending additional loan of Rs.80,000/- to another loanee; and iii) in processing the applications under "UCO Shelter Scheme"; the Assistant General Manager, who is designated as the disciplinary authority, issued charge sheet dated 2.9.2003, framing 8 charges and indicating their basis. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges on 9.9.2003. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed the 3rd respondent, as the enquiry officer. A report dated 8.5.2004, was submitted, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. 5. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges on 9.9.2003. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed the 3rd respondent, as the enquiry officer. A report dated 8.5.2004, was submitted, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. 5. The Deputy General Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice, proposing the punishment of dismissal from the service of the Bank, for each of the 8 charges. 6. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same, apart from appearing in person, before the 2nd respondent, on 7.6.2004. On a consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of reduction of pay-scale by two increments, for charges 1 and 8, reduction of basic pay to the first stage of JMGS Grade I, for charge No.2, reduction of 4 increments in the pay-scale, separately for charges 6 and 7, and dismissal from service, separately for each of the charges 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 9.5.2006, wherein he altered the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent, and uniformly he imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, separately for the 8 charges. Hence, this writ petition. 7. The petitioner contends that the Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations 1976 (for short "the Regulations") framed by the bank, mandate that an enquiry officer must discuss the evidence adduced before him, while arriving at a conclusion, as regards each and every charge, and that the 3rd respondent did not follow the same. It is also urged that the matter was mechanically proceeded with, and there is non-application of mind, at several stages. Objection is raised to the method of imposition of punishment. It is also urged that the sanctioning authority for loans, is the Branch Manager, and though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the latter, he was let off with a minor punishment. 8. A common counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties properly and committed several irregularities. They contend that the prescribed procedure has been strictly followed, and no injustice was caused to the petitioner. The respondents seek to justify the imposition of individual punishments. 8. A common counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties properly and committed several irregularities. They contend that the prescribed procedure has been strictly followed, and no injustice was caused to the petitioner. The respondents seek to justify the imposition of individual punishments. As regards the allegation that the appellate authority enhanced the punishment, it is urged that the 1st respondent has, in fact, shown indulgence to the petitioner, by reducing the punishment of dismissal from service, into the one, of compulsory retirement. 9. Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Regulations of the bank impose an obligation on the enquiry officer, to discuss the evidence, in respect of each and every article of charge, and the said requirement was observed in breach, by the respondents. He contends that though voluminous oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the 2nd respondent, he did not refer the same, in the discussion, on individual charges, and thereby, committed a material irregularity. Learned Counsel further submits that imposition of punishment for individual charges, that too, one inconsistent with the other, is unknown to law. He submits that when an employee is dismissed for one of the charges, imposition of lesser punishment for other charges is meaningless, and thereby, discloses non-application of mind, on the part of the disciplinary authority. It is also his case that the appellate authority committed a further irregularity, in altering the minor punishment of stoppage of increments, to those of compulsory retirement, even while modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to the one of compulsory retirement. 10. On merits, the learned counsel submits that it was not pointed out that any monetary loss had occurred to the bank. He submits that the sanctioning authority for the loans is the Branch Manager, and there is no basis for imposing the punishment on the petitioner, while letting off the Manager with a minor punishment. He relied upon certain decided cases. 11. Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry officer has undertaken a detailed discussion, on each and every charge, with reference to the version of the presenting officer and the defence of the petitioner. He relied upon certain decided cases. 11. Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry officer has undertaken a detailed discussion, on each and every charge, with reference to the version of the presenting officer and the defence of the petitioner. He contends that at the threshold of the report, the 2nd respondent has made a mention of the entire evidence and that needs to be treated, with reference to every charge. Learned counsel submits that not being a legally trained person, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to prepare a report, in the form of a judgment. He contends that the lapses and acts of indiscipline, on the part of the petitioner, are proved in the enquiry. 12. As regards the imposition of punishment, be it by the 2nd respondent, or the 1st respondent, learned counsel submits that though punishment that can be imposed for each and every charge was indicated, ultimately, the one which is severe in nature, has to be taken into account. He submits that the scope of interference, in the matter of this nature by the High Court, is very limited, and the conclusions arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be reexamined by the court, as an appellate authority. He to relied upon precedents. 13. Out of 8 charges that were framed against the petitioner in the charge sheet, dated 2.9.2003, charges 1 to 6 relate to sanction of loans under the Scheme "UCO Mega Cash Loans", to six individuals. The allegations ranged from the one of fabrication of documents, to lack of proper care and caution, on the part of the petitioner. Charge No.7 is about recommendation by the petitioner for sanction of additional loan of Rs.80,000/- to a loanee, under "UCO Shelter Scheme". The last charge is, as regards recommendation by the petitioner, under that very scheme to another loanee. The petitioner denied the allegations against him, by submitting a detailed explanation. He stated that out of six applications, he was entrusted with the verification of only two, and that each and every step was taken by him, after thorough discussion with the Manager. Another contention of his, was that the Manager of the bank obtained the legal opinion and sanctioned the loans, only on being satisfied about the eligibility of the individual applicants. Another contention of his, was that the Manager of the bank obtained the legal opinion and sanctioned the loans, only on being satisfied about the eligibility of the individual applicants. The 3rd respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. 14. The bank framed the regulations, which prescribe a detailed procedure, to be followed at every stage, in the disciplinary proceedings. The penalties that can be imposed against employees, are enlisted in Regulation No.4. Regulation No.5 defines the disciplinary authorities. Regulation No.6 is an elaborate one, containing 21 clauses, and it prescribes procedure to be followed, before any major penalty is imposed. Clause (21) of Regulation 6 is relevant, in the present contest. It reads as under: "21 (i) : On the conclusion of the inquiry the inquiring authority shall prepare a report which shall contain the following: a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; b) a gist of the defence of the officer employee in respect of each article of charge; c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; d) the findings on each articles of charge and the reasons therefore." Explanation: If, in the opinion of the inquiring authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original article of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge: Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the officer employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include:- a) the report of the inquiry prepared by it under clause(1); b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee referred to in sub-regulation (15); c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; d) written briefs referred to in sub-regulation (18), if any, and e) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry." This is one of the rare provisions, one can come across, in Service Jurisprudence. The other clauses of Regulation 6 contain provisions, which require the enquiry officer to be fair, impartial and objective. For instance, clause (17) thereof, imposes a specific obligation on the enquiry officer, to examine the entire evidence before him, and to indicate his observation that militated against the employee, so that the latter can have an opportunity to explain. It reads as under: "(17) The inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." It is in this background, that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, need to be examined. 15. The preamble of the report makes a reference to the proceedings, that have taken place before the Enquiry Officer. It makes a mention of the examination of two witnesses, on the part of the management, and deposition of the petitioner, as defence witness. Reference is also made to Exs.M.E-1 to M.E-38, filed on behalf of the Management, and Exs.D.E-1 to D.E-6, filed by the petitioner. In compliance with the requirement under the relevant clause in Regulation 6, written submissions were made by the Presenting Officer, as well as the petitioner. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent undertook the discussion, with reference to each and every charge. The gist of the contention of the presenting officer, the plea of the petitioner, and the findings of the enquiry officer, were mentioned. No where in the discussion with reference to any charge, the 3rd respondent has made any mention of oral or documentary evidence. The findings on the charges read as under: "Charge No.1: (the charge against the petitioner is that he fabricated certain documents): Finding: It was noticed from the proceedings that Mr. K. Mohanbabu and Dr. P. Narasimha Murty were reported to be under suspension at the time of sanction of loans. Whereas, Sri J. Srinivasa Rao (petitioner) has conducted presanction inspection at both work places of the borrowers. Basically the referred 6 loans sanctioned were not fit into the UCO Mega Cash Scheme of our bank. There are inconsistencies in legal opinion, valuation certificates, which were overlooked by the C.S.O.(petitioner) while processing and recommending the loans. So I hold the said charge as proved. Basically the referred 6 loans sanctioned were not fit into the UCO Mega Cash Scheme of our bank. There are inconsistencies in legal opinion, valuation certificates, which were overlooked by the C.S.O.(petitioner) while processing and recommending the loans. So I hold the said charge as proved. Charge No.2: (The charge is that he misguided the Manager to get his confirmation on the vouchers for sanction of loans): Finding: Due care was not taken by C.S.O. in processing of the referred 6 UCO Mega Cash loans and overlooked inconsistencies in legal opinion, valuation reports etc., and C.S.O. has misguided the Manager in sanction of these loans by getting his signatures on the vouchers. I hold this charge as proved. Charge No.3: (The charge against the petitioner is that he failed to ensure full adjustment of NPA account with the loans disbursed) Finding: I observed that the referred NPA accounts of P.G. Kishore, P. Sunita Devi are chronic in nature. Hence, the request for giving amount of Rs.8.00 lacs to them, out of the loan proceeds may not be entertained by the C.S.O. to protect Bank's interest. So I hold the charge as proved. Charges 4 & 5: (The charges are to the effect that the petitioner failed to verify the difference in signature of Smt. P. Sunita Devi on different documents and that he failed to verify the value in the valuation certificate) Findings: The charges 4 and 5 are interrelated. The C.S.O. has failed to verify the area of the shops, rental value, valuations etc., and thereby allowed the borrowers to avail higher amounts of loans than the sale-deeds. The C.S.O. has not called for the sale deeds immediately after the registration. So, I hold that charges 4 and 5 are proved. Charge No.6: (The charge is that he failed to ascertain the identity and the credentials of the borrowers) Finding: As per the C.T.O.II, Tanuku letter (produced by P.O) Mr. K. Mohan Babu was under suspension at the time of sanction of loan. Further, it is was reported that Dr. P. Narasimha Murthy was also under suspension and he was a defaulter at our Eluru Branch. Hence, I hold the charge as proved. Charge No.7: (It was alleged that the petitioner has given false report and misguided the bank and recommended for additional loan to Sri A.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy) Finding: The arguments of Mr. P. Narasimha Murthy was also under suspension and he was a defaulter at our Eluru Branch. Hence, I hold the charge as proved. Charge No.7: (It was alleged that the petitioner has given false report and misguided the bank and recommended for additional loan to Sri A.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy) Finding: The arguments of Mr. J. Srinivasa Rao are not as per the norms of the UCO Shelter Scheme. Hence, I hold the said charge as proved. Charge No.8: (The petitioner is accused of processing and recommending two loan proposals for the amount higher than the eligibility) Finding: In case of both these accounts sanctioned under UCO Shelter Scheme, the C.S.O. has processed the applications by taking family expenses per month as Rs.4,000/. In case of both these accounts the dependants are more than 2+2, then for each additional dependant Rs.1,000/- has to be added up to the family expenses as per the scheme. The C.S.O has not taken this into account, while computing the loan component. Total income was arrived from the provisional balance sheet instead of I.T. Returns, and the C.S.O. processed and recommenced these two loans for amounts higher than the eligibility. Hence, I hold the charge as proved." Not only in the ultimate conclusions, but also while referring to the gist of the arguments advanced by the presenting officer and the petitioner, the enquiry officer failed to make reference to the oral and documentary evidence, that was placed before him. It is not out of place to mention here that clause (21) of Regulation 6, apart from requiring the enquiry officer to undertake discussion, with reference to the evidence in relation to each and every charge, mandates that the contents of the record must be forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The purpose is to ensure that the disciplinary authority would be in a position to compare the findings of the enquiry officer, with reference to the record, and satisfy himself whether the conclusions are arrived at, in accordance with the relevant regulation. In RANJIT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court held that non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority would vitiate the entire proceedings. 16. It is a well settled and respected proposition of law that where law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner, or not at all. In RANJIT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court held that non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority would vitiate the entire proceedings. 16. It is a well settled and respected proposition of law that where law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner, or not at all. In GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD v. GIRDHARLAL MOTILAL, the Supreme Court held as under: " ... Section 6 (1) of the Electricity Act confers power on the State Electricity Board to take away the property of the licensee. Such a power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. The legislature has prescribed the manner of its exercise. It must exercise in that manner and in no other way. " Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mention made by the 3rd respondent to the entire evidence on record in the preamble of the report can be treated as sufficient evidence. The requirement under Regulation 6 (21) (c) is in respect of each and every charge. Compilation or indexing of the evidence, at the threshold, or at the end, can hardly be treated as compliance with such a mandatory provision. Therefore, a serious infirmity has taken place in the enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent. 17. In MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL v. B. KARUNAKAR, the Supreme Court held that any irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings must not entail in mechanical quashing of the same, and even where it is proved that the employee suffered prejudice, the proceedings must be required to be continued from that stage. If the spirit behind the said judgment is taken as guidance, it must entail, in setting aside of the report of the enquiry officer, even while retaining the charge sheet, at its initial stage, together with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. This much, can be said about the report of the enquiry officer 18. The penalties that can be imposed against an employee on disciplinary grounds, for acts of misconduct, are divided into two categories, viz; major and minor penalties. The highest of the punishment is dismissal, provided for in Regulation 4 (j). Reduction of the pay-scale to a lower stage is treated as a minor penalty, under clause 4(e) thereof. While Regulation 6 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, Regulation 8 stipulates the one, for minor penalties. The highest of the punishment is dismissal, provided for in Regulation 4 (j). Reduction of the pay-scale to a lower stage is treated as a minor penalty, under clause 4(e) thereof. While Regulation 6 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, Regulation 8 stipulates the one, for minor penalties. It hardly needs any mention that it would be competent for a disciplinary authority, to impose minor penalty also, even where the procedure for imposition of major penalty, is invoked. 19. On receipt of the report from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued, what is known as "final order dated 22.6.2004". The covering letter dated 23.6.2004, through which the 2nd respondent forwarded his order dated 22.6.2004, reads as under: "Enclosed please find the final order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of charge sheet dated 2.9.2003 issued to you." It gives an indication that the 2nd respondent straight away passed an order, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer. A perusal of the order, however, discloses that the 2nd respondent proposed punishment of dismissal from bank service, for each and every charge, and required the petitioner to submit his explanation, only as regards punishment. The relevant portion of the order/notice dated 22.6.2004, reads as under: "I have considered in great detail the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer and all other documentary evidence and other material in connection with the present charge sheet. I find that he had submitted his report based on the proceedings of the Enquiry, taking into account the documents and arguments put forth by both parties during the enquiry, besides written submissions of both the parties. After proper application of mind and considering the above aspects in all its ramifications, I am convinced that all charges from Charge No.1 to Charge No.8 levelled against Sri J. Srinivasa Rao are proved. I find that the above acts of Mr. J. Srinivasa Rao are grave and serious in nature, and in violation of Bank's laid down procedures and norms. In view of the above, I propose to Impose the following punishment to Sri J. Srinivasa Rao in terms of Regulation 4 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as amended. J. Srinivasa Rao are grave and serious in nature, and in violation of Bank's laid down procedures and norms. In view of the above, I propose to Impose the following punishment to Sri J. Srinivasa Rao in terms of Regulation 4 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as amended. PUNISHMENT Charge No.1 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.2 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.3 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.4 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.5 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.6 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.7 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service Charge No.8 Proved Dismissal from Bank's service The above punishment will have cumulative effect. The charge-sheeted officer is hereby called upon to show cause why the punishment proposed as above should not be imposed upon him. I shall give him i.e. Sri Srinivasa Rao a personal hearing on Saturday, the 26.6.2004 at 11-00 AM at my office, 8-2-624 Ground Floor, Road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34, as regards the proposed punishment only. Please appear before me on the aforesaid date and time to give your submissions on the proposed punishment, failing which, it will be presumed that you have no submissions to make and in which case the undersigned will proceed to pass final orders, accordingly. No extension of time/adjournment of date would be accorded under any circumstances." From this it is evident that irrespective of its nomenclature, it is only a show-cause notice. The petitioner also understood this to be a show-cause notice and submitted his explanation, pointing out the procedural and factual aspects of the report of the enquiry officer. The 2nd respondent passed the final order dated 28.6.2004, verbatim reproducing his earlier order dated 22.6.2004, up to the sentence "the above punishment will have cumulative effect", which is extracted above. Thereafter, he proceeded to observe and order, as under: "The C.S.O. appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 26.6.2004 for a personal hearing and submitted his oral statement. During the personal hearing he had expressed his regrets for the lapses on his part and requested for condoning the same. But, I do not find any extenuating circumstances for reviewing the proposed punishment. During the personal hearing he had expressed his regrets for the lapses on his part and requested for condoning the same. But, I do not find any extenuating circumstances for reviewing the proposed punishment. However, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as amended, I hereby award the following punishment: Charge No.1 Proved Reduction of 2 increments in the scale of pay Charge No.2 Proved Basic pay to be reduced to 1st stage of JMGS-I Charge No.3 Proved Dismissal from service Charge No.4 Proved Dismissal from service Charge No.5 Proved Dismissal from service Charge No.6 Proved Reduction of 4 increments in the scale of pay Charge No.7 Proved Reduction of 4 increments in the scale of pay Charge No.8 Proved Reduction of 2 increments in the scale of pay The above punishments are to take concurrent effect." It is rather surprising and curious to note that the 2nd respondent proposed initially to dismiss the petitioner separately for each and every charge. There was some possibility for the punishment of dismissal from service being common for all the charges, though such punishment was indicated against every charge, in the show-cause notice. In his final order, the 2nd respondent had added new dimensions. The order of dismissal was confined to three charges and reduction of increment of pay-scale was mentioned against five charges. 20. It is only in criminal proceedings, that every charge is dealt with separately, and separate conviction and sentences are imposed for each of them. Such a procedure is totally foreign to service law. The disciplinary authority has to assess the gravity of the situation and decide the punishment that is to be imposed. Once a particular punishment is chosen, that is deemed to take care of the entire situation. Imposition of minor penalties, even while dismissing an employee from service, is unheard of. Apart from the propriety of such an exercise, it tells upon the frame of the mind of the authority imposing such punishments. Such a course would manifest, either lack of clarity, or basic understanding, on his part. The argument that the minor punishments can be ignored, cannot be accepted, just like that. Apart from the propriety of such an exercise, it tells upon the frame of the mind of the authority imposing such punishments. Such a course would manifest, either lack of clarity, or basic understanding, on his part. The argument that the minor punishments can be ignored, cannot be accepted, just like that. If the authority was determined not only to impose the punishments that vary in degrees, but also directed that such punishments must run concurrently, he can safely be said to be reeling under a misconception about the powers and obligations of the disciplinary authority. The course adopted by the 2nd respondent is totally untenable and impermissible, in law. This answers the second question. 21. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, another typical outcome had emerged. May be that he wanted to reduce the rigor against the petitioner, and to modify the punishment of the dismissal, into the one of compulsory retirement. However, it appears that the exercise undertaken by the 2nd respondent has a contagious effect on the 1st respondent also. On his part, he imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement for each and every charge. He does not appear to have realized that in the process, though he is reducing the punishment of dismissal for charges 3, 4 and 5, he is enhancing, those imposed for charges 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. The course of action adopted by the 1st respondent suffers from the same infirmity, as to legality and propriety, as does the one undertaken by the 2nd respondent, may be different in its intensity. The fact remains that it resulted in enhancement of a minor punishment into a major one, at least in theory, but without issuing a notice to the petitioner. It hardly needs any mention that whenever an appellate authority intends to convert a minor penalty into a major one, or proposes to impose a more severe punishment, in an appeal before him, he has to issue notice to the appellant, indicating his intention, and mention the grounds there for. No effort was made in this direction. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is patently illegal. Therefore, the answer to the third question deserves to be given in favour of the petitioner. 22. No effort was made in this direction. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is patently illegal. Therefore, the answer to the third question deserves to be given in favour of the petitioner. 22. The note of caution sounded by the Supreme Court, against indiscriminate interference by the High Court, with the disciplinary proceedings, in its judgments in UNION OF INDIA v. S.C. PARASHAR, UCO BANK v. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR and BANK OF INDIA v. T. JOGRAM, is always a guiding factor to the High Courts. However, much would depend upon the nature of illegality, that is noticed in the proceedings. If any patent illegality has crept in, the High Court cannot remain oblivious. That would defeat the very concept of Judicial Review, apart from abdication of constitutional duties. The result would be that premium would be put on blatant illegalities, all in the name of self-imposed restraint. 23. It has already been pointed out that though 1st charge was that the petitioner is guilty of fabricating the documents, the enquiry officer held the same as proved, without even mentioning any ingredients of fabrication, on the part of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on his part, blindly followed the said finding, which, in turn, violative of the mandatory provisions of law. This is only illustrative. The disciplinary and appellate authorities have committed irregularities, at their respective levels. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 28.6.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide his order dated 9.5.2006 are set aside. The petitioner shall be, forthwith, reinstated into service, and extended the consequential benefits. It shall, however, be open to the 2nd respondent, to continue the proceedings from the stage, preceding the submission of report of the enquiry officer. There shall be no order as to costs.