JUDGMENT : The petitioner, “an Officer employee” of the respondent – “bank”, having been dismissed from service and the appeal filed their-against having also been dismissed, has filed this writ petition. 2. The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that, the petitioner joined service of the bank in the cadre of JMGS-I on 04.02.1985. When he was working as an Assistant Manager at the Cuddapah branch, a show cause notice dated 28.11.2000, based on the reports submitted in respect of SKC accounts was issued. The petitioner denied the allegations by submitting a reply dated 25.01.2001. A charge sheet dated 08.02.2001 under Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘Regulation’), was issued. Petitioner denied the charge by submitting a reply dated 22.02.2001. An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Deputy General Manager by an order dated 05.03.2001. Two witnesses were examined by the bank. The Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 16.10.2001, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner, along with a show cause notice dated 23.10.2001. The petitioner has submitted reply on 03.11.2001, pointing out the deficiencies on the part of the Inquiry Officer and the findings being without the support of any material evidence and contending that the report is arbitrary and perverse. The objection was overruled, the petitioner has held guilty and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on 23.11.2001. An appeal filed was dismissed. 3. The respondent has filed statement of objections to the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments advanced by Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the proceedings/files relating to the passing of the impugned orders. 5. The main contentions urged by Sri. P.S. Rajagopal are that; (i) The bank has withheld from the inquiry two cited and material witnesses i.e., D. Subbaramaiah and Smt. Poluri Nagamma and has relied upon MEX 45 and MEX 46, the alleged statements of the said persons, which course of action is illegal. That MEX 45 and MEX 46 have not been proved in view of the non examination of the persons concerned and that, the reliance placed on the said documents to punish the petitioner is highly illegal. It was contended that, the case is one of no evidence. That MEX 45 and MEX 46 have not been proved in view of the non examination of the persons concerned and that, the reliance placed on the said documents to punish the petitioner is highly illegal. It was contended that, the case is one of no evidence. (ii) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce defence witnesses and that there is violation of Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations, in that, the Inquiry Officer did not generally question the petitioner on the incriminating circumstances i.e., in the manner required and recognized under law, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. (iii) That the Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the objections submitted to the inquiry report and that the Disciplinary Authority has mechanically passed an order without any application of mind and consideration of the record. (iv) That the order of penalty has been issued by an incompetent authority, in that, punishment order was passed by the Asst. General Manager, whereas the decision was taken to conduct the inquiry by the Deputy General Manager, who had decided to impose stiff punishment and thus there was bias on the part of the Asst. General Manager. (v) That the Appellate Authority, without application of mind and consideration of the record has mechanically dismissed the appeal. (vi) The disciplinary proceedings being vitiated, the order passed punishing the petitioner is wholly illegal. (vii) The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have only made it appear that the orders are lawful in nature, the fact being otherwise, as has become apparent upon the files being produced pursuant to the order of the Court. (viii) That, the impugned orders suffer from procedural impropriety, bias, irrationality and are illegal. 6. Sri. (vii) The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have only made it appear that the orders are lawful in nature, the fact being otherwise, as has become apparent upon the files being produced pursuant to the order of the Court. (viii) That, the impugned orders suffer from procedural impropriety, bias, irrationality and are illegal. 6. Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for the respondent, in reply contended that, the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with the Regulations; there is no irregularity much less illegality in the proceedings of the inquiry; the principles of natural justice has been duly observed; non examination of the two cited witnesses is not fatal, in that, their letters marked as MEX 45 and MEX 46 were produced in the inquiry by a person who was in custody of the same; that the petitioner did not submit list of defence witnesses and did not act in accordance with the procedure adopted at the time of preliminary sitting; that there is no violation of Regulation 6(17); that under the Regulations both the Asst. General Manager and Deputy General Manager have been vested with the authority to act as Disciplinary Authority i.e., in terms of the powers mentioned in the schedule; that what was done by the Deputy General Manager was only appointing an inquiry officer and the same has not resulted in bias on the part of the Disciplinary Authority; that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in accordance with law and upon due consideration of the matter, having found the objection raised by the petitioner to be untenable has overruled the same and in view of the gravity of the proved misconduct has imposed the punishment and that the Appellate Authority has also acted in accordance with the Regulations and has passed the order. Learned counsel contended that, no interference in the matter is called for. 7. Keeping in views the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the Inquiring Authority has conducted the inquiry in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Regulation 6? ii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority has considered the inquiry proceedings and the report in accordance with Regulation 7? iii) Whether the Appellate Authority has considered the record of the Disciplinary Enquiry and the appeal in accordance with Regulation 17? ii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority has considered the inquiry proceedings and the report in accordance with Regulation 7? iii) Whether the Appellate Authority has considered the record of the Disciplinary Enquiry and the appeal in accordance with Regulation 17? iv) Whether the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.11.2001 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 31.01.2002 suffer from any serious infirmity? 8. My findings on the above points are as follows: The Regulations have been framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. They were framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in consultation with the reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. R.4 prescribes penalties for acts of misconduct. R.5 specifies the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. R.6 lays down procedure for imposing penalties. R.7 provides for action on the inquiry report conferring power to the Disciplinary Authority either to agree or disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge. R.17 provides for appeals against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in R.4. R.19 provides for consultation with the central Vigilance Commission, wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle. 9. Charge sheet dated 08.02.2001 was issued to the petitioner by the Asst. General Manager (P) as the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner denied the charge by submitting a reply dated 22.02.2001. A Prasanna Kumar, Deputy General Manager (P), claiming to be the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of the power under R.6(2) appointed an Inquiry Authority. The inquiry commenced on 23.07.2001. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. K.V. Krishna Swamy, an Investigating Officer was examined as MW1 and K.V. Subramanyan, the Manager of the branch was examined as MW-2. The other cited witnesses i.e. D. Subbaramaiah and P. Nagamma were not examined. The request made by the petitioner to produce defence witnesses was not granted. The Inquiry Officer put 4 questions to the petitioner i.e., under R.6(17). The petitioner has answered the said questions. The Inquiry Officer has drawn the inquiry report, wherein it has been observed that, “the charge of exposure of the bank to financial risk sheds gravity in view of the recovery/credit of the amount and the financial loss to the bank has been averted”. Specific finding chargewise was not recorded. The petitioner has answered the said questions. The Inquiry Officer has drawn the inquiry report, wherein it has been observed that, “the charge of exposure of the bank to financial risk sheds gravity in view of the recovery/credit of the amount and the financial loss to the bank has been averted”. Specific finding chargewise was not recorded. However, it was concluded that the petitioner has committed breach of R.3(1) and R.24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 10. A departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The inquiry officer performs quasi-judicial function. The inquiry officer has to follow the prescribed procedure, observe the principles of natural justice by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. 11. In Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Another (2008) 3 SCC 484 , it has been held that, the departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one and although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. 12. On 30.08.2001, the Inquiry Authority has generally examined the petitioner. 4 questions have been put, which are not in conformity with R.6(17). What were the incriminating circumstances appearing against the petitioner have not been disclosed. In the case of Moni Shankar (supra), with reference to Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968, which is in para material with R.16(17), it has been held as follows: “The purpose for which the sub-rule has been framed is clear and unambiguous. The railway servant must get an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. In this case he has been denied the said opportunity.” The questions put by the Inquiry Authority being not in compliance with R.6(17), there is an omission and material irregularity on the part of the Inquiry Officer, which has resulted in prejudice being caused to the petitioner, who could have stated his case with regard to the alleged materials brought on record of the inquiry by the management, had therein been compliance with the provision. 13. The authors of MEX-45 & MEX-46 i.e., D. Subramaiah and Smt. Poluri Nagamma were not examined. The said documents were only produced. 13. The authors of MEX-45 & MEX-46 i.e., D. Subramaiah and Smt. Poluri Nagamma were not examined. The said documents were only produced. Mere production and marking of document does not amount to its proof, as held in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Prakash Chand Jain – AIR 1969 SC 983 and Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited – 2006 (4) SCC 713 . To rely upon the said documents, the said persons ought to have been examined and opportunity of cross-examination provided to the petitioner. 14. The Chief Manager of the bank has sent a communication dated 28.08.2001 to the Inquiry Authority seeking information with regard to the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was addressed to the Vigilance Cell. The Inquiry Authority has replied on 15.09.2001. The Chief Manager of the bank has sent a communication dated 29.09.2001 to the Inquiry Authority to submit the report without delay stating that the pendency of the charge sheet is being viewed seriously by the competent authority. 15. The Disciplinary Authority by a communication dated 23.10.2001, enclosed a copy of the inquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit the representation. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply charge wise the gist of which according to the record of the respondent, is as follows: Re-Charge No.1 1) The fact that all the papers were received from abroad, duly attested. 2) The fact that all the particulars were filled up only by the claimant. 3) The fact that the RDC is expected to take clearance from ID: Mumbai by Telex/E-Mail in respect of the claimants who have given overseas address vide ID/51/SKC/01/99 dated 9.3.99. 4) The fact that the name of Syed Zynab Bee not properly spelt between MEX-6 & MEX-7 which are Govt. documents. 5) The fact that the Civil ID cards are written in Arabic. 6) The fact that the MEX 11 was not authorized by the CSOE and other officials authorized it. 7) The fact that the postal inward register is not maintained at Cuddapah Main Branch (Answer to Qn.41 of MW1) 8) The fact that the RDC has not pointed out any variation/deviation in this claim as per the answer of MW-1, MW-2 in the cross examination. 9) The fact that the date of birth, husband name, addresses, date of departure tally in all the documents. 9) The fact that the date of birth, husband name, addresses, date of departure tally in all the documents. 10) The correspondence of CSOE with National Co-ordinator and copies of application forms (2 pages) of Syed Zynab Bee. 11) The fact that the MEX-25 has no relevance. 12) The fact that there are no complaints from any party. 13) The fact that one person can have two passports and the name is mis-spelt even at passport office. In the case of Mrs. C. Sharadamma: 1) The fact that the Non-residents, whenever they come to India, they can open accounts, with the help of passports and for that no introduction is required. 2) The fact that the CSOE never exposed to foreign exchange business. 3) The fact that since the claimant is an illiterate, the CSOE only filed application etc., to help her. 4) The fact that the alterations with regard to the addressed are done at the instructions of the claimant and the addresses are correct. 5) The fact that the management did not submit any evidence to show that the claimant was out of country at that time. 6) The fact that all the relevant papers were submitted to the RDC. 7) The fact that the RDC never observed any variation/deviation in this regard. 8) The fact that the Passport P781796 of Smt. Sharadamma was valid up to 11.1.98. 9) The fact that the CSOE never looked after SB operation of these accounts. 10) The fact that the management never produced D Subramanian to show that he has only handed over the papers of Smt. Sharadamma to the CSOE. 11) The fact that Smt. Sharadamma has no account in Rajampet (Answer to MW-1 Qn.No.98) where the CSOE earlier worked. 12) The fact that neither RDC nor ID-Mumbai observed any deviation in processing this claim. 13) The fact that there was nothing established to show that the claim was not properly processed by the CSOE by RDC. Re: Charge No.2 1) The fact that this claim was never sanctioned at branch level and it was forwarded to RDC for sanction. 2) The entire claim paper set was scrutinized by the RDC and RDC only settled the claim. Re: Charge No.2 1) The fact that this claim was never sanctioned at branch level and it was forwarded to RDC for sanction. 2) The entire claim paper set was scrutinized by the RDC and RDC only settled the claim. 3) The fact the RDC never observed any deviation except asking for Notarized Indemnity Bond which was again sent to the RDC except that nothing was established to show that this claim was not properly processed by the CSOE. 4) That fact that MEX 25 bears no value and the management never produced the author of MEX-25 to show that the claim pertains to her. 5) The fact that MEX-21, MEX-22 (Cr.IBA & Cr.slip) were not authorized by the CSOE. 6) The fact that MEX-23 (withdrawal) was also not passed by the CSOE. 7) The fact that the CSOE never looked after SB operations of SKC a/cs. 8) The fact that the CSOE never looked after term deposits on 3.11.99. 9) The fact that there was no compliant from the claimant or any person to show that the CSOE processed the claim of a third person. 10) The fact that the CSOE took up the matter with National Co-ordinator to show the facts. 11) The fact that there is no financial loss to the institution. Re:Charge No.3: 1) The fact that there was no complaint from Smt. C. Sharadamma as regards the settlement of claim. 2) The fact that there was no complaint from the claimant as to establish that she did not withdraw cash on 10.08.99 from her SKC A/c.146. 3) The fact that the CSOE not looked after SB SKCC A/CS operations and ledger maintenance (Answer to Qn.9973) 4) The fact that SB ledger was not in the custody of the CSOE. 5) The fact that the cash paid vouchers were not in the custody of the CSOE. 6) The fact that the RDC never rejected the claim of the claimant and observed any deviation or established any observation that this claim is not properly processed. 7) The fact that the passport No. P781796 of the claimant was only valid upto 11.01.1998 and as such there was nothing established by the management to show that the claimant was not out of the country during the relevant period. 7) The fact that the passport No. P781796 of the claimant was only valid upto 11.01.1998 and as such there was nothing established by the management to show that the claimant was not out of the country during the relevant period. 8) The fact that MEX 38, 39, (ZO FXPC Cr.IBA/Cr.slip) were not authorized by the CSOE (Answer of MW-1 to Q No.72) 9) The fact that the management never produced the authors of MEX-45, 46 to establish any motive on the part of the CSOE. 10) Hence the fact that MEX-45, 46 cannot be taken as evidence and the contents of the MEX 45, 46 are null and void. 11) The fact that the motives of MW-2 was doubtful since the MW-2 stated that he received the MEX-46 by post in his deposition and in the cross examination also and MW2 did not remember by which point it was received and did not take care to record it in the postal inward register and whereas MEX 47 shows that MEX-46 was received by him in person (“we have received this letter by person”) 12) The management did not establish any evidence to show that the claimant was out of country during the relevant period by producing any witnesses including the claimant and the CSOE was not in charge of the SB Dept. on 10.8.99 nor did the CSOE paid any amount to the claimant as alleged in the charge sheet in 4/2000 or in 2/2000 as per the deposition of MW-1 which the DA is requested to note. 13) The DA is also requested to note the findings of IA that “I have noted nothing has come on record against this point” and regarding outside stay of Smt. Sharadamma the IA has noted “Here I find there is no other authentic record excepting MEX-45 and 46 to show that Smt. Sharadamma was abroad.” The petitioner inter alia contended that, the inquiry is in violation of the Regulations and the principles of natural justice and that the charge leveled against him having not been proved. 16. An office note dated 12.11.2001 was prepared by the bank narrating the allegation against the petitioner and the response of the petitioner, as noted supra, to the inquiry report. 16. An office note dated 12.11.2001 was prepared by the bank narrating the allegation against the petitioner and the response of the petitioner, as noted supra, to the inquiry report. The file was put up to the Deputy General Manager (P) for orders, with the following remarks: “In the connected case, charge sheets under major penalty proceedings have been issued to Sri. K.M. Hafeex and Sri. N.C. Sharma. Charge sheet issued to Sri. N.C. Sharma has been disposed of by awarding proper penalty and charge sheet issued to Sri. K.M. Hafeez is pending for disposal. The DA may indicate the penalty for seeking II stage advice from VC.” The note was signed by the Deputy Chief Manager & Chief Manager. The Deputy General Manager (P) has recorded as follows: “Considering the grave nature of the misconduct, especially destruction of records after ……I am of the view that imposition of stiff major penalty is warranted in this case. Sd/- 15.11.2001” 17. The Deputy General Manager (P) has sent a communication dated 17.11.2001 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, enclosing copies of inquiry proceedings and the findings of the Inquiry Authority, suggesting imposition of stiff major penalty on the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Officer was requested to tender advice in the matter. The Chief Vigilance Officer has sent a communication dated 22.11.2001 to the General Manager, which reads as follows: “Having regard to the gravity of charges alleged and held as established by the IA, we concur with your views to impose stiff major penalty on Sri. R. Bali Reddy.” 18. An office note bearing No.1101/0089/NKS/550/CSV-2001 dated 23.11.2001 was prepared with reference to the charge sheet issued, referring to the alleged irregularities, the response to the same on behalf of the petitioner by his defence assistant, offering the remarks, which reads as follows: “HO: Vigilance Cell vide their letter No.5939/VC:28/2000/HYD/VGL/0081 dt.22.11.2001 has informed that they agree with DA’s views to impose stiff major penalty on the CSOE. In view of the above, the case file is placed before the DA for disposal of the charge sheet by awarding appropriate penalty having regard to the above advice. Sri Bali Reddy is an Officer in JMGS-I drawing a Basic Pay of Rs.13220/- and superannuating on 31.01.2017” The note was placed before the Asst. General Manager (P), for orders. The Asst. Sri Bali Reddy is an Officer in JMGS-I drawing a Basic Pay of Rs.13220/- and superannuating on 31.01.2017” The note was placed before the Asst. General Manager (P), for orders. The Asst. General Manager (P) has recorded as follows: “I impose the penalty of impose from the service considering the gravity of the misconduct proved in the inquiry.” The signatures of the Deputy Chief Manager, Chief Manager and Asst. General Manager (P) appear therein. The decisions taken by the Deputy General Manager (P) and the Chief Vigilance Officer, to impose stiff major penalty on the petitioner, has certainly influenced the Disciplinary Authority, who is lower in rank and as a result, without even considering the record of the case and passing a reasoned order, has passed the order on the very note put up to him. 19. After the said decision was taken, a separate proceedings dated 23.11.2001 incorporating the reasons has been drawn. Even the said order has on its facing sheet, the signatures of the Deputy Chief Manager and the Chief Manager. The copy of the order containing the reasons was sent to the petitioner along with a letter dated 28.11.2001. 20. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 17.01.2002 to the General Manger (P) and Appellate Authority. The file shows that, an office note was prepared on 08.02.2001 and was placed before the General Manager (P), for orders. The office note was put by the Deputy Chief Officer and Chief Manager through Asst. General Manager (P). On the said note, the General Manager (P) has recorded as follows: “Appeal rejected. I conform the penalty awarded by D.A.” Sd/- 28.01.2002” 21. Shockingly, the file contains a draft order, seeking approval on 29.01.2002 by the Chief Officer. The said draft has initials of other officers too. The date & month of the order having been left blank, insertion by hand has been made. As against the unreasoned decision taken rejecting the appeal on 28.01.2002, an order prepared later i.e., on 29.1.2002, has been signed by the General Manager (P) & the Appellate Authority on 31.1.2002, was communicated to the petitioner. 22. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were exercising quasi-judicial powers in the matter of passing the order imposing the punishment. The duty to act judicially was therefore, implicit in the very nature of the proceedings conducted by them. 22. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were exercising quasi-judicial powers in the matter of passing the order imposing the punishment. The duty to act judicially was therefore, implicit in the very nature of the proceedings conducted by them. A due discharge of that duty required both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to record reasons. This is a case where the decision having been taken in the first instance, the same has been incorporated later by drawing reasoned orders, which is highly illegal. There is arbitrary exercise of power by both the authorities. 23. The necessity behind recording reasons, even by Administrative Authorities was emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , wherein, it has been held as follows:- “The recording of reasons by an Administrative Authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision of judicial review. Therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an Administrative Authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi And Others, AIR 1978 SC 851 , the Apex Court was dealing with a statutory order made by a statutory functionary and it was held that, the correctness of an order made can be judged only in the extent and by reference to the reasons recorded therein and not on the basis of any fresh material that may be supplied by the authority passing the same subsequently. It has been held as follows:- “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. (Emphasis supplied) 25. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. (Emphasis supplied) 25. It is evident from the record of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority that, when they passed the orders in the first instance, they did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioner with reference to the record of the enquiry and the findings of the Inquiry Authority. Decision was first arrived at without appreciating the materials on record. Most arbitrary decisions arrived at, were incorporated in the reasoned orders drawn later, to make it appear that, there is full compliance with the Regulations. 26. The decisions initially taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were without the consideration of the record and application of mind. The orders have severe civil consequences to the petitioner. The unreasoned decisions taken, have been tailor-made by drawing reasoned orders. The involvement of several other persons in the decision making process is apparent from the record. The orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, instead of being quasi-judicial have virtually become administrative orders and they have functioned as the Administrative Authorities. 27. In G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society – 2010 (2) SCC 297, the enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that all the charges, except charge 4, were proved against the employee who was given a copy of the enquiry report along with a show-cause notice to which she submitted the reply. The Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations leveled against the charge-sheeted employee and the representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer. However, without even adverting to the contents of her representation, and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Examining the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “19. …… Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. Examining the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “19. …… Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even the administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. The power of punishing authorities in departmental proceedings is regulated by the Regulations. R.4 merely prescribes diverse punishment, which may be imposed upon the employee-Officer found guilty. The Regulation leaves it to the discretion of the punishing authority to select the appropriate punishment proportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have failed to act in accordance with the Regulations. The role of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority being quasi-judicial and the power exercised by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority being quasi-judicial, is required to be exercised by the authorities concerned on their own i.e., upon consideration of the record in terms of the Regulations. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, impugned herein, being with the involvement of other person, which is evident from the record, the impugned orders also being contrary to the Regulations are vitiated. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent. The files made available by the respondent during the course of hearing be returned. The respondent to maintain the files till the expiry of appeal period.