JUDGEMENT V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the final order of the disciplinary authority dated 15.7.1993, Annexure-5, whereunder he has been held guilty of the four charges levelled against him and punished with reduction by four stages. He is also aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 11.2.1994, Annexure-6, whereunder the appeal filed against the punishment order dated 15.7.1993 has been dismissed. 3. Perusal of memo of charge dated 5.4.1991, Annexure-1 would indicate that petitioner was proceeded against for granting over draft facility to M/s Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited on 20.11.1990 to the tune of Rs. 5.58 lacs. The second charge levelled against the petitioner is that on 31.12.1990 he again allowed credit facility to M/s Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited in current deposit account by purchasing his self-drawn cheque of Rs. 4 lacs and thereby debit balance became over 14 lacs. The third charge alleged against the petitioner is that between September to December, 1990 he in connivance with Accountant Sri Ajay Kumar irregularly accommodated M/s Ramjeelal Agrawal, a current account holder having no sanctioned credit facility by purchasing a self-drawn cheque to the tune of Rs. 12.095 lacs and by way of cash payment of self-drawn cheque to the tune of Rs. 16.97 lacs. The fourth charge alleged against the petitioner is that during the period between November, 1990 to January, 1991 he in connivance with the Accountant Sri Ajay Kumar irregularly accommodated M/s Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited, a current account holder having no credit facility by way of paying self-drawn cheque to the tune of Rs. 54.91 lacs without obtaining any documents/securities. 4. Having received the charge-sheet petitioner submitted his written defence disputing the charges levelled against him and asserted that the instrument referred to in the four charges was never passed by him and the over draft facility, purchase of cheques was allowed by the Accountant Ajay Kumar when petitioner used to be away from the branch in connection with affairs of the Union after marking himself present in the attendance register. 5. The Enquiry Officer having examined the material exhibits i.e. the instruments, which petitioner is alleged to have passed or purchased concluded in respect to charge no. 5. The Enquiry Officer having examined the material exhibits i.e. the instruments, which petitioner is alleged to have passed or purchased concluded in respect to charge no. 1 that it was petitioner who allowed over draft facility of Rs. 5.58 lacs to M/s Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited on 20.11.1990 by writing O/D allowed and put his signature beneath the word O/D allowed over Exhibit-M-4. In this connection, the enquiry officer relied on the evidence of management witness nos. 1 and 3. In regard to charge no. 2 the Enquiry Officer held at page 73 paragraph-iv with reference to Exhibit-M-6 that over the instrument no. O/D not allowed was written by the petitioner, which is contrary to the established norm and procedure practiced in the Bank. In case, the instrument was not allowed nothing should have been written over the instrument. In regard to charge no. 3 also the enquiry officer held at page-16 of the report with reference to the contents of the instrument that those instruments were allowed by the petitioner in connivance with the Accountant Ajay Kumar who irregularly accommodated M/s Ramji Lal Agrawal. Perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer does not indicate that any instrument referred to in connection with charge no. 3 has been passed by the petitioner. Same is the position in regard to the instruments referred to in connection with charge no. 4. 6. The disciplinary authority having considered the enquiry report passed punishment order dated 15.7.1993, Annexure-5, perusal whereof indicates that findings recorded by the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority in respect of the four charges. The disciplinary authority having briefly dealt with the charge and finding of the enquiry officer passed punishment order dated 15.7.1993, Annexure-5 withholding four increments of the petitioner. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority under orders dated 11.2.1994, Annexure-6. 7. Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 15.7.1993 and 11.2.1994, Annexures-5, 6 on the ground that neither the disciplinary nor the appellate authority has considered his case that none of the instrument referred to in any of the charge was passed by the petitioner. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority under orders dated 11.2.1994, Annexure-6. 7. Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 15.7.1993 and 11.2.1994, Annexures-5, 6 on the ground that neither the disciplinary nor the appellate authority has considered his case that none of the instrument referred to in any of the charge was passed by the petitioner. In this connection, he also relied on the evidence of MW-2 in respect to overwriting made over the signature beneath the term O/D allowed on Exhibit-M-4 and submitted that after the enquiry officer expunged the evidence of MW-1 and MW-3 under order dated 15.1.1992 there was nothing on record to establish that petitioner signed beneath the word O/D allowed written over Exhibit-M-4. In regard to material exhibits referred to in charge nos. 2, 3, 4 learned counsel submitted that the authorities below did not consider the submission of the petitioner that those instruments were not dealt with by him as his signature over the instruments is not available in support of the allegation that it was the petitioner who cleared the same for being passed or being purchased. 8. Having perused the enquiry report and the two impugned orders dated 15.7.1993 and 11.2.1994, Annexures-5, 6, I am satisfied that there is no material on the record of the enquiry officer to establish that it was the petitioner who granted over draft facility or purchased the instruments from the party concerned, although there was no fund in the account of the party. There being no material to support the charge punishment imposed on the petitioner appears to be mere ipse dixit of the enquiry officer, disciplinary and the appellate authority. In such view of the matter, I have no option but to quash the punishment order dated 15.7.1993 and appellate 11.2.1994, Annexures-5, 6, which is accordingly, quashed.