JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. - The petitioner, while working as Field Officer, Judum Branch of Cuttack Gramya Bank, faced a departmental proceeding and having been found guilty of the charges, was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority on 20.6.2003 in Annexure-23 and his departmental appeal against the order of punishment was also dismissed on 21.11.2003 in Annexure-25. This writ application has been filed challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexre-23 as well as the appellate authority in Annexure-25. 2. The petitioner faced eight charges in the departmental proceeding, which are as follows :- 1. He created serious indiscipline in the Bank and misled others to work against the Bank without any reason for the same and thereby violated Regulation 19 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers & Employees Service Regulation-2000. 2. He did not obey the instructions of the higher authority to attend to an urgent work in Bank's exigencies and thereby violated Regulation 17 of the Regulation-2000. 3. He as an officer has illegally joined hands with the Workmen Union (Karmachari Sangha) and instigated them to make an agitation/dharana against the Bank's management in the name of Joint Coordination Committee without having any charter of demands/issues either from the Officers Association or from the Workmen Union and thereby violated Regulation 19 and 31 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 4. He was absenting himself from duty and overstaying his leave and thereby violated Regulation 22 of the aforesaid Regulation 2000. 5. He was neglecting his office work and keeping important official matter pending deliberately. He was neglecting branch reconciliation work and follow-up of old high value sundry debtor entries of branches like Panchupalli branch despite repeated reminders to him. He was hiding important sundry debtor correspondences in his custody and was not working on it. He has not acted honestly, sincerely and faithfully in his work and thereby violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 6. He was neglecting his office work by taking frequent leave and at times over staying his leave despite counselling, advises and warning to him and thereby violated the Regulations 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 7. He has not acted honestly, sincerely and faithfully in his work and thereby violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 6. He was neglecting his office work by taking frequent leave and at times over staying his leave despite counselling, advises and warning to him and thereby violated the Regulations 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 7. He was leaving office without obtaining prior permission or informing anyone in office and not obeying the Bank's rules and regulations and behaving in an indiscip1ined manner which is unbecoming on the part of an officer and thereby violated Regulations 17, 19 and 22 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. 8. He remained absent unauthorisedly from 24.2.2003 onwards despite repeated calls to him to join back in duty in Bank's exigencies and thereby violated Regulations 22 of the aforesaid Regulation-2000. In course of inquiry, around twelve documents were exhibited bearing Nos.1 to 11 and 11 (A). Relying on these documents, the inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of eight charges and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority without issuing a second notice to show cause, passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board. 3. Shri G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to Annexures-1 and 2 series. With reference to the same, it was contended by Shri Dora, the learned Senior Counsel that on 29.11.2002 under Annexure-1, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges containing four charges. Similarly several other employees such as Shri Rajnikanta Das, Shri Pranab Pati and Shri Sudhansu Mohan Rout and some others were also served with charge memos containing exactly similar charges on the very same day i.e. 29.11.2002. The petitioner and rest of the employees, who were served with similar charges, submitted written statement of defence and promised the management to render best services for development of the Bank. Except the petitioner, rest of the employees were let off with a warning, whereas no order was passed so far as petitioner is concerned. Later on, these four charges were added to another set of four charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in respect of eight charges. Except the petitioner, rest of the employees were let off with a warning, whereas no order was passed so far as petitioner is concerned. Later on, these four charges were added to another set of four charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in respect of eight charges. According to Shri Dora, the learned Senior Counsel, like others the petitioner should have been let off with a warning so far as the first four charges are concerned and the proceeding could be initiated for the rest of the charges i.e. Charge No.5 to Charge No.8. This procedure was not adopted by the opposite parties purposefully with a sole aim to get rid of the petitioner. Referring to the inquiry report, it was also contended by Shri Dora, the learned Senior Counsel that the Inquiry Officer has not at all discussed anything with regard to charges and only with reference to one or two documents produced by the management, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. This clearly shows non-application of mind by the inquiry officer. It was further contended by Shri Dora that in course of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was served with notice for appearance one day after the due date fixed by the inquiry officer and as such, he had no occasion to appear before the inquiry officer on those days and, therefore, for all practical purposes, report of the inquiry officer is an ex parte report without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court to the orders of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it was contended that the petitioner was not served with a second show cause notice before the punishment was imposed and his past conduct which did not form part of the charges, was taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing penalty of dismissal from service, which is not permissible under law. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank in his reply to the submissions made by Shri Dora, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 29.11.2002, the petitioner and some other employees were served with charge memos containing exactly similar charges. Except the petitioner, rest of the employees repented for their conduct and, accordingly, they were let off with warning. Except the petitioner, rest of the employees repented for their conduct and, accordingly, they were let off with warning. The petitioner in his reply only admitted to cooperate in development of the Bank but had no repentance for his conduct. Therefore, the petitioner was treated differently. So far as report of the inquiry officer is concerned, it was contended by Shri Mishra that the charges could only be proved on the basis of documents and the relevant documents in support of each charge were perused by the inquiry officer and on being satisfied, the inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Therefore, contention of Shri Dora, that the inquiry officer did not apply his mind is not correct. Shri Mishra also contended that under the regulations of the Bank, there is no provision for issuance of second show cause notice before imposing a punishment and the past conduct of the petitioner was not the basis on which the order of punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed. The punishment was imposed on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner for which he had been found guilty. 4. Admittedly, on 29.11.2002 the petitioner and several others were served with charge memos containing exactly similar four charges. The petitioner in his reply requested to exonerate him of the charges and assured the Bank to render best of his service for development of the Bank. The other employees in their reply regretted for their act and assured the Bank to render best service for development of the Bank. We find no difference between the stand taken by the petitioner and other employees. But the other employees, who faced proceeding with similar charges were let off with a warning, whereas the petitioner was directed to face a departmental proceeding in respect of eight charges including four charges which had been framed against him on 29.11.2002. Therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated to the above extent. 5. So far as departmental proceeding is concerned, from Annexure17, it appears that the inquiry officer fixed the date to conduct the inquiry on 29.4.2003 at 11 A.M. But notice of the said date for inquiry was sent to the petitioner on 22nd April, 2003. The petitioner did not appear in the said date and the next date was fixed to 2.5.2003 and notice thereof was sent by the inquiry officer on 29.4.2003. The petitioner did not appear in the said date and the next date was fixed to 2.5.2003 and notice thereof was sent by the inquiry officer on 29.4.2003. On 2.5.2003, the petitioner did not appear and the next date was fixed to 5.5.2003. Notice of fixation of the said date was intimated to the petitioner by the inquiry officer in Annexure-19 on 2nd May 2003. The stand of the petitioner is that he received all the three letters after the date to which inquiry had been fixed and, therefore, had no occasion to appear before the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer thereafter submitted inquiry report on 10.5.2003. Twelve documents were produced before the inquiry officer and only with reference to the said documents, the inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. One or two examples of the finding of the inquiry officer would indicate the manner in which the entire matter has been dealt with. 6. So far as charge No.1 is concerned, finding of the inquiry officer is as follows :- "The P.O. has exhibited ME-4 in support of the above charge. I have examined the same along with the reply dated 16.12.2002 of CSO and held that Charge No.1 as proved." Similarly in respect of Charge No.2, following is the finding :- "The P.O. has exhibited document ME-11 A in support of the above charge. I have examined the same and hold that Charge No.2 as proved." Similar findings had been rendered by the inquiry officer in respect of all the charges. The above findings clearly indicate total non-application of mind by the inquiry officer. While holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the inquiry officer even in respect of the relevant documents produced by the presenting officer. 7. So far as non-service of second show cause notice to the petitioner is concerned, it was admitted by Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the Bank that no such notice was served as there is no provision for service of such notice under the relevant regulations. So far as the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are concerned, it is clear from paragraph-7 of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and paragr-aph-7 of the order passed by the appellate authority, that the past record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration. So far as the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are concerned, it is clear from paragraph-7 of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and paragr-aph-7 of the order passed by the appellate authority, that the past record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration. The disciplinary authority in paragraph7 of the order of punishment has observed that the past record of charge-sheeted officer is very bad and the charge-sheeted officer was also earlier charge-sheeted on 8.1.1991 for his disobedience, indiscipline and riotous behaviour. The appellate authority in paragraph-7 of the order passed by it, has observed that the past records of Shri Kar (the petitioner) was observed by the appellate authority and it was found that he was a serious offender and even the past Chairman, Dr. P.N. Choudhury was hackled by him and an F.I.R. was lodged by Dr. Choudhury against the petitioner in the Police Station on 19.4.1990. Such records were also available in the office file. Therefore, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority took note of the past conduct of the petitioner, but he was not given notice, thereof and as such he had no occasion to meet the same. 8. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. Raj Pal Singh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783, the apex Court held that when charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. Our findings earlier that in respect of first four charges, the petitioner had been treated differently find support from the above decision. In the case of Babaji Charan Rout Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 1981 (3) SLR 189, this Court held that the past conduct if utilized for implicating a major punishment, the charge-sheeted officer must be given an opportunity to make his submission in support of the past conduct. Admittedly, in the present case, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity. Similar was the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore Vrs. K. Manche Gowda reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 506 . 9. Admittedly, in the present case, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity. Similar was the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore Vrs. K. Manche Gowda reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 506 . 9. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 to substantiate his contention in all cases, where the inquiry report is not furnished, the Court should not mechanically set aside the punishment order. Only when the Court finds that furnishing of report would have made a difference to the result of the case, it should set aside the punishment order. This judgment cited by Shri Mishra may not have much relevance to the present case considering his own submission that there was no provision in the regulation to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner before imposing punishment. 10. So far as the inquiry report is concerned, from Annexure-22, we find that the petitioner had given reply to the inquiry report and, therefore, question of non-supply of copy of the inquiry report does not arise in this case. Shri Mishra also placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. V.S. Sandhu reported in AIR 2009 SC 161 and submitted that if the Court finds any fault in the inquiry proceeding, it will be appropriate on the part of the Court to set aside the order of punishment and direct reinstatement and the Court should also direct the inquiry to continue from the state, where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. 11. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the Bank also relied on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Bank of India and others Vrs. T. Jogram reported in (2007) 7 SCC 236 wherein it was held that when there were no allegations of procedural irregularities or illegalities, it is inappropriate on the part of the Court to interfere. The other decisions cited by Shri Mishra, are, more or less, in the same light as the above decisions. T. Jogram reported in (2007) 7 SCC 236 wherein it was held that when there were no allegations of procedural irregularities or illegalities, it is inappropriate on the part of the Court to interfere. The other decisions cited by Shri Mishra, are, more or less, in the same light as the above decisions. The only other decision on which much reliance was placed, by Shri Mishra is the case of State Bal)k of India of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 . Referring to the said decision, it was contended by Shri Mishra that the substantiate provision is required to be complied with, but the procedural provision is not substantial or mandatory in character. Therefore if no prejudice is caused to the person proceeded against, there should be no interference from the Court and substantial compliance of the provision is enough. 12. As held earlier in respect of the first charge, the petitioner has been treated differently and, therefore, is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra). Action of the management in treating the petitioner differently amounts to discrimination so far as departmental proceeding is concerned. Admittedly the proceeding had been fixed to three dates i.e. 29.4.2003, 2.5.2003 and 5.5.2003. Though notice of the said date had been issued to the petitioner in Annexures 17, 18 and 19, the same were received by the petitioner after the aforesaid date on which the inquiry had been fixed for hearing. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner for not being in a position to attend the inquiry on the above three dates. Without giving any further opportunity, the inquiry officer concluded the above proceeding and submitted his report on 10.5.2003. Therefore, it is clear from the record that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding. As held earlier, the inquiry officer also did not assign any reason whatsoever for finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and only with reference to some documents, findings have been rendered without assigning any reason. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority also took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make his submission in respect of his past conduct. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority also took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make his submission in respect of his past conduct. All these deficiencies and irregularities found in the inquiry make the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as ~ell as the order passed by the appellate authority are not sustainable in law. 13. We, therefore, allow the writ application, set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in Annexures-23 and 25 and remit the matter back to conduct a de-novo enquiry in respect of charge Nos.5 to 8 and proceed accordingly in accordance with law. I agree. Application allowed.