JUDGMENT B.K.NAYAK, J.-The Petitioner, who was working as Field Officer in the Kalinga Gramya Bank, Naharana Branch, previously known as Cuttack Gramya Bank, has filed this writ application challenging the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 21.6.2003 (Annexure-18) and also the affirming Appellate Order Dated 21.11.2003 vide Annexure-19 with a further prayer to direct reinstatement of his service with all consequential service benefits. 2. It may be mentioned here that earlier this writ application had been disposed of vide Judgment dated 13.4.2009 quashing the original and Appellate orders of punishment under Annexures-18 and 19 with direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service with 50% back wages, giving a liberty to the Opp. Parties-management to go for denovo disciplinary enquiry. The Opp. Party-Bank challenged the said Judgment by filing Civil Appeal No.397 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No.21235 of 2009) before the Apex Court. By Order Dated 15.01.2010 the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the earlier Judgment of this Court and remitted the matter directing this Court to decide the writ application afresh on merits. This is how the Writ Petition was again heard. 3. The case of the Petitioner, as per averments made in the writ application is that while working as an Officer in the Head Office of the Cuttack Gramya Bank, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with statement of allegations and articles of charges under letter dated 22.03.2003 of the disciplinary authority. (Annexure-9) with a direction to submit his written statement of defence within seven days. The charges were served through a Special Messenger while the Petitioner was on leave. The charges against the Petitioner read as follows: "I) Sri Lenka did not work as per instruction given to him by the General Manager. He was instructed to exclusively look after deposit mobilization and to submit a weekly progress report. He did not function sincerely and properly and defied higher Officer's instructions. Thus, he violated Regulation 17 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000. II) Sri Lenka did not obtain prior sanction of his leave nor informed in advance about his absence of duty. He did not resume his duty in bank's exigencies during Annual Closing in spite of two Telegrams and three letters served to him. Thus, he violated Regulation 17 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000. II) Sri Lenka did not obtain prior sanction of his leave nor informed in advance about his absence of duty. He did not resume his duty in bank's exigencies during Annual Closing in spite of two Telegrams and three letters served to him. There by Sri Lanka has intentionally not carried out higher Official's order in violation of Service Regulation 17 and 19 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000. III) Sri Lenka has remained on sudden leave without any prior information/ sanction in the month of February/March 03 during Annual Closing work despite repeated instructions to him through Telephone/Telegram and letters. Sri Lenka's above action is detrimental to the interest of the Bank, thereby violated Regulation 22 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000. IV) Sri Lenka had sanctioned and disbursed four Gold Loan accounts at Brahmapura Branch where the pledged ornaments were spurious in nature and could not be auctioned. These loan accounts had become NPA and the bank suffered nearly a loss of Rs.18,300 plus unapplied interest." 4. On 23.03.2003 the Petitioner extended his leave on medical ground and by his letter dated 26.3.2003 under Annexure-10 requested the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.2 to grant 15 days further time for filing written statement of defence. On 28.3.2003 the Petitioner submitted his preliminary written statement (Annexure-11) stating therein that he had not received any paper/documents relating to the charges as a result of which he was not in a position to admit or deny the charges in categorical terms and therefore requested for supply of papers/documents on the basis of which the charges were framed. It was further indicated therein that in letter No.CAD/HO/1630/2002-03 dated 05.03.2003 the General Manager alleged that he (Petitioner) was accountable for four numbers of Gold Loan Accounts which turned NPA and the Petitioner was advised to ensure that the accounts were regularised by 31.3.2003. Surprisingly he has been charged for disbursement of gold loans keeping spurious gold. The Petitioner in the said preliminary defence statement undertook to submit his written statement of defence after receipt of the papers/documents relating to the charges. Surprisingly he has been charged for disbursement of gold loans keeping spurious gold. The Petitioner in the said preliminary defence statement undertook to submit his written statement of defence after receipt of the papers/documents relating to the charges. It is stated that without supplying the relevant papers/documents, vide notification dated 19.04.2003 an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer sent letter dated 22.04.2003 directing the Petitioner to appear before him on 30.04.2003 at 11.00 A.M. vide Annexure-12 series. However, the aforesaid letter dated 22.4.2003 of the Enquiry Officer was received by the Petitioner on 01.05.2003, i.e., one day after the date fixed for enquiry. On receipt of the Enquiry Officer's letter the Petitioner on 02.05.2003 sent a representation (Annexure-13) informing the Enquiry Officer that he received the letter on 01.05.2003 and, therefore could not appear before him on the date fixed, i.e. 30.04.2003. Again on 08.05.2003 the Petitioner received letter dated 30.04.2003 of the Enquiry Officer wherein he had been directed to attend the enquiry on 05.05.2003. It was therefore not possible on the part of the Petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 05.05.2003 which was accordingly intimated by the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-14 series. Thereafter letter dated 09.06.2003 of the Inquiry Officer was received by the Petitioner along with written brief and the proceedings dated 08.05.2003, 28.05.2003 and 30.04.2003 indicating that the Petitioner deliberately did not attend the enquiry fixed to 30.04.2003, 05.5.2003, 08.05.2003 and 28.5.2003 for which the Enquiry Officer permitted the proceeding to continue ex-parte on 28.05.2003, on which date the Presenting Officer (in short 'the P.O.') submitted ten numbers of documents on behalf of the management marked ME-01 to ME-10 and proceeded with the case through self examination and accordingly the enquiry was completed on 28.05.2003 with a direction to submit written brief/ statement, if any, by the P.O, and the Petitioner within 12.06.2003 and that the P.O. submitted his written brief on 07.06.2003. The letter also indicated that xerox copies of the written brief submitted by the P.O. along with the ten numbers of documents submitted by him in the enquiry were sent to the Petitioner, who was requested, to submit his written brief/ statement within 12.06.2003 positively failing which enquiry report would be submitted to the disciplinary authority as per rules. The letter also indicated that xerox copies of the written brief submitted by the P.O. along with the ten numbers of documents submitted by him in the enquiry were sent to the Petitioner, who was requested, to submit his written brief/ statement within 12.06.2003 positively failing which enquiry report would be submitted to the disciplinary authority as per rules. The said letter of the Enquiry Officer along with the enquiry proceedings dated 08.05.2003 and 28.05.2003 and 30.04.2003 have been annexed as Annexure-15. It is, however, averred that copies of ten numbers documents produced by the P.O. during enquiry as referred to in the letter of the Enquiry Officer dated 09.06.2003 were not sent along with the proceedings of the enquiry. it is stated that the said letter dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure-15) was received by the Petitioner on 23.06.2003 as apparent from the postal acknowledgement for which it was practically impossible on the part of the Petitioner to submit his written brief by 12.06.2003. However, as it appears on 12.06.2003 itself the Inquiry Officer submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, who by his letter dated 13.06.2003 under Annexure-16 communicated the enquiry report to the Petitioner with a direction to submit his comments within a week. The said letter of the disciplinary authority was received by the Petitioner on 25.6.2003 and before that by his Order Dated 21.6.2003 the disciplinary authority dismissed the Petitioner from service and the letter communicating such order of dismissal vide Annexure-18 was also received by the Petitioner on 25.06.2003. 5. Challenging the order of dismissal from service the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority within the stipulated time, but the said appeal was dismissed and the order of disciplinary authority was confirmed vide Order Dated 22.11.2003 of the Appellate authority under Annexure-19. 6. It is averred that being the General Secretary of Kalinga Gramya Bank Officers Association, the Petitioner brought to the notice of the authority the genuine grievances of the Association members time and again in spite of caution by the Chairman-Opp. Party No.2 to the Petitioner to refrain from Association activities for which due to personal bias and out of malafide motive the Petitioner has been dismissed from service without giving him opportunity to file his written statement of defence and without supplying him the necessary documents and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Party No.2 to the Petitioner to refrain from Association activities for which due to personal bias and out of malafide motive the Petitioner has been dismissed from service without giving him opportunity to file his written statement of defence and without supplying him the necessary documents and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. It is also stated and submitted that non-providing of reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to answer the charges and to defend himself is violative of Regulation 38 (1) (b) (v) (c) of the Kalinga Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation (in short 'the Regulation'). It is also stated that non-providing to the Petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges violated mandate of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 7. It is further submitted that Charge No.4 against the Petitioner is not only based on no records as because the Petitioner not only handed over the gold ornaments along with the accounts to his successors but also such accounts were duly verified by his successor who found that the gold were genuine which would be evident from the charge reports with regard to taking over the charge by his successor and, therefore, any subsequent detection about the spurious nature of gold ornaments cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. It is also stated that keeping in view the nature of charges which are said to have been proved the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate and excessive. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties wherein it is stated that the domestic enquiry was conducted and the final order of punishment was passed in due observance of proper procedure laid down in the Regulation and there has been no violation of principle of nature justice. It is further stated that considering the gravity of the charges of misconduct, viz., gross financial irregularities, violation of delegated discretionary power and wilful disobedience of the orders of the authority, it cannot be said that the punishment is arbitrary or disproportionate. It is further stated that considering the gravity of the charges of misconduct, viz., gross financial irregularities, violation of delegated discretionary power and wilful disobedience of the orders of the authority, it cannot be said that the punishment is arbitrary or disproportionate. It is stated that though summons (notices) were sent to the Petitioner by postal certificate of posting, personal services (Peon Book), Registered/Speed Post and by reputed private Couriers also, the Petitioner falsely stated to have not received the summons to attend the enquiry proceeding in time and that the disputed questions of fact relating to service of notices on the Petitioner cannot be considered in the writ jurisdiction. It is also that letter dated 22.04.2003 was sent to the Petitioner to his residence in Cuttack and to his Branch under certificate of posting, through Peon/ Speed Post. While by post it was sent on 25.4.2003, the Peon went to his house with the said letter on 23.04.2003 and 24.04.2003 and reported that the Petitioner was absent on those dates. It is stated that the different postal receipts and the Courier receipts would go to show that the Petitioner managed to delay the service of postal letters and refused the letter sent through DTDC Courier. It is further stated that when special business target was given to the Petitioner, in order to shirk his responsibility and to avoid the work entrusted to him, he deferred the work, on one ground on the other and ultimately, submitted leave application from 19.02.2003 and went on extending the leave on medical ground without any acceptable medical certificate only with a view to avoid the work which is nothing but wilful disobedience of the orders of the authority. The leave applied for by him was not granted by the authorities but refused. The Petitioner having failed to perform the work entrusted to him, the management called for report and explanation from him and show cause was issued as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. Annexure-6 reveals that despite issue of reminder to submit the deposit mobilisation report and to discuss with the General Manager, the Petitioner did not accomplish the same, but on the other hand, went on procrastinating on one pretext or another. Annexure-6 reveals that despite issue of reminder to submit the deposit mobilisation report and to discuss with the General Manager, the Petitioner did not accomplish the same, but on the other hand, went on procrastinating on one pretext or another. It is stated that the involvement of the Petitioner in the irregularities in the gold loan amounts came to the notice of the Bank much later and the spuriousness of the gold came to light when policy of auctioning the gold was adopted for recovering the loan amount. The allegation that documents relied upon by the management were not supplied to the Petitioner has been refuted and it is stated that the documents were not sent to the Petitioner under letter dated 09.06.2003. Lastly, it is submitted that the enquiry was conducted giving adequate opportunity to the Petitioner and as per provision of Cuttack Gramya Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2000 and that the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority have rightly found the Petitioner guilty and accordingly imposed just punishment. 9. In the enquiry report forwarded to the Petitioner under Annexure-16, the Enquiry Officer has stated that enquiry was conducted on 30.04.2003, 05.03.2003 (date is wrongly mentioned in place of 05.05.2003), 08.05.2003, 28.05.2003 and notices for holding the enquiry oh the above four dates have been served on the C.S.O. (Petitioner) properly giving him sufficient time and opportunity to attend the enquiry. At the same time, it is stated that the notices sent through, speed post or through registered post to the Petitioner to attend the enquiry on different dates were received by him after the scheduled enquiry dates but however notices sent through courier fixing the dates of enquiry to 08.05.2003 and 28.05.2003 were refused by him. The Enquiry Officer has therefore, concluded that the Petitioner in connivance with the postal authorities received the enquiry notices late deliberately in order to avoid the enquiry. This conclusion, in our view, is purely imaginary and based on conjecture rather than on any material. It has also been held by the .Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner acknowledged vide his letters dated 02.05.2003 and 08.05.2003 about late receipt of enquiry notices and, therefore, he was aware about the enquiry proceeding and, therefore, if he would have intended to attend the enquiry he could have easily and comfortably done so by communicating from his side. It has also been held by the .Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner acknowledged vide his letters dated 02.05.2003 and 08.05.2003 about late receipt of enquiry notices and, therefore, he was aware about the enquiry proceeding and, therefore, if he would have intended to attend the enquiry he could have easily and comfortably done so by communicating from his side. This reasoning of the Enquiry Officer is wholly fallacious because fixing of dates of enquiry of a proceeding is at the discretion of the Enquiry Officer and not at the option of the delinquent. Therefore, giving reasoning as aforesaid and coming to the conclusion on that basis that the Petitioner was duly served with notices and given adequate opportunity to defend himself cannot be accepted. As against the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties that the Petitioner managed with the postal staff to receive the notices sent by post belatedly, which we have already rejected, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the endorsements of refusal on the two envelops of notices sent through private courier, DTDC are also managed by the Bank authorities without actual delivery of the notices to the Petitioner as the said courier service provider is the regular service provider of the Bank in question. On perusal of the copies of two envelops returned to the Bank by the courier filed under Annexure-B series and E to the counter affidavit, it is found that they do not bear the signature of any witness. We therefore hold that there was no que service of notice by the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner about the dates fixed for enquiry. 10. During the inquiry the Presenting Officer filed ten documents which were exhibited as ME-01 to ME-10 but did not examine any witness. On the basis of the exhibited documents the Enquiry Officer stated that the charges against the Petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority passed the final order holding that sufficient opportunity was given to the C.S.O. in the departmental proceeding and that the charges levelled against him have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the exhibited documents the Enquiry Officer stated that the charges against the Petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority passed the final order holding that sufficient opportunity was given to the C.S.O. in the departmental proceeding and that the charges levelled against him have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by him that the charges involved serious financial irregularities committed by the Petitioner in gold loan accounts by keeping spurious gold ornaments as pledge as a result of which the bank sustained financial loss of Rs.18,300 and further that the Petitioner was careless, negligent and disobedient to official instructions and did not join his duty despite repeated reminders sent to him by the General Manager and Senior Manager and did not attend to his duties in mobilizing deposit and neglected in submitting weekly reports to the General Manager. The disciplinary authority also took into account the past misconduct of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner was earlier charge-sheeted on 11.01.2000 and cautioned by the Board of Directors of the Bank and was also once earlier warned for his misconduct. The disciplinary authority therefore concluded that the bank has lost confidence on the Petitioner and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer passed order dismissing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. In appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Appellate authority confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. 11. Apart from the fact that there was no due service of notice by the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner about the dates fixed for enquiry, undisputedly the Petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet, by his letter dated 26.03.2003 under Annexure-10 asked for fifteen days further time for filing his written statement of defence and by his letter dated 28.03.2003, Annexure-11 inter alia asked for supply of papers/documents basing on which the charges were framed in order to facilitate him to submit his written statement. Apparently, there was neither any reply to his aforesaid letters nor the documents on the basis of which charges were framed were supplied to him, which is nothing but violation of principle of natural justice. Non-supply of documents by the authorities definitely handicapped the Petitioner in raising proper defence to the charges framed. It has been held in the case of Government of A.P. and others v. A. Venkata Raidu; (2007) 1 SCC 338 . 9. Non-supply of documents by the authorities definitely handicapped the Petitioner in raising proper defence to the charges framed. It has been held in the case of Government of A.P. and others v. A. Venkata Raidu; (2007) 1 SCC 338 . 9. xxx xxx. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held." 12. In the ex-parte enquiry ten documents vide ME-01 to ME-10 were led into evidence by the management. It is to be seen as to how these documents were considered in proof of charges. ME-01, ME-04, ME-05 and ME-07 have been referred to by the Enquiry Officer in proof of Charge No.1. Similarly, ME-02, ME-06, ME-08, ME-09 and ME-10 were relied upon to prove Charge No.2. In support of Charge No.3, the Enquiry Officer has stated that the PO submitted ME-02, ME-06, ME-08, ME-09 and ME-10. In proof of Charge No.4 only ME-03 was pressed into service. It is worthy to note that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority, nor the Appellate authority has referred to the contents of the aforesaid documents in ME-01 to ME-10 and appreciated the same, except stating that they prove the charges. On the direction of this Court the Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties has produced the record of the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the Petitioner. The documents except ME-02 and ME-03 are some letters and telegrams addressed to the Petitioner by the authorities. ME-02 is the leave application of the Petitioner along with Hospital outdoor ticket with prescription of some medicines. Except ME-03 the other documents have been relied upon in proof of Charge Nos.1 to 3, though the copies of those documents were never supplied to the Petitioner in order to enable him to have his say on the documents. We are conscious of the legal position that in exercise of power of review the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence like an Appellate Court. But in the instant case evidence having not been appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority it is felt necessary to look to the contents of ME-03. We are conscious of the legal position that in exercise of power of review the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence like an Appellate Court. But in the instant case evidence having not been appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority it is felt necessary to look to the contents of ME-03. ME-03 is a copy of the letter dated 28.3.2003 purportedly sent to the General Manager in the Head Office of the Bank by the Manager, Cuttack Gramya Bank, Brahamapura Branch. In response to the head office letter No.CAD/HO/1564/02-03 dated 19.02.2003. In ME-03, it is indicated that four numbers of NPA gold loan accounts outstanding at the Brahamapura Branch office were sanctioned by the Petitioner, who was the Ex-Manager of the Branch, and the said accounts are fictitious in nature and some of them are spurious, which has been reported to the head office. It is further clarified in the said letter that it was the prime duty of Sri Adwait Swain, Ex-Manager of the Branch in whose period the accounts were treated as, NPA. It is further indicated in the said letter that as per the Branch observation both Mr. Lenka (Petitioner) and Mr. Swain are to be equally accountable for the gold loan accounts. Lastly in the letter the four account numbers and the outstanding dues totally amounting to Rs.18,300 has been indicated. Though ME-03 was sent in response to head office letter No. CAD/HO/1564/ 02-03 dated 19.02.2003, the said heat office letter has not been led into evidence in the enquiry. Further even though it is indicated in the letter that an earlier report was sent to the head office about the fictitious nature of the gold loan account, the said report is also not forthcoming. There is no indication in the letter as to when the pledged gold ornaments were put to auction and which of them was found to be spurious so that no auction could be conducted in respect thereof. Evidently neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has referred to the contents of ME-03 and given any finding whether the contents prove Charge No.4. Evidently neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has referred to the contents of ME-03 and given any finding whether the contents prove Charge No.4. In similar circumstances in the decision reported in (2012) (I) OLR 180; Manoj Kumar Kar v. Board of Directors, Kalinga Gramya Bank, where the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority held the charge proved merely stating that they examined the document produced by the P.O., this Court held that no reasons having been assigned the finding suffer from total non-application of mind. 13. I is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that although under his letter vide Annexure-16 the disciplinary authority merely communicated the enquiry report to the Petitioner with a direction to submit his comments within a week, which was received late by the Petitioner, but with regard to the findings of the disciplinary authority along with the proposed punishment no second show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 11 SCC 266 ; Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank and others v. Devi Sahai has submitted that issuance of second show cause notice is not necessary unless there is any specific provision to that effect in relevant rules or regulations. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner it is stated that no procedure for conducting disciplinary proceeding has been provided in the Regulations and on the other hand, NABARD, which is the controlling authority of the Regional Rural Banks, issued guidelines to conduct the disciplinary proceeding and on the basis of the said guidelines, disciplinary proceedings are conducted by the present Bank, Clause-20 of NABARD guidelines which has been filed as Annexure-21 to the rejoinder affidavit clearly stipulates that having decided the punishment the disciplinary authority should issue a show cause notice to the official concerned and in that notice the official should be advised for the reasons on which the authority has come to the conclusion that the official is guilty and to show cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him. It has also been brought to our notice that such second show cause notices have been issued to delinquents in other disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authorities of the Bank indicating the proposed punishment with advice to show cause and to appear before the disciplinary authority for personal hearing on the question of proposed penalty. In such circumstances, the decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, hold that non-service of the second show cause notice to the Petitioner on the proposed punishment is a clear violation of principle of natural justice and also contrary to the procedure prescribed in the guidelines and, therefore, punishment imposed cannot be sustained. Some other decisions have been cited by the Opp. Parties, which are not necessary to be adverted to as they are not relevant for our purpose. 14. In view of our findings in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority under Annexures-18 and 19 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed and accordingly we quash the same and direct that the Petitioner be reinstated in service. In view of our findings that there was clear violation of principles of natural justice, we remit the matter back for fresh enquiry from the stage of submission of written statement of defence of the Petitioner. To cut short the delay, we direct that the Petitioner shall appear personally before the disciplinary authority on 30.03.2012, on which date copies of ME-01 to ME-10 be supplied to the Petitioner, and the disciplinary authority shall fix a date for de novo enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, or by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer if the earlier Enquiry Officer is not available, and intimate the same to the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall furnish his written statement of defence before the date fixed by the disciplinary authority for fresh enquiry. Considering the earlier submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner we direct that 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement shall be paid to the Petitioner within a month from the date of reinstatement. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. I agree.