JUDGMENT Challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary-Authority and the Appellate Authorities in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and rejecting the appeal and mercy appeal of the petitioner, who is presently more than 71 years of age and who is suffering from brain tumour (cancer) and is in the terminal stage, has filed this writ petition. 2. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service is Annexure P-l, dated 8-10-1993; the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is Annexure P-2, dated 29-6-1994; and, the mercy appeal of the petitioner is rejected, vide Annexure P-3, on 24-3-1995. 3. Apart from challenge to these three orders, petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29-3-2008 (Annexure P-27), passed by the Disciplinary Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner again after its reconsideration in pursuance to an order passed by a Bench of this Court on 3-1-2008 in Writ Petition No. 2724/1995. 4. Facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, indicate that petitioner was initially appointed in the service of the Bank in the year 1962. Respondent No. 2 is a Public Sector Bank fully owned and controlled by the "Central Government and the terms and conditions of employment in the said Bank is governed by the UCO Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Regulation'). It is the case of the petitioner that he has an unblemished service career spanning to a period of 32 years during which period he has never been punished nor any departmental action initiated against him. On the contrary, his work has been appreciated throughout and for the excellent work done, he has been awarded merit certificates and appreciation letters right from 21-2-1988, for various periods as is evident from the certificates, filed by the petitioner, vide Annexures P-4 to R-10. Be it as it may be, it is said that the petitioner, while he was functioning as Senior Manager in Rewa Branch, a charge-sheet (Annexure P-11), dated 19-11-1991 was issued to him. Apart from the petitioner, similar charge-sheets were issued to three other officers, who were working as Assistant Managers namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey. Apart from the petitioner, similar charge-sheets were issued to three other officers, who were working as Assistant Managers namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey. All the persons, including the petitioner, were alleged to have signed and issued different Bank Guarantees on various dates and it was alleged that the Bank Guarantees have been issued beyond the financial powers of the petitioner, without obtaining prior permission and approval of the Competent Authority and thereby the act committed by the petitioner and the other three officers had the effect of exposing the bank to heavy financial risk, during the period the Bank Guarantees were in operation. Even though no financial loss or liability was imposed upon the Bank on account of this act and the Bank Guarantees were not misused, but the act of issuing the Bank Guarantees beyond the financial power and without permission of the Competent Authority was said to be an act exhibiting lack of integrity, devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Bank Officer, thereby violating Regulation 3(1) of the Service Regulation. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said allegations levelled in the charge-sheet, the reply of the petitioner running to more than 62 pages, explaining the circumstances, is filed as Annexure P-12, dated 12-2-1992. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the Bank Guarantees were issued after obtaining sufficient backup security by way of mortgage and other collaterals, it was pointed out that the Bank Guarantees have not caused any financial loss, but on the contrary the bank gained by earning suitable interest and business and the Branch concerned achieved its targets, various justifications were given by the petitioner for issuing of the Bank Guarantees in his detailed reply running to more than 62 pages. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioner was that the Bank Guarantees were issued in the interest of the business and functioning of the bank after ensuring sufficient backup security, issuance of Bank Guarantees and other factors were within the knowledge of the higher authorities and as there was no financial loss caused to the bank and as no ulterior motive, mens rea or criminal culpability was established in the matter of issuing the Bank Guarantee, petitioner sought for his exoneration. 5. 5. However, holding that the reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner and the other employees like Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, were not satisfactory, a Departmental Inquiry was ordered and vide Annexure P-13, dated 21-3-1992, one Shri V.I. Velayudhan, Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi was appointed as an Inquiry Officer and one Shri Dhirendra Kurnar, Sub "Inspector, working with the Central Bureau of Investigation, was appointed as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the bank. The Inquiry Officer fixed the inquiry, vide notice (Annexure P-14) on 24-4-1992, for consideration of petitioner's defence and his submission to the charge-sheet made on 12-2-1992, and it was held that on the said date petitioner had appeared and accepted all the charges, levelled in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the inquiry was closed. The proceedings of the inquiry in this regard, i.e., the notice of the inquiry (Annexure P-13); the proceedings held on 27-4-1992 (Annexure P-14); the so-called "order-sheet prepared on 27-4-1992, vide Annexure P-15; the admission of the petitioner dated 27-4-1992 was taken on record by the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry closed by the Inquiry Officer mainly on the ground that the petitioner having accepted the charges levelled against him, no further inquiry is to be held. However, after holding the inquiry to be closed, it is seen from the records that a detailed inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer and based on the report submitted, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure P-1 on 8-10-1993. Departmental appeal and the mercy appeal fifed by the petitioner having been rejected, vide Annexures P-2 and P-3, on 29-6-1994 and 24-3-1995 respectively, petitioner challenged the action before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2724/1995 and when the matter came up for hearing after about 8 years on 3-1-2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of the petitioner a discriminatory attitude was adopted in as much as petitioner has been dismissed from service whereas in the case of other three employees, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, only a punishment of censure/warning or stoppage of increment was issued and, therefore, there has been discrimination in the matter of imposing punishment. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of imposition of punishment. On reconsideration, the claim having been rejected again, vide Annexure P-27, on 29-3-2008, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the aforesaid documents made a four fold submission in support of his contention. His first contention was that when the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, vide Annexure P-12, petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet explaining each and every circumstances with regard to issuance of the Bank Guarantees, eight in number- as detailed in the charge-sheet, and his explanation and justification for the same, but when the inquiry was held the Inquiry Authority, an officer in the Central Vigilance Commission and the Presenting Officer, an Inspector of the CBI, informed the petitioner that if he admits the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet, which only pertains to issuance of the Bank Guarantee without following the due course, he would also be dealt with leniently like the other three employees, namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, and, therefore, under compulsion from the Senior Officers of the Vigilance Department and the CBI and in the absence of having any assistance from a lawyer or a defence employee, the petitioner believing the bonafide of the promise made, only admitted the charges with regard to issuance of the Bank Guarantees, but the Inquiry Officer without any further proceedings closed the inquiry on 24-4-1992 itself and it seems that a detailed inquiry report was prepared and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. It is stated that the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer to close the1 N inquiry in the manner done and treating the petitioner to have admitted all the charges, has denied reasonable opportunity of defence to the petitioner and is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, on this count it is argued that the entire action stands vitiated as the proper procedure was not followed. 7. The second ground canvassed was that from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer, it is seen that after the inquiry was closed on 24-4-1992, the Inquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report recording his findings on the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. 7. The second ground canvassed was that from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer, it is seen that after the inquiry was closed on 24-4-1992, the Inquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report recording his findings on the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. Not only was the report of the Inquiry Officer ever forwarded to the petitioner either with the show-cause notice issued or with the punishment order, but at no point of time even till date the inquiry report is not made available either to the petitioner or to this Court and the petitioner is not aware as to what is the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and what are the points considered by him and to what extent he has recorded adverse findings against the petitioner. Contending that non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner in the present case, even when the matter is fixed for final hearing before this Court, has resulted in a valuable right of the petitioner to challenge the inquiry finding being taken away, challenge is made to the impugned action mainly by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohammed Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , and it is stated that the entire action stands vitiated as the inquiry report is not given to the petitioner and is not even produced for perusal of this Court, in this writ petition. 8. The third ground of challenge is to the effect that the entire action for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is taken against the petitioner based on the recommendations of the CVC, Government of India, the punishment is imposed on the basis of insistence made by the Officers of the CVC, without independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. It is argued that the Disciplinary Authority has merely followed the dictate of the CVC and has imposed the punishment of dismissal, whereas the Disciplinary Authority had proposed a different punishment, but due to non-concurrence on the action proposed by the Disciplinary Authority by the CVC, the impugned action\is taken. It is argued that the Disciplinary Authority has merely followed the dictate of the CVC and has imposed the punishment of dismissal, whereas the Disciplinary Authority had proposed a different punishment, but due to non-concurrence on the action proposed by the Disciplinary Authority by the CVC, the impugned action\is taken. In support of this contention, Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that after the Inquiry Officer gave his finding and when the entire inquiry proceedings were closed, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure P-25, indicated to the General Manager, Vigilance Department of the Bank in Calcutta and recommended that considering the fact that other co-employees namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, who had also signed the Bank Guarantee alongwith the petitioner as Assistant Managers, have been dealt with leniently and keeping in view the fact that the bank has not suffered any financial loss, it was stated that the extreme punishment of dismissal as recommended by the CVC would not be judicious and instead a major penalty of reduction of his basic pay to the first stage in the scale, be imposed. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded this recommendation to the Head Office and the Head Office was informed by the CVC, Government of India, New Delhi that the Commission sticks by its earlier advice and acceptance of the inquiry report, for imposing punishment of dismissal from service. This communication was made by the CVC to the Head Office of the Bank at Calcutta, vide Annexure P-26, on 16-6-1992, and under the influence and directions of the CVC, it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority without application of its mind and without exercising the powers conferred upon him, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service under pressure and duress from a third agency- namely, the CVC, which according to Shri N.S. Ruprah is illegal and cannot be accepted. Accordingly, on this count the challenge to the impugned action is made. 9. Accordingly, on this count the challenge to the impugned action is made. 9. Finally, the last ground canvassed was that in the matter of imposition of penalty, petitioner has been discriminated whereas the other three co-employees namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, have been dealt with more leniently and even though no financial loss or harm to the reputation of the Bank is caused by the action of the petitioner, ignoring the 32 years of unblemished record of the petitioner, the impugned punishment is imposed, which is unsustainable. In support of the aforesaid contention, with regard to imposition of penalty and no loss being caused to the Bank, Shri N.S. Ruprah places reliance on the following judgments :- State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow, (1994) 2 SCC 537 ; Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (1983) 2 SCC 442 ; and Union of India Vs. K.A. Kittu, (2001) 1 SCC 65 . 10. Accordingly, it was argued by Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been dealt with in an arbitrary and unjust manner and now a final decision be taken by this Court either way and as the petitioner is in the death bed, it was vehemently argued by him that even if any alternate punishment is to be imposed, it be imposed by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner may not survive to see the end result if the matter is remanded back to the Bank again for consideration after such a long period qf time. Accordingly, Shri Ruprah seeks for interference into the matter. 11. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank, refutes the contentions advanced by Shri N.S. Ruprah and argued that the petitioner was a.. Senior Manager, he was duty bound to follow the Rules and Regulations governing issuance of Bank Guarantee and as the same were not followed and by totally giving a go-by to the set norms and procedures, the petitioner having acted in the manner done, his act is unbecoming of a Senior Bank Officer and, therefore, the decision taken by the bank does not warrant any consideration. It was argued by him that as per the norms and practice of the Bank, consultation has been done with the CVC and an independent decision has been taken to impose the penalty looking to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner himself having admitted the allegations levelled against him in the charge-sheet without any hesitation in the proceedings that were held on 24-4-1992, cannot now turn around and come out with a case that the action is unsustainable. It is argued that actual loss caused to the Bank is of no relevance, in normal banking practice and as the petitioner has acted in a manner, which is not approved for financial transaction in the banking industry, the action is proper and the same does not warrant any interference. It is submitted that in the case of three other co-employees namely, Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, they were holding inferior post and as the petitioner was a Senior Manager and a responsible officer, the impugned action is taken. 12. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court on 23-6-2011 in Writ Petition No. 5932/1998, Hari Narayan Shrivastava Vs. The United Commercial Bank and others, Shri Manoj Sharma submitted that no case for interference is made out. In support of his contention with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court and the fact that no indulgence is called for, he has referred to certain judgments in Paragraph 5 of his reply, which has been filed to counter the written submissions of Shri N.S. Ruprah. 13. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 14. As far as the factual assertions, as has been made by the parties are concerned, the same is not in dispute. 13. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 14. As far as the factual assertions, as has been made by the parties are concerned, the same is not in dispute. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-ll and the Article of charges therein indicate that the petitioner while functioning as Senior Manager of the Rewa Branch, in the year 1989, in active connivance with Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey is said to have signed and issued eight Bank Guarantees: four of which were issued on 20-4-1989 to Shri Satya Prakash, Shri Bhaiyalal, Shri Phoolchand and Shri Siyaram; one each on 24-3-1989, 26-5-1989, 5-5-1989 and 24-6-1989 to Shri Jagdish Prasad, Shri Virendra Singh, Shri H.N. Singh and Shri Bhanupratap. It is stated that the petitioner issued and signed these Bank Guarantees for huge amounts ranging from Rs. 3 Lacs to Rs. 37.31 Lacs, even though these persons were not having any business dealings with the Bank, by not following the laid down norms and conditions, as a result the Bank had suffered in as much as the Bank was exposed to financial risk. It is, however, indicated, that the Bank Guarantees were issued obtaining adequate back up sureties. It is stated that the Bank Guarantees were issued to facilitate forgery, which could have been committed by the persons to whom the Bank Guarantee was issued in the manner done. Petitioner denied the charges and clearly pointed out that the Bank Guarantees were issued after obtaining adequate sureties, the Bank Guarantees were signed by the petitioner and other three officers and the allegation of committing forgery or improper or illegal motive in issuing Bank Guarantee so also the active connivance with Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey was denied by the petitioner. Be it as it may be, when the inquiry was held, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 24-4-1992 and submitted his admission in writing before the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, an Inspector in the CBI, and it seems that the Inquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, based on which the impugned action is taken. 15. 15. As far as the question with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice and not conducting a proper Departmental Inquiry is concerned, it is clear that even though the inquiry was being conducted by a Senior Officer of the Central Vigilance Commission and the case of the Bank was being presented before the Inquiry Officer by an Inspector of the CBI, the fact remains that when the inquiry was held on 24-4-1992, the petitioner simply stated that he admitted the charges levelled against him and under these circumstances, the inquiry was closed. Even though petitioner has alleged that he was made to accept the charges on the basis' of use of undue influence or promise or that he was under the threat of the Presenting Officer of the inquiry is concerned, even after the inquiry was closed on 24-4-1992 till the impugned action is taken petitioner at no point of time complained to any of the authorities with regard to the undue influence, coercion er pressure tactics adopted by the Presenting Officer or the Inquiry Officer. "Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the inquiry was not properly conducted or that the principles of natural justice were not followed in as much as the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity cannot be accepted.- It is a case, where the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him and the inquiry was closed by the Inquiry Officer and there is nothing to show that in closing the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has violated any of the norms, statutory or otherwise. 16. However, the second ground canvassed by the petitioner with regard to the report of the Inquiry Officer being not submitted to him and not being available even in the record of this Court till date, is a matter, which requires consideration. 16. However, the second ground canvassed by the petitioner with regard to the report of the Inquiry Officer being not submitted to him and not being available even in the record of this Court till date, is a matter, which requires consideration. Even though the principle relied upon by Shri N.S. Ruprah in the case of Mohammed Ramzan Khan (supra), may not apply, but when an inquiry is conducted and when the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt against a delinquent employee and submits a report with regard to the activities or the allegations of misconduct alleged against a delinquent employee to the Disciplinary Authority and when the Disciplinary Authority takes action on the said inquiry report and imposes a punishment, even if the delinquent employee is not entitled to the inquiry report either before or at the stage of imposition of punishment, but after a final decision is taken when an employee is required to challenge the final action, he is entitled to know as to what is the finding recorded against him by the Inquiry Officer, what are the reasons and justification given by the Inquiry Officer for holding him guilty and what are the observations made by the; Inquiry Officer against the employee and on what basis. Atleast for the purposed of challenging the final action and defending himself against the final action, the employee concerned is entitled to know as to what is the finding recorded against him and accepted by the. Disciplinary Authority, and atleast before a challenge can be made by the employee to the said inquiry or the action taken on the basis of that finding by the Disciplinary Authority, supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a requirement as per the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. K.K. Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 494 , may be taken note of. In this regard, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. K.K. Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 494 , may be taken note of. In this case, after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Mohammed Ramzan Khan (supra), and the subsequent judgments even though it has been held by the Supreme Court that at the stage of imposing the punishment or before taking a final action even though the delinquent employee may not be entitled to the findings of the Inquiry Officer or the inquiry report, but the employee has a right to represent against the findings in the inquiry report and prove his innocence and to represent against the finding in the report and denial of the report will make the final order vulnerable. In Paragraph 32 of the aforesaid judgment, the following observations are made :- "32. Thus, the right to represent against the findings in the enquiry report to prove one's innocence is distinct from the right to represent against the proposed penalty. It is only the second right to represent against the proposed penalty, which is taken away by the 42nd Amendment. The right to represent against the findings in the report is not disturbed in any way. In fact, any denial thereof will make the final order vulnerable." (Emphasis supplied) And, it is held finally that by not giving the inquiry report, the respondent is denied an opportunity to represent against the finding and this is a vital breach of the principles of natural justice. 17. In the present case also, this breach has occurred. The breach in the present case has to be viewed very seriously in view of the facts that are available on record. When the charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner, as indicated hereinabove, the charges consisted of three parts. The first part pertained to issuance of Bank Guarantee signed by the petitioner and the other three employees and it is alleged that in doing so, the petitioner has been in connivance with the other three employees. The second part is that in issuing the Bank Guarantees petitioner did not follow the normal procedure, did not get approval of the Competent Authority and, therefore, exposed the bank to financial risk. The second part is that in issuing the Bank Guarantees petitioner did not follow the normal procedure, did not get approval of the Competent Authority and, therefore, exposed the bank to financial risk. The third part of the charge-sheet is that the aforesaid acts of the petitioner amounts to lack of integrity, devotion to duty and is said to have been an act of forgery with some of the persons to whom the guarantee is issued. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet running to more than 62 pages and in that he clearly pointed out that the Bank Guarantee was issued in the interest of business for the Bank, substantial interest was earned on the amount and adequate back up security was also obtained, which protected the financial risk of the bank. He denied the allegations of forgery, lack of integrity and connivance with the three other employees. When the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer, he admitted the charges and his admission has to be considered alongwith the explanation to the charge-sheet. It seems that the admission was accepted in its toto and the explanation in reply to the charge-sheet was not at all taken note of. However, the finding of the Inquiry Officer was never supplied to the petitioner and even before this Court, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is not produced and even this Court does not know as to what is recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the findings recorded against the petitioner. In the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it is repeatedly held that the charges are proved and the authorities accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted in the matter; and, the punishment is imposed in the light of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. That being so, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the reasons given by the Inquiry Officer for holding the petitioner guilty becomes relevant, particularly with regard to the allegations of forgery, connivance with other employees and the question of lack of integrity. That being so, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the reasons given by the Inquiry Officer for holding the petitioner guilty becomes relevant, particularly with regard to the allegations of forgery, connivance with other employees and the question of lack of integrity. If the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of these three aspects of the matter, then the evidence and material on the basis of which the finding is recorded should be made available to the petitioner because what is admitted by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet is the fact of issuing the Bank Guarantee without following due procedure, but he categorically denies the allegations of connivance with the employees, lack of integrity, forgery etc. Under such circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer become relevant and when the findings are not supplied to the petitioner, it can be deemed to have caused prejudice to the petitioner in as much as he is handicapped in challenging the inquiry report and its finding, which is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and, therefore, on this count, there is breach of the principles of natural justice and the impugned action becomes vulnerable to be held unsustainable, as observed by the Supreme Court. 18. Even this Court is handicapped in appreciating the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to various allegations levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, there is much force in the contentions advanced by Shri Ruprah to the extent that non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity of representing*against the finding to the petitioner. 19. As far as the third ground with regard to the CVC influencing the imposition of penalty is concerned, this ground has much force. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are evaluated in their totality, it would be seen that the four employees working in the Bank, i.e., the petitioner and Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, are alleged to have issued the Bank Guarantee without following the laid down norms beyond the financial powers and without obtaining the prior permission of the Competent Authority thereby exposing the bank to heavy financial disk. Departmental Inquiry is conducted against all the four persons, petitioner is dismissed from service whereas in the case of other three employees different punishments are imposed. Shri R.K. Tiwari is imposed with a minor penalty of 'withholding one increment without cumulative effect'; and Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey are only 'censured' as is evident from Annexures P-16, P-17 and P-18. Petitioner is only inflicted with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. From the documents that have come on record in this case, it transpires that when the Inquiry Officer's report was submitted, the Disciplinary Authority had proposed some punishment to be imposed on the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority was in communication with the Head Office of the Bank at Calcutta. The General Manager (Vigilance) of the Bank from Calcutta, vide Annexure P-24, dated 16-9-1992 informed the Zonal Manager, the Disciplinary Authority at Bhopal and referred to some communication made by the Disciplinary Authority and informed the Disciplinary Authority that the CVC has recommended imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, which should be passed without any further delay. It is, therefore, clear that the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the punishment referred the matter to the Head Office of the Bank at Calcutta, the Head Office took the opinion and advice of the CVC, which recommended for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. When communication was made by the Zonal Office to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure P-25 on 26-12-1992/4-1-1993, made a detailed communication again to the General Manager of the Vigilance Department in the Head Office of the Bank at Calcutta, disagreeing with the proposal made by the CVC and made the following observations in the said letter :- "The chief allegation against Shri Seth was/is that while functioning as Senior Manager of Rewa Branch, he unauthorisedly had issued eight Bank Guarantees, without adhering to Bank's relative norms and procedures and resultantly Bank remained exposed to corresponding financial risks, during the period when the said guarantees were in force. As the charge-sheet also conveys, the concerned guarantees were timely cancelled and Bank on their account had not to suffer any loss. The allegation that the Bank remain exposed to financial loss during the currency of guarantees, therefore, much relates to an apprehension rather than a fact. The record reveal that no such loss, however, was caused to the Bank. As the charge-sheet also conveys, the concerned guarantees were timely cancelled and Bank on their account had not to suffer any loss. The allegation that the Bank remain exposed to financial loss during the currency of guarantees, therefore, much relates to an apprehension rather than a fact. The record reveal that no such loss, however, was caused to the Bank. Further, being a Disciplinary Authority, it has got to be kept in view that in the matter of disciplinary action taken against S/Shri H.D. Pandey and N.K. Gopal, who had also signed the concerned guarantees (alongwith Shri Seth) in their capacity as Assistant Managers of the branch, this office, keeping the fact that no loss to the Bank on this score was caused, had taken a very lenient view and had not imposed any punishment on them. The copies of the concerned Final Orders were sent to you alongwith-our letter MPZO/VIG/HO/92/170, dated 20th September, 1992. While deciding the quantum/nature of punishment, we feel that decided cases at least having relation with...... The charges could certainly be grave, if the acts of Shri Seth could have put the Bank to financial losses and in that eventuality, there could be no reason to treat the punishment of dismissal as harsh, disproportionate or inappropriate. In view of the above, being Disciplinary Authority over Shri Seth, we strongly feel that the punishment as suggested by CVC would not be Judicious and imposition of major penalty of reduction of his basic pay to the first stage of Scale-Ill (his present basic is Rs. 4,910/-) would be much commensurate to the gravity of the charges made against him. (Emphasis supplied) 20. It is, therefore, clear from this that the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that no loss was caused to the Bank, the action taken against the other employees was referred to and it was found that punishment of dismissal would be 'too harsh, disproportionate and inappropriate'. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority was of the view that the major penalty of 'reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Scale' be imposed, which would be commensurate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the employee. When this communication was made to the Head Office of the Bank, it was further communicated to the CVC and the CVC, vide Annexure P-26 communicated to the Bank that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. When this communication was made to the Head Office of the Bank, it was further communicated to the CVC and the CVC, vide Annexure P-26 communicated to the Bank that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. It is, therefore, clear that the decision to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal from service was arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority not on its own accord, but on the basis of the consistent insistence, recommendations and dictate made by the CVC. The question of imposing the punishment of dismissal was influenced by the recommendations of the CVC and it is a case, where the Disciplinary Authority has not acted independently in the matter of imposing punishment, but was carried away by the dictate of the CVC in the matter of imposing the punishment. 21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of certain legal principles in this regard. It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the matter W conducting Disciplinary Inquiry and for imposing the punishment, once a Disciplinary Authority is appointed in accordance to the statutory provision or otherwise, the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its independent mind and record a finding on its own, he may consider the opinion of recommendations made by certain authorities, but the final decision has to be that of the Disciplinary Authority, which should show independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. If the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is influenced by any third authority like the advice or recommendation made by the CVC, then the final decision of the Disciplinary Authority stands vitiated. Even though, mere consultation with the CVC may not be an evidence enough to show non-application of mind, but if the records indicate that the Disciplinary Authority's decision was, in fact, influenced by the advice and recommendations of the CVC, the entire action stands vitiated. In this regard, the Gujarat High Court in the case of A. K. Roy Choudhry Vs. Union of India and others, 1982 (I) SLR 443, has considered similar question and it has been held that if the mind of the Disciplinary Authority is shown to be influenced by the CVC, rules of natural justice are violated. 22. Similarly, in the case of V. Sai Baba Vs. Union of India and others, 1982 (I) SLR 443, has considered similar question and it has been held that if the mind of the Disciplinary Authority is shown to be influenced by the CVC, rules of natural justice are violated. 22. Similarly, in the case of V. Sai Baba Vs. The Bank of Baroda and others, 1994 (6) SLR 240, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered similar questions and places reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Siva Rao Kharjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank, 1991 (2) SLR 784. In the said case of V. Sai Baba (supra), one of the submissions made was that the Disciplinary Authority consulted the CVC before taking a decision in the matter and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment stands vitiated as it is not arrived at independently on application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, but he has been guided by and influenced by the advice tendered by the CVC, who is a Senior Officer and General Manager of the Bank. This submission made was considered in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Siva Rao Kharjagi (supra), and it was held that proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority are quasi judicial in nature and being so it is unrestricted. Even though, the Regulations of the Bank contemplate a provision for consultation with the CVC and the Finance Ministry had issued instructions making it obligatory on the part of the Bank to consult the CVC in disciplinary matters, it is held that the Supreme Court has struck down such an instruction as being made without jurisdiction and with regard to the Regulation it was observed by the Supreme Court that when proceedings are held before a Disciplinary Authority and when they are quasi judicial in nature even though some advice may be tendered by the CVO, it is only advisory in nature and is not binding on the Bank. It was held that if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is found to be influenced by the advice tendered by the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority was fettered by the advice tendered by the CVO, it was held to be illegal. It was held that if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is found to be influenced by the advice tendered by the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority was fettered by the advice tendered by the CVO, it was held to be illegal. It is observed in this judgment that once the Disciplinary Inquiry commences, it assumes a quasi judicial character and it should be proceeded with, uninfluenced by any other authority and the Disciplinary Authority should be left free to come to its own conclusion without there being any advice by any other authority. It was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the said judgment that the consultation with the CVO contemplated in the Regulations refers to a stage prior to the commencement of the proceedings, but once the proceedings are commenced till they are concluded the quasi judicial nature has to be undertaken independently, by the Disciplinary Authority and it cannot be influenced by any other advice. 23. In the case of U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. Padam Chand Jain, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 655, the advice tendered by an Accounts Officer, which influenced the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment was held to be illegal. Similarly, in the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1980 SC 1170 , the question of Disciplinary Authority arriving at a conclusion based on consultation with the Vigilance Commissioner was taken note of. Even though, in that case the question involved was as to whether the delinquent employee was entitled to certain recommendations by the Vigilance Commissioner, which was relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, while considering the said question the following observations were made by the Supreme Court :- "........We think that if the Disciplinary Authority arrived at its own conclusion on the material available to it, its findings and decision cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality merely because the Disciplinary Authority consulted the Vigilance Commissioner and obtained his views on the very same material........" This clearly indicates that if the Disciplinary Authority takes a decision on its own conclusion, on the material available with him and if his decision is not influenced by the advice of the CVC, there is no illegality. But, if the consultation with the CVC has influenced the decision, the inevitable conclusion would be that the punishment imposed is vitiated. 24. But, if the consultation with the CVC has influenced the decision, the inevitable conclusion would be that the punishment imposed is vitiated. 24. If the case in hand and the facts available on record are analysed in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled principle, it would be clear that in this case clearly the records indicate that the final decision to impose the punishment of dismissal was influenced by the recommendations of the CVC. The communication (Annexure P-25), issued by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard and the observations made by it, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the major penalty of reduction of basic pay to the first stage of the Scale should be imposed, in spite thereof, because of insistence of the CVC and the Head Office, the Disciplinary Authority acted in the manner as impugned in this writ petition. It is, therefore, a case where in a Departmental Inquiry, i.e., a quasi judicial proceeding, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is found to be influenced by the advice tendered by the CVC and as the decision to impose the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is not arrived at independently by the Disciplinary Authority, by application of its independent mind, the same stands vitiated and, therefore, the third ground canvassed by Shri N.S. Ruprah has to be accepted. 25. As far as the fourth ground of discrimination and no loss to the Bank and consideration of these aspects by the Bank and the authorities are concerned, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority itself, which is communicated to the Head Office of the Bank, vide Annexure P-25, does indicate that parity has to be maintained in the matter of imposing punishment between the petitioner and other three employees and it was for these reasons that the Disciplinary Authority recommended and proposed a particular punishment of reduction in the basic pay. It is, therefore, a case where the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be upheld and it is a case, where the matter has to be reconsidered. 26. It is, therefore, a case where the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be upheld and it is a case, where the matter has to be reconsidered. 26. In the light of the aforesaid findings recorded, it has to be held that in this case even though the inquiry is held to be conducted after following the procedure, which is not in violation to the principles of natural justice, but the act of the Disciplinary Authority in not forwarding to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and even not filing the inquiry report in these proceedings before this Court makes the proceeding illegal. It is, therefore, a case where the matter should have been remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for proceeding from the stage of issuance of inquiry report and thereafter to take a fresh decision in the matter. Similarly, when the imposition of punishment is also found to be influenced by the advice tendered by the CVC and when it is found to be vitiated due to discrimination, the question of imposition of punishment is also to be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority. The question now would be as to whether on these counts the matter should be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or a decision should be taken by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 27. Even though the normal rule is to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, but in the present case, certain peculiar situations are to be taken note and they are :- (a) Petitioner is about 71 years of age and he is suffering from cancer (brain tumour), which is in the terminal stage and, therefore, if relief is not granted to the petitioner immediately, he may not survive to see as to what final orders are passed in the proceedings. (b) Matter is pending since the year 1993. In the first round of litigation, which was held before this Court from 1993 upto 2008, i.e.,............ for 15 years, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority again rejected the matter without considering it properly. (b) Matter is pending since the year 1993. In the first round of litigation, which was held before this Court from 1993 upto 2008, i.e.,............ for 15 years, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority again rejected the matter without considering it properly. Therefore, now in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case, where the matter should be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority and taking note of the facts of the case it is a fit case where appropriate orders should be passed by this Court. 28. Admittedly, the petitioner is found guilty of having bypassed the normal rules and procedure for issuing the Bank Guarantee and it, in fact, exposed the Bank to huge financial risk, even though no financial loss was caused to the Bank. 29. The question with regard to exonerating the petitioner completely on the basis of the grounds found to be established or the question as to whether some punishment is to be imposed upon the petitioner has to be considered taking note of the totality of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the allegations made therein. As is evident from the charge-sheet, the allegations against the petitioner is with regard to issuing eight Bank Guarantees without following the norms and procedure laid down for the same and insubordination to the directives of the Superior Authority. Apart from the aforesaid, there are allegations of lack of integrity, forgery and act unbecoming of an employee. Petitioner himself admits that he had issued the Bank Guarantees and while doing so, it is also a fact that the norms and procedure laid down has not been followed. Even though, the allegations of forgery and question of integrity cannot be said to be established, but petitioner is a Senior Manager in the Bank and has acted in violation to the laid down norms and procedure and this is an act of misconduct, for which some punishment should be imposed. 30. Even though, the allegations of forgery and question of integrity cannot be said to be established, but petitioner is a Senior Manager in the Bank and has acted in violation to the laid down norms and procedure and this is an act of misconduct, for which some punishment should be imposed. 30. That being so, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be completely exonerated and let off for his act of breach of norms, rules and regulations, which did put the Bank to certain amount of risk and some punishment should be imposed upon the petitioner. In the case of other three employees, punishment of censure and stoppage of increment is imposed. They are Junior Officers working under the supervision and control of the petitioner. Petitioner was a Senior Manager and has to share the major responsibility for the entire act. It was taking note of all these circumstances that the Disciplinary Authority made a proposal as is indicated in Annexure P-25. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be completely exonerated of all the charges, instead for the act of proceeding to issue the Bank Guarantees without following the norms and procedure and without sanction of the Competent Authority, some punishment has to be imposed upon the petitioner. Based on these factors, the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind and as is evident from Annexure P-25, it proposed imposition of punishment of reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Scale III. In the considered view of this Court, this proposal of the Disciplinary Authority should have been accepted and this was the punishment, which should have been imposed upon the petitioner as it was the Disciplinary Authority, which was the best Judge to take a final decision in the matter. 31. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned namely, Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-27 are quashed and the punishment proposed by the Disciplinary Authority as indicated in Annexure P-25 is directed to be imposed upon the petitioner and after imposition of the aforesaid punishment, respondent-Bank is directed to treat the petitioner to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and settle all his pensionary claims after granting him arrears of pay, pension and all other post-retiral benefits after imposing the punishment as indicated in Annexure P-25. 32. 32. Considering the physical condition of the petitioner, the Bank is directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. 33. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.