JUDGMENT : S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and its authorities. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order issued from the Central Bank of India, Patna Regional Office under the signature of the Regional Manager vide PRO:ENQ:95-519 dated 02.02.1995 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the service on the basis of the departmental enquiry held in pursuance of Bank charge-sheet no. PRO:ENQ: FRD:92-155 dated 26.10.1992 against the petitioner. (ii) For quashing the final order of the appellate authority, i.e. the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna, passed on 30.05.1995 in the matter of an appeal, preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the Regional Manager (the disciplinary authority) passed on 02.02.1995 in pursuance of Bank Charge Sheet No. PRO: ENQ: FRD: 92-155 dated 26.10.1992, whereby the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Officer, Patna (the Appellate Authority) has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner and has confirmed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner awarded by the disciplinary authority. (iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondent authorities to take back the petitioner in his service on the post he was working and allow him to discharge his duty. (iv) For directing the respondent authorities to pay the entire consequential benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner may be found entitled in accordance with the law, from 2.2.1995, i.e. from the date on which the petitioner was dismissed from the service. (v) For directing the respondent authorities to pay 70% of the salary to the petitioner, which was not paid to him since July, 1994 upto January 1995. (vi) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated hereinafter. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper in the Central Bank of India, Gaya Branch in the year 1972 whereafter he joined on 31.07.1972 and he was transferred from one place to another where he discharged his duties to the full satisfaction of the authorities. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper in the Central Bank of India, Gaya Branch in the year 1972 whereafter he joined on 31.07.1972 and he was transferred from one place to another where he discharged his duties to the full satisfaction of the authorities. Subsequently he joined as Chief Cashier, Central Bank of India, Munger Branch on 30.12.1980 and from there he was transferred to Jhauganj Branch, Patna City and finally he was transferred to Frazer Road Branch as Chief Cashier, Currency Chest where he joined on 13.03.1985. 3. It is also not in dispute that on 26.10.1992 a memorandum was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority informing him that the authorities have decided to hold a departmental inquiry against him for the following acts:- (i) Shri Sinha neglected his duties by not maintaining laid down norms, rules and procedures and routine checking of note packets deposited in currency chest through remittances of other branches which unwarrantedly contained several thousand pieces of cut, burnt and defective notes and also mutilated notes in soiled notes packets. The Bank, consequently has been put to huge monetary loss. (ii) Abusing his official position as the Chief Cashier, Currency Chest, Frazer Road Branch, Shri Sinha indulged with ulterior motive of deriving undue pecuniary gains in fraudulent exchange of a very large number of defective notes directly from public for par value, which has put the Bank to huge monetary loss. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his defence and evidences, whereafter Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 28.02.1994 finding that both the charges stood proved against the petitioner. 5. It is also not in dispute that thereafter second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in response to which he filed his show cause on 12.03.1994. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 02.02.1995 passed orders of dismissal under the provisions of Regulation 4(h) of CBIOE (D &A) Regulations 1976 after holding the petitioner guilty of both the offences. 6. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 15.03.1995 giving details of points challenging the order of the disciplinary authority. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.05.1995 affirming the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 7. 6. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 15.03.1995 giving details of points challenging the order of the disciplinary authority. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.05.1995 affirming the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argues that the disciplinary authority did not at all consider the points raised by the petitioner and the evidences adduced by him with respect to each of the charges and only comparing the points of the petitioner with the findings of the Enquiry Officer he has passed his order. He further states that petitioner had admitted before the authority only to the extent that notes were exchanged for non-issuable to issuable from one denomination to other denomination mainly with Fraser Road Branch of the same Bank to keep the minimum balance of the said Branch, but the disciplinary authority considered the said qualified admission to be a complete and absolute admission with respect to the allegations levelled against him with respect to exchange of notes with public at large. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that from the memorandum of appeal dated 15.03.1995 it would be quite apparent that the petitioner had raised several very important legal and factual points against order of disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority did not at all consider the said points nor did it consider the evidence on which the petitioner had relied and passed a stereo type order affirming the order of petitioner's dismissal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no procedural defect in the steps taken by the authorities as full opportunities were given to him at every stage of the proceeding and after considering the defences and evidences, the impugned orders had been passed. He further submits that the acts committed by the petitioner had assumed a very large proportion due to huge loss to the Bank and hence punishment given to the petitioner is absolutely legal and proper. He further states that had the petitioner been in service regularly he would have retired much earlier in the year 2008. He also avers that there is no occasion for any interference in the impugned orders of the authorities. 10. He further states that had the petitioner been in service regularly he would have retired much earlier in the year 2008. He also avers that there is no occasion for any interference in the impugned orders of the authorities. 10. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioner from the very beginning was that at the time the petitioner joined his post at Frazer Road Branch it was the practice of accepting such notes from the Branches and after his joining petitioner wrote several times to the higher authorities, but the said authorities ignored the matter and did not give instructions to the petitioner in that regard. It is also stated that no details of monetary loss had been mentioned by the respondents. Unless the Reserve Bank of India takes a decision regarding such notes sent by the respondents, the amount of loss, if any, cannot be properly ascertained. 11. Furthermore, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in the aforesaid acts with ulterior motive and also that the petitioner had accepted defective notes directly from public for par value. These allegations had to be proved by the authorities failing which on the basis of mere allegations of these sorts, no punishment can be given to the person concerned, but from the impugned orders, it is quite apparent that no evidence with respect to such charges had been produced by the authorities concerned. If the disciplinary authority failed to consider the same, it was for the appellate authority to consider it in accordance with law, especially when the petitioner had raised all such points in the memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, order of the appellate authority dated 30.05.1995 (Annexure-18) is hereby quashed and he is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the observations given above. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, order of the appellate authority dated 30.05.1995 (Annexure-18) is hereby quashed and he is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the observations given above. If the petitioner produces a copy of this order along with a copy of his memorandum of appeal dated 15.03.1995 as well as the orders of the authority concerned dated 02.02.1995 and 30.05.1995, the appellate authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other present or ex- official of the Bank on his behalf as defence representative and shall decide the appeal afresh expeditiously by a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.