ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority of the Canara Bank (in short respondent Bank), whereby on the basis of findings recorded in the departmental proceeding initiated and concluded against the petitioner he has been visited upon with the punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4 (h) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976). The petitioner has also challenged the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 22nd March, 2010 (Annexure-2) passed by the Executive Director, Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank, whereby the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed. 2. Before the matter could be finally heard for its final disposal, Interlocutory Application No.539 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner on 22nd January, 2013, stating therein that Review Application, preferred by the petitioner before filing the present writ petition, has now been rejected by the Chairman and Managing Director/Reviewing Authority of the respondent Bank by an order dated 30.7.2010, brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, but was not available to the petitioner prior to filing of the writ petition. Therefore, a prayer has been made for amendment of the pleadings in the main writ petition, and also seeking permission of this Court to assail the validity and correctness of the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Reviewing Authority of the respondent Bank, as contained in Annexure-7 to the aforesaid Interlocutory Application No.539 of 2013, whereby and whereunder review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority against the petitioner have been affirmed. 3. The facts pleaded by the parties in the present proceeding are not in much dispute. The petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk of the respondent Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion by the respondent Bank under the relevant rules of the Bank. On 8.8.2008, the petitioner was posted and working as Scale I Officer of the respondent Bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch. The petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk of the respondent Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion by the respondent Bank under the relevant rules of the Bank. On 8.8.2008, the petitioner was posted and working as Scale I Officer of the respondent Bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch. He was put under suspension with effect from 20.9.2008 in view of order passed by the respondent Deputy General Manager in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 14.2.2009 (Annexure-3) containing articles of charges and statement of imputations to articles of charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.3.2009 (Annexure-4) denying the allegation of misconduct and praying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may be dropped and order of suspension passed against him may be recalled. 4. However, the respondent Bank not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner decided to proceed with the departmental proceeding initiated against him. One Shri L.N. Jha, the Senior Manager of the respondent Bank, was appointed as an Inquiring Authority and one Shri S.K. Sinha, the Manager of the Bank was appointed as the presenting Officer. A preliminary enquiry was held on 28.4.2009. Regular enquiry commenced with effect from 18.5.2009. It would be relevant to state here that one Shri B.K. Sinha was nominated by the petitioner as defence representative to participate in the aforesaid departmental enquiry and, accordingly, he participated in the said enquiry and presented the defence of the petitioner in order to disprove the articles of charges framed against him. 5. In the departmental enquiry, as many as four persons were examined as Management witness nos. 1 to 4. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined as defence witness. Apart from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, some material documents were also produced from both sides, and were marked as management exhibits and defence exhibits respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to participate and place his defence in the aforesaid departmental proceeding. On the basis of materials, both oral and documentary, produced by the parties, the Inquiring Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 2.7.2009 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. A copy of the aforesaid Enquiry Report was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 3.7.2009 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the respondent Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary Authority. On the basis of materials, both oral and documentary, produced by the parties, the Inquiring Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 2.7.2009 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. A copy of the aforesaid Enquiry Report was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 3.7.2009 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the respondent Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was called upon to file his representation or submissions on the findings arrived at by the Inquiring Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation/submissions, whereafter by the impugned order dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon him in terms of Regulation 4 (h) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed vide impugned appellate order dated 22nd March, 2010 (Annexure-2). Hence the present writ petition. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, review application filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Chairman-cum-Reviewing Authority by an order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-7), hence Interlocutory Application No. 539 of 2013 has been filed seeking amendment of the writ petition in order to assail the validity and correctness of the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the Reviewing Authority. 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders passed by the functionaries of the respondent Bank, primarily on the following grounds:- A. The impugned order of punishment has been passed in violation of the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. B. By the alleged act of misconduct of the petitioner, the respondent Bank has not sustained any financial loss. Hence, order of punishment is not sustainable. C. The impugned order of punishment is discriminatory as other Officers of the Bank, who were also subjected to disciplinary proceedings, were awarded minor punishments whereas the petitioner has been awarded major punishment, and D. The impugned order of punishment is disproportionate to the guilt proved against the petitioner. 8. In support of his above contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 ], M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India [ (2006) 5 SCC 88 ], Moni Shankar Vs. 8. In support of his above contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 ], M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India [ (2006) 5 SCC 88 ], Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India [ ( 2008) 3 SCC 484] , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank [( 2009) 2 SCC 570], Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar [( 2009) 12 SCC 78] and Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2012) 5 SCC 242 ]. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Laljhari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar [ 2013 (1) PLJR 141 ]. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank and its functionaries has strongly opposed the prayer made in the present application and has supported the impugned orders passed against the petitioner by the authorities of the respondent Bank. It is submitted that in the admitted factual matrix of the case, there has been no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was fully allowed to participate and produce his materials in support of his defence in the departmental proceeding. It is next submitted that there has been no violation of the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 and the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is commensurate with the guilt proved against him. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to point out any procedural infirmity or irregularity in the departmental proceeding initiated and concluded against him. It is highlighted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner, being an Officer of the Bank, was required to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, and was required to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence, but apparently he has not discharged his duties with honesty and integrity, rather he was involved in financial fraud with respect to the Bank Accounts of a customer of the Bank. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has acted contrary to the Regulation 3 (1) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Conduct Regulations, 1976). Therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has acted contrary to the Regulation 3 (1) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Conduct Regulations, 1976). It has lastly been urged that in the factual matrix of the case and the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiring Authority with respect to the articles of charges against the petitioner, no interference is warranted in exercise of judicial review by this Court. 10. In support of above contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Honble Apex Court in Ex. Naik Sardar Singh Vs. Union of India [ AIR 1992 SC 417 ], Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank [ AIR 1995 SC 1053 ], B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ], State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi [ (2005) 7 SCC 435 ], Bank of India Vs. T. Jogram [ (2007) 7 SCC 236 ] and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Pal Singh [(2010) 5 SCC 783]. 11. It would be relevant to mention here that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding with respect to two articles of charges, which are as follows:- “1. Sri Rizwan Ahmed & Mrs. Rafat Jahan joint holders of Savings Bank A/C No. 2003.101.22590 of S.P.Road, Gaya branch tendered a cheque No. 719128 Dt. 27.8.08 for Rs.25000/- for credit to SB A/C 2518.101.3523 of Sri Ahmed Zaman with our P.P. Colony, Patna Branch. After debit of SB A/C No.2003.101.22590, the amount, instead of directly crediting to payees account, was credited to GL Parking. Thereafter, Rs.15000/- was only credited to the payees account on 30.8.2008 and the balance amount of Rs.10000/- was credited to SB A/C No. 257.101.19266 pertaining to Sri Deepak Kumar Singh son of Sri Kameshwar Singh at our Gaya Main Branch. The entry was made by Sri Kameshwar Singh and ostensibly authorized by Sri A.K. Verma (37112) Manager. In his statement before the Investigating Officer, Sri A.K. Verma denied having authorized the entry. Sri Deepak Kumar Singh withdrew an amount of Rs.9000/- from his SB account 257.101.19266 on 01.09.2008. The entry was made by Sri Kameshwar Singh and ostensibly authorized by Sri A.K. Verma (37112) Manager. In his statement before the Investigating Officer, Sri A.K. Verma denied having authorized the entry. Sri Deepak Kumar Singh withdrew an amount of Rs.9000/- from his SB account 257.101.19266 on 01.09.2008. When the customer lodged complaint regarding less credit of Rs.10000/-, Sri Kameshwar Singh deposited cash of equal amount i.e. Rs.10000/- on 15.9.08 in SB A/C No. 257.101.19266 of his son Sri Deepak Kumar Singh with Gaya Main Branch at Swarajpuri Gaya branch itself and from his sons account, credit was given to the A/C of the payee. 2. He raised a fictitious BAR bearing no. 200325000441 of Rs.30000/- on our Gaya Main Branch on 01.09.2008 without any instrument and without preparing slip and credited the proceeds to his own SB A/C No. 2003.111.29354 at S P Road Gaya Branch. The entry was made by him and authorized by Md. Hasnain (14878) Officer. In his statement before the Investigating Officer, Md. Hasnain denied having authorized the entry. Subsequently the amount was withdrawn by Sri Kameshwar Singh through ATM on 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008.” 12. In order to appreciate the points urged on behalf of the petitioner as also on behalf of the respondents, it would be relevant to examine the relevant provisions of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 and Conduct Regulations, 1976. Hasnain denied having authorized the entry. Subsequently the amount was withdrawn by Sri Kameshwar Singh through ATM on 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008.” 12. In order to appreciate the points urged on behalf of the petitioner as also on behalf of the respondents, it would be relevant to examine the relevant provisions of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 and Conduct Regulations, 1976. Regulations 3(b),3 (g),3 (j),3 (n) and 3(o) of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 define “Appellate Authority”, “Disciplinary Authority”, “Officer Employee”, “Reviewing Authority” and “Schedule” respectively, which read as follows:- 3(b) “Appellate Authority” means the authority specified in the schedule to dispose of appeals; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3(g) “Disciplinary Authority” means the authority specified in the schedule which is competent to impose on an officer employee any of the penalties specified in regulation 4; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3(j) “Officer employee” means a person who holds a supervisory administrative or managerial post in the bank or any other person who has been appointed and is functioning as an officer of the bank by whatever designations called and includes a person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of Central Government or a State Government or any other Government undertaking or any other public sector bank or the Reserve Bank of India or any other organization, but shall not include casual, work charged or contingent staff or the award staff; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3(n) “Reviewing Authority” means the authority specified in the Schedule; 3(o) “Schedule” means the Schedule appended to these regulations.” 13. Regulation 4 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 prescribes penalties, which may be imposed on an Officer employee for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. Penalties mentioned at Regulations 4 (a) to 4 (e) are minor penalties, whereas penalties mentioned at Regulations 4 (f) to 4 (J) are major penalties, which includes compulsory retirement mentioned at Regulation 4 (h) of the aforesaid Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. Regulation 5 of the aforesaid Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 prescribes the authorities who are competent to institute disciplinary proceeding and impose penalties. Regulation 5 would be relevant for the purposes of the present case, hence it is reproduced herein below:- “5) Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties: (1) The Managing Director or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may institute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an officer employee of the bank. (2) The disciplinary Authority may himself institute disciplinary proceedings. (3) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 on any officer employee” 14. Regulation 6 prescribes the procedures for imposing major penalties and Regulation 7 provides for action to be taken on an inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority. Regulation 17 and Regulation 18 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 provide for appeal and review respectively by an Officer employee. Schedule as defined in Regulation 3 (o) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 has been appended in the last to the said Regulations wherein the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority with respect to the Officer employee in specified scale of the respondent Bank have been prescribed. Schedule as defined in Regulation 3 (o) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 has been appended in the last to the said Regulations wherein the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority with respect to the Officer employee in specified scale of the respondent Bank have been prescribed. For the purposes of disposal of the present case, the aforesaid Schedule would be relevant, hence it is being reproduced herein below:- SCHEDULE TO THE DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL REGULATIONS Name of the Post DA AA Reviewing Authority Scale I DGM GM ED Scale II, III, IV & V GM ED or in his C&MD or in his Absence absence or in case C&MD he is functioning as AA, the Committee of the Board Scale VI ED or in his C&MD or in Board Absence his absence C&MD or in case he is functioning as DA, Committee of the Board Scale VII C&MD Committee Board or in his of the Board absence ED 15. Regulation 3(1) of Conduct Regulations, 1976 reads as follows:- “Every Officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee.” 16. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the orders impugned, has not been able to point out violation of any of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 laying down the procedures for imposing major penalties. Admittedly, articles of charges were served upon the petitioner. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Regulations. The petitioner was allowed to participate and defend himself in the aforesaid departmental enquiry. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, an inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiring Authority, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner, whereafter by the impugned order dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) he has been visited upon with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner was allowed to participate and defend himself in the aforesaid departmental enquiry. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, an inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiring Authority, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner, whereafter by the impugned order dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) he has been visited upon with the punishment of compulsory retirement. However, according to the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Scale I Officer of the respondent Bank, therefore, as per the Schedule the Deputy General Manager of the Bank was the Disciplinary Authority and General Manager of the Bank was the Appellate Authority, whereas Executive Director of the Bank was the Reviewing Authority. 17. In the present case, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by an order passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank. The articles of charges under the signature of the Deputy General Manager of the Bank vide Annexure-3 were served upon the petitioner, but the impugned order of punishment dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) has been passed by the General Manager of the respondent Bank, who according to the Schedule, referred to above, was the Appellate Authority. It is further highlighted on behalf of the petitioner that even according to the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority the respondent Bank has not sustained any financial loss by the alleged act of misconduct of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel, impugned order of punishment as also the appellate order and the order passed by the Reviewing Authority are not sustainable. 18. From perusal of the materials available on the record, this Court finds that charge of misconduct proved against the petitioner is very serious in nature, which was not expected from an Officer of Scale I of the Bank. As per the findings Shri Rizwan Ahmed and Mrs. Rafat Jahan were joint holders of Saving Bank Account No. 200310122590 of S.P. Road, Gaya. A Cheque bearing no. 719128 dated 27.8.2008 for Rs.25,000/- was tendered by the aforesaid account holders for credit to SB Bank Account No. 2518.101.3523 of Shri Ahmed Zaman in P.P. Colony, Patna Branch. Though an amount of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the joint Account of Shri Rizwan Ahmad and Mrs. A Cheque bearing no. 719128 dated 27.8.2008 for Rs.25,000/- was tendered by the aforesaid account holders for credit to SB Bank Account No. 2518.101.3523 of Shri Ahmed Zaman in P.P. Colony, Patna Branch. Though an amount of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the joint Account of Shri Rizwan Ahmad and Mrs. Rafat Jahan, but it was not directly credited to the payees account rather it was credited to G.L. Parking (Gross Liability Account). Subsequently, Rs.15,000/-only was credited to the payees account on 30.8.2008 and balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited to Saving Bank Account of one Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, said to be son of the present petitioner. Entry was made by the present petitioner ostensibly under the authorization of Shri A.K. Verma, the Manager of the Branch, who during the course of investigation denied such authorization. Aforesaid Deepak Kumar Singh withdrew an amount of Rs.9,000/- from his Account on 1.9.2008. However, when the customer lodged complaint regarding less credit of Rs.10,000/- then the petitioner deposited cash amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Account of Shri Deepak Kumar Singh and thereafter it was credited to the account of Shri Ahmed Zaman. The manner in which a cheque amount of Rs.25,000/-issued by Shri Rizwan Ahmad and Mrs. Rafat Jahan was bifurcated and only Rs.15,000/- was credited in the payees Account, namely, Shri Ahmed Zaman and Rs.10,000/- was credited in the Account of Shri Deepak Kumar Singh cannot be approved and it was not expected from the petitioner, a Scale I Officer of the Bank. Though on protest balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited in account of Shri Ahmed Zaman and the Bank has not sustained any financial loss, but the conduct of the petitioner was quite contrary to Regulation 3(1) of Conduct Regulations, 1976, which has been reproduced above. 19. It is well settled that absence of any financial loss to the bank is no defence for an Officer employee in a departmental/domestic enquiry initiated against him for his misconduct. There is always a fiduciary relationship between a bank and its customers/account holders. Regular and smooth functioning of a bank depends upon honest, proper and fair discharge of duties by its Officers/employees. There is always a fiduciary relationship between a bank and its customers/account holders. Regular and smooth functioning of a bank depends upon honest, proper and fair discharge of duties by its Officers/employees. If Officers/employees of a bank fail to discharge their duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, then entire fiduciary relationship between a bank and its customers/account holders will shatter and the entire banking business in the country shall be at great jeopardy, which may not only affect the banking business vis-a-vis its relationship with its customers/account holders, rather it may affect the national economy as well. Furthermore, the petitioner, being a Scale I Officer of the respondent Bank, was required to discharge his duties in consonance with the requirement of Regulation 3(1) of Conduct Regulations, 1976, referred to above, but he has failed to discharge his duties in accordance with the mandate of aforesaid Regulations. 20. The issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is no longer a res integra. A similar issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment has aptly answered the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, which reads as follows:- “A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager V. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance.” 21. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance.” 21. Now, coming to the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner that departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated by the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority but the order of punishment has been passed by the General Manager of the Bank, who as per schedule of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 was the Appellate Authority in the case of the petitioner. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable, in view of Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 which provides that the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any Officer employee. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the General Manager of the Bank cannot be legally faulted. 22. However, there is one difficulty. As per the Schedule, the General Manager of the Bank is the Appellate Authority and Executive Director of the Bank is Reviewing Authority with respect to Scale I Officer of the Bank. Regulation 17 and Regulation 18 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 do not prescribe, and are rather silent that if order of punishment has been passed by the higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority, in the present case the Appellate Authority, then who will hear and decide the appeal as also review petition filed by an Officer employee against such order of punishment. 23. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have not brought to the notice of this Court any other Circular/notification issued by the Bank authorizing the Executive Director and the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Bank to hear and decide the appeal and the review application filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment passed by higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority. 24. 24. It is true that in view of Judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the departmental proceeding can be initiated against a delinquent by the authority lower than the appointing authority, but the order of punishment of removal and dismissal from service of a delinquent on proven misconduct cannot be passed by an authority below the appointing authority. It is also permissible that a higher authority than the appointing authority can initiate the proceedings against a delinquent and can impose punishment against him, but right to appeal of a delinquent must not be affected. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ (2012) 11 SCC 565 ]. 25. It is also well settled that in a departmental proceeding, appeal is a continuation of original proceeding and doctrine of merger applies in such cases. In a departmental proceeding the competent authority while passing the order of punishment discharges quasi judicial function and does not discharge administrative function at that stage. Imposition of punishment for a proved delinquency is required to be regulated and controlled by statutory rules. Furthermore, the statutory authorities are under the legal obligations to decide an appeal, revision and review petition filed by a delinquent as per the statutory provisions. The grounds taken in appeal, revision and review petition are required to be appropriately dealt with by the statutory authorities. Reference can be made in this respect to the judicial pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Singh Vs. The State of U.P. [ (2012) 5 SCC 242 (Supra)] ( particularly paragraph 17). 26. In the Case at hands though the order of punishment dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the General Manager of the Bank cannot be legally faulted in view of the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, referred to above, but the appellate order dated 22nd March, 2010 (Annexure-2) passed by Executive Director of the Bank and the order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the Reviewing Authority have not answered the issue raised and grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in his appeal and review petition respectively. The Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority, though not being specifically authorized to exercise such powers, have exercised their powers for rejecting appeal and review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is contrary to the scheme of the Schedule, referred to above. 27. For the reasons recorded above, the matter requires reconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authority as also the Reviewing Authority. They are under legal obligations to decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, which has not been done in the present case. Since the matter is being remitted to the appellate authority, at the first instance, therefore, this Court is not inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf of the parties, which have been noted in the preceding paragraphs. 28. In the result, the writ petition partly succeeds. The impugned appellate order dated 22nd March, 2010 (Annexure-2) and the impugned order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the Reviewing Authority both are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorized and specified Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and as per the observations made above. It is expected that the appeal of the petitioner shall be decided afresh expeditiously, after giving an opportunity of hearing to him. 29. Interlocutory Application No. 539 of 2013 stands accordingly disposed of. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.