ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks quashing of the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), UCO Bank, Bhagalpur whereby he has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the General Manager, Personnel Service (Appellate Authority) whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the said order of compulsory retirement has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case which are not in dispute are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of chargesheet on 10.02.2007. The petitioner was charged of having fraudulently withdrawn certain amount from the account of a dead account holder and deposited such fraudulently withdrawn amount in the account of his daughter Rina Kumari. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as a Substaff in Bonshi branch of UCO Bank. 4. From the reading of the chargesheet, it will appear that the petitioner was charged of having withdrawn a total sum of rupees one lac thirty five thousand in this manner and he is said to have confessed his guilt and accepted to deposit the said amount in the Bank. Altogether 5 charges were framed against the petitioner referring to different transactions. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges. The disciplinary proceeding thereafter commenced. The enquiry officer submitted his report which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.2007 by the disciplinary authority, seeking his comments. 5. The enquiry officer found three of the five charges levelled against the petitioner proved and two i.e. number 3 and 4 not proved. The petitioner submitted his comments on the report of the enquiry officer vide his letter dated 17.11.2007 to the disciplinary authority, again denying the charges and countering the findings of enquiry officer. Thereafter, vide letter dated 31.03.2008, the disciplinary authority communicated to the petitioner its final order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy General Manger (Personnel) UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata. The appellate authority vide its order dated 28.07.2008, communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 31.07.2008, rejected the petitioner’s memo of appeal. 6. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy General Manger (Personnel) UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata. The appellate authority vide its order dated 28.07.2008, communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 31.07.2008, rejected the petitioner’s memo of appeal. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders has contended that the report of the enquiry officer as well as the order of the disciplinary authority reflect no application of mind inasmuch as neither the enqiry officer nor the disciplinary authority has dealt with the defence taken by the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. Referring to the enquiry report, learned senior counsel submits that the report suffers from total non-application of mind as it has not even discussed the reasons for reaching to a conclusion as to why the particular charge stood proved and it just refers to the contents of the charge, the comments of the presenting officer and the comments of the defence representative and without dealing with the submission of the presenting officer and the defence representative the enquiry officer has just jumped to a conclusion with four words “above charge is proved”. He further submits that upon service of report of the enquiry officer, as required, the petitioner had submitted his comments dealing in detail as to how the charge on the basis of material available on the records of the disciplinary proceeding could not be said to be proved. He submits, referring to the order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.03.2008 that it does not deal at all with the petitioner’s comments upon the report of the enquiry officer and according to him the order of the disciplinary authority is unsustainable being unreasoned and non-speaking. He further submits that the order of the appellate authority also suffers from the same vice and it does not deal with the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal while rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (3) P.L.J.R. 64 (Chandradip Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) 7. He has further submitted that in order to prove the allegation of impersonation made against the petitioner, the prosecution did not take any step to have report of any expert. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (3) P.L.J.R. 64 (Chandradip Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) 7. He has further submitted that in order to prove the allegation of impersonation made against the petitioner, the prosecution did not take any step to have report of any expert. His further contention is that no person aggrieved by the alleged fraudulent withdrawal ever came forward making any complaint nor such person was made a witness to prove the charge. 8. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank on the other hand submits that the petitioner committed gross misconduct while functioning as Substaff in the branch of the said Bank and he in fact admitted his guilt in one of his communications dated 05.06.2006 addressed to the disciplinary authority which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. She submits that the Bank adopted a fair procedure of examining the witnesses in support of the charges and giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to cross-examination. She further submits that the enquiry officer recorded his findings on the basis of material available on record, and the disciplinary authority before recording his agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, himself considered the material available on record of the disciplinary proceeding and reached to his independent finding of the petitioner’s guilt with respect to the charges No. 1, 2 and 5. She submits that the very fact that enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority came to a finding that the charges No. 3 and 4 could not be proved shows that the proceeding against the petitioner was conducted fairly. 9. She has also referred to a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2005 (7) SCC 435 (State Bank of Indian V. Bela Bagchi) to contend that even if no loss was caused to the Bank, for the conduct of the petitioner which being unbecoming of a bank officer, imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement is completely justified. She submits that financial indiscipline of this kind by a bank employee, as alleged against the petitioner, is a gross misconduct. 10. I have perused the report of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority carefully. She submits that financial indiscipline of this kind by a bank employee, as alleged against the petitioner, is a gross misconduct. 10. I have perused the report of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority carefully. I find substance in submission of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry officer has completely failed in its duty to discuss the material on record, the submission of the presenting officer and that of the defence representative before coming to his conclusions. 11. He has just quoted the respective charge as existing in the chargesheet, submission of the presenting officer and submission of the defence representative and without discussing anything thereafter he has just jumped to his conclusion like “above charge is proved”, “charge No. 2 is proved”. 12. On perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority also it would appear that it has not discussed at all the petitioner’s comments on the report of the enquiry officer, which he had submitted on 17.11.2007 (Annexure-5). Though the disciplinary authority has briefly referred to the material available on record of the disciplinary proceeding before recording the findings but even such discussion does not reflect due application of mind. In any view of the matter, from the order of the disciplinary authority I find that it has not discussed as to why the defence put forth by the petitioner was not acceptable. 13. Mr. Sinha is right in his submission while relying upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (3) P.L.J.R. 64 (Chandradip Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) to contend that the disciplinary authority was required to deal in his order as to why the defence of the petitioner taken by him in course of the disciplinary proceeding and in his comments upon report of the enquiry officer was not acceptable. 14. I am of the view that such lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority not discussing the defence of the delinquent while passing the order amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 15. The order of the disciplinary authority impugned in the writ application does not reflect application of mind on the comments of the delinquent i.e. petitioner on the report of the enquiry officer. The impugned order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-6) therefore cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. 15. The order of the disciplinary authority impugned in the writ application does not reflect application of mind on the comments of the delinquent i.e. petitioner on the report of the enquiry officer. The impugned order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-6) therefore cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. It is also well settled that if the order of the disciplinary authority is unsustainable on the ground of lack of reasons, the order of the appellate authority cannot fill up the lacunae. 16. I accordingly quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority dated 28.07.2008 with a direction to the disciplinary authority to pass an order afresh in this regard after taking into account the defence of the petitioner as available on record of the disciplinary proceeding as well as the grounds taken by him in his comments upon the report of the enquiry officer. 17. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner’s claim for back wages will be dependent upon the final order to be passed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to the order of this Court. 18. This writ petition is allowed accordingly.