JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Rajan Roy, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as Officer Grade-I under the respondent-Bank on 17.07.1982. He was promoted to Officer Grade-II on 19.12.1996. On 11.11.2002, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in respect of various alleged acts of misconduct on his part. A supplementary charge sheet dated 30.08.2003 was also issued. Inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his findings/ conclusions dated 29.03.2005 along with voluminous proceedings of the inquiry. Based thereon, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2006 was issued to the petitioner proposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 01.06.2006 to the aforesaid show cause notice denying the charges and rebutting the findings/ conclusions of the inquiry officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on 30.09.2006 passed the punishment order observing that the continuance of Sri Singh in the services of the Bank was not in the interest of the institution. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be compulsory retired from the service of the bank in exercise of powers under Regulation 38 of Staff Service Regulations. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. In appeal, the appellate authority, adopting a humanitarian approach in the matter, modified the punishment order to that of reversion/ reduction in rank to the minimum of pay scale of Officer Grade-I with reinstatement from the date of joining. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a bare perusal of the findings/ conclusions of the Inquiry Officer dated 29.03.2006 reveal that in respect of each charge, the Inquiry Officer has merely mentioned the evidence/ exhibits adduced by the parties and thereafter, has straight way recorded his cryptic conclusion to the effect that after examining and studying the submission of both the parties and their documents, he was of the opinion that the charge in question has been fully or partly proved. There is absolutely no discussion of the charges, the replies, the evidence adduced nor any reasoning has been given in support of his conclusion. The submission is that the inquiry officer has not applied his mind at all, and has acted mechanically, as if, he was acting with a pre-determined mind. There is absolutely no discussion of the charges, the replies, the evidence adduced nor any reasoning has been given in support of his conclusion. The submission is that the inquiry officer has not applied his mind at all, and has acted mechanically, as if, he was acting with a pre-determined mind. There has been no impartial and fair application of mind by the inquiry officer to ascertain the number of the charges. 2. Learned counsel also invited the attention of the court to the show cause notice dated 11.05.2006 issued by the disciplinary authority and in this context, he submitted, that detailed recitals contained therein clearly disclose pre-determination on the part of the disciplinary authority to punish the petitioner, as, conclusive findings of guilt have been recorded therein, though the petitioner was yet to submit his response to the same. Said findings could only have been recorded at the final stage while passing final order of punishment. He submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.09.2006 runs into only two pages and it refers to the observations made by him in the show cause notice dated 11.05.2006 as the basis for passing the punishment order, which also goes to show that he had already made up his mind to punish the petitioner. A mere formality of reference to the reply of the petitioner dated 01.06.2006 has been observed in the punishment order, without any proper consideration thereof. 3. The contention is that the manner, in which, the inquiry officer has submitted his findings and the disciplinary authority has proceeded to pass the final order, is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice and fair play in administrative action. He submitted that the petitioner has submitted detailed replies denying the charges; even in the inquiry proceedings, he had given detailed explanations/ submissions in respect of each of the charges as is born out from the extracts of some of the proceedings on record, but, the inquiry officer has not considered any of the explanations offered by the petitioner nor has he given any reason for discarding the said explanations/ replies of the petitioner nor for accepting the version of the department and by way of an ipse dixit has submitted "mere conclusions/ findings without any reasons in support thereof. The appellate authority was concious of these lacunae, therefore, it modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to reversion to the initial pay as Officer Grade-I, though, it has tried to camouflage the real intent by terming it as a humanitarian approach. The petitioner had submitted plausible/ sufficient explanation for each and every charge. No financial loss was caused to the bank. No misconduct was committed by the petitioner. The impugned order gravely prejudices the petitioner and arbitrarily deprives him of his right to livelihood. 4. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the charges against the petitioner were of a very grave nature. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer, as is evident from the proceedings of the inquiry, some of the extracts of which have been filed by the respondents along with their affidavit, which clearly point towards the guilt of the petitioner and the inquiry officer has rightly found him guilty. The conclusions of the inquiry officer are supported by the material adduced during inquiry. Reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself. There was no denial of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has passed a reasoned order. In the light of the inquiry report, no interference is called for in the matter. The petitioner-bank employee was required to maintain the highest degree of trust, integrity and devotion but he failed to do so. 5. We have carefully perused the alleged inquiry report dated 29.03.2006. We are constrained to observe that it is not an inquiry report as is understood in law. The very heading mentions as ''tatwansh', i.e. gist or main elements. This is the only document, which was served upon the petitioner, as an inquiry report along with the show cause notice. There is no other inquiry report on record and none has been placed before us. 6. The very heading mentions as ''tatwansh', i.e. gist or main elements. This is the only document, which was served upon the petitioner, as an inquiry report along with the show cause notice. There is no other inquiry report on record and none has been placed before us. 6. The extracts of the alleged inquiry report relating to some of the charges are quoted hereinbelow to demonstrate the non-application of mind of the inquiry officer: " 9& nks"kkjksi&1 ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq la0 1 esa vafdr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr drZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 336] 333] 334] 337] 335] 332] 396] 330] 351@2 ls 352@3] 327] 338] 343] 339] 354] 358] 381] 354] 345] 346] 347] 348] 279 ,ebZ 379] 382] 352] 351@4 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k i`"B la0 34 ls 59 rd esa izLrqr fd;k gS tcfd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 199 ls 200 esa izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa bl nkSjku ,ebZ 327 dk gokyk nsrs gq, dgk x;k fd fnukad 18&6*&2002 ds iwoZ ckgj ls izkIr psdksa@fcyksa dh izkfIr ,oa olwyh ds i'pkr gq, viuk i{k i`"B la0 34 ls 59 rd esa izLrqr fd;k gS tcfd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 199 ls 200 esa izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa bl nkSjku ,ebZ 327 dk gokyk nsrs gq, dgk x;k fd fnukad 18&6&2002 ds iwoZ ckgj ls izkIr gq, viuk i{k i`"B la0 34 ls 59 rd esa izLrqr fd;k gS tcfd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la0 199 ls 200 esa izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa bl nkSjku ,ebZ 327 dk gokyk nsrs gq, dgk x;k fd fnukad 18&6&2002 ds iwoZ ckgj ls fof/kd leL;k mRiUu gq;h gS nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr dFku ,oa nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ,oa v/;;u ds i'pkr esjk ;g Li"V er gS fd ;g nks"kkjksi.k iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gSA 10& nks"kkjksi la0 2& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud v ds fcUnq la0 2 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi.k ds lEcU/k esa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 260] 270] 45] 266] 300@1 ls 300@4, 289] 288] 292] 293] 267] 291] 290] 262] 271 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la[;k 60 ls 65 rd esa izLrqr fd;k gS tcfd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la0 205 ls 209 esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr nksuksa i{kksa }kjk rdZ lkjka'k Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA cpko i{k dk ;g dguk fd lHkh izfof"V;ka lek;ksftr gks x;h gSa yxk;s x;s nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa rdZiw.kZ ugha gSA tcfd izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZ ,oa lk{;ksa ls Li"V : i ls nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA vr% ;g nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 11& nks"kkjksi la03& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq la[;k 3 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; 32@1 ls 32@5] 44] 309] 432@1 ls 432@8] 438@1] 46] 456] 54@1 ls 54@6] 58@1 ls 58@6] 461] 137] 138] 74] 78] 79] 84] 87] 93] 94] 95] 97] 116] 117] 118] 107] 110] 111] 112] 114] 115] 284] 301] 302 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B 71 ls 78 rd esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tc fd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la[;k 214 ls 219 rd esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl nkSjku cpko i{k }kjk 456] 326] 95[k 118@1 ls 118@6] 74@1 ls 74@6] 78] 79] 72 dk gokyk nsrs gq, viuk i{k izLrqr fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr nksuksa i{kksa us viuk&viuk rdZ lkjka'k Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ,oa rdksZ dks le>us ,oa v/;;u ds i'pkr eSa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh ds izLrqr rdksZ ls lger gWwA vr% ;g nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 12& nks"kkjksi&4& ;g foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 4 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; 477] 478] 456] 325] 326] 52] 53] 54] 55] 56] 57] 58 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la 78 ls 82 rd esa izLrqr fd;k gS tc fd cpko i{k }kjk viuk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tc fd cpko i{k }kjk viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la[;k 214 ls 219 rd esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl nkSjku cpko i{k }kjk 4565] 326] 95[k 118@1 ls 118@6] 74@1 ls 74@6] 78] 79] 72 dk gokyk nsrs gq, viuk i{k izLrqr fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr nksuksa i{kksa us viuk&viuk rdZ lkjka'k Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ,oa rdksZ lk{;ksa ls nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA vr% ;g nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 14& nks"kkjksi&6& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 6 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 43] 478 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 84 ls 85 rd esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tc fd cpko izfrfuf/k us viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 225 ls 228 rd esa j[k gS blds vfrfjDr nksuksa i{kksa us viuk&viuk rdZ lkjka'k Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ,oa lk{;ksa ls ;g nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA blls lger gSA vr% nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 17& nks"kkjksi&la0&9& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 9 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 4] 44 o MhbZ 30 dk lanHkZ ysrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la[;k 232 ls 233 rd esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] nksuksa i{k us viuk&viuk rdZ lkjka'k Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa@rdksZ dks ns[kus ds i'pkr eSa izLrqrdrZk vf/kdkjh ds i{k ls lger gWwA vr% nks"kkjki izekf.kr gSA 33& nks"kkjksi& la0 24& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 24 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k esa nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 456] 326 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 148 o 149 esa izLrqr fd;k gSA tcfd cpko i{k us viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr i`"B la0 326 ij izLrqr fd;k gS bl lEcU/k esa cpko i{k dk ;g dFku not renewal documents will be renewal shortly fd rRdky fu;fer djk fy;k x;k Lo;a nks"kkjksi dh iqf"V djrk gSA rd lkjka'k esa Hkh cpko i{k }kjk dqN vfrfjDr ugha dgk x;k gSA vr% nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 35& nks"kkjksi&la0 27& ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 27 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 34] 35] 36] 37] 38 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 151 o 154 esa izLrqr fd;k gSA tcfd cpko i{k us viuk i{k dk;Z o`Rr i`"B la0 248 MhbZ&6 ij izLrqr fd;k gS bl lEcU/k esa cpko i{k dk ;g dFku fd & rRdky fu;fer djk fy;k x;k Lo;a nks"kjksi dh iqf"V djrk gSA rd lkjka'k esa Hkh cpko i{k }kjk dqN vfrfjDr ugha dgk x;k gSA vr% nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 37& nks"kkjksi&la0 29& ;g nks"kkjki foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls 29 esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 456] 326] 478] 455 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 250 ls 252 esa izLrqr fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa cpko i{k dk ;g dFku fd rRdky fu;fer djk fy;k x;k Lo;a nks"kjksi dh iqf"V djrk gSA rd lkjka'k esa Hkh cpko i{k }kjk dqN vfrfjDr ugha dgk x;k gSA vr% nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA 38& iwjd nks"kkjksi & ;g nks"kkjksi foHkkxh; tkap dk;ZokbZ ds rRoka'k ds layXud x ds fcUnq ls esa of.kZr gSA bl nks"kkjksi ds lEcU/k nLrkosth lk{; ,ebZ 475] 476 izLrqr djrs gq, viuk i{k dk;Zo`Rr ds i`"B la[;k 162 esa izLrqr fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa cpko i{k dk ;g dFku fd rRdky fu;fer djk fy;k x;k Lo;a nks"kjksi dh iqf"V djrk gSA rd lkjka'k esa Hkh cpko i{k }kjk dqN vfrfjDr ugha dgk x;k gSA vr% nks"kkjksi izekf.kr gSA " 7. On a careful perusal of the observations/ findings of the inquiry officer, in respect of each of the charges, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Every charge has been dealt with cryptically by the inquiry officer by merely mentioning the exhibit number of the documents filed by the parties, without mentioning the contents nor nature thereof and thereafter, straight way he has made a cryptic observation about his alleged satisfaction regarding the charge being proved. It contains only conclusions, bereft of any discussion of the charge, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the evidence adduced by the delinquent, the replies submitted by him, the detailed explanations/ statements given by him during the course of oral inquiry. None of these has has been considered nor discussed. Findings of the inquiry officer have to follow a proper examination of the evidence on record in the light of the charges levelled against the delinquent. Findings have to be supported by reasons. Reasons are also required to be given as to why the contention of the delinquent employee on a particular issue is not acceptable while that of the department is acceptable. The delinquent employee has to be linked, on the basis of evidence, to the charges levelled against him and then a finding of guilt has to be recorded. The holding of an inquiry is not a mere formality. The inquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. There has to be due and proper application of mind by him to the material on record. He has to act in an impartial and objective manner, not as a man of the department but one who has been bestowed the responsibility of finding out the truth as an independent umpire between two warring sides. 8. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case reported in State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772 , para-28 is quoted below: "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772 , para-28 is quoted below: "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents." 9. Another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, 1975 (2) SCC 661 may also be referred wherein, in paragraph-3, their Lordships observed as under: "3. After holding the domestic inquiry in which some witnesses were examined by the employer and cross-examined by the workman and questioning the workman at the outset as well as at the end of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer Submitted very brief report to the Works Manager (hereinafter the Manager) holding that the charges were established. He did not give any detailed reasons for preferring the evidence of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the employer in the inquiry to the version of the workman. The Manager after perusal of the report of the Enquiry officer passed the order of dismissal without adverting to the evidence in the inquiry. This was particularly necessary since the Enquiry Officer had not given his reasons for his finding. Another incident occurred during the inquiry before the Manager. The workman after answering the first question of the Manager. when another question was put, abruptly left the inquiry without paying any heed to the orders of the Manager and to persuasion of other officers present asking him to wait. The dismissal order was passed the same afternoon." 10. In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2009 (2) SCC 570 , their Lordships have held as under (para-14). "14.Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2009 (2) SCC 570 , their Lordships have held as under (para-14). "14.Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 11. The learned standing counsel for the bank also relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court relating to bank employees reported in Mayank Agarwal Vs. Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others, 2013 (3) ADJ 143 (DB), Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, 2011 (4) ADJ 324 (DB) and Anil Kumar Vs. Assistant General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority, India Bank, Circle Office Vigilance Cell and others, 2011 (10) ADJ 14 . On a perusal of the same, none of those judgments absolve the Inquiry Officer/ disciplinary authority from applying his mind and holding an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the charges levelled against the employee and to record findings based on evidence. 12. We are constrained to observe that the inquiry officer in the instant case has completely failed to perform his duties and has submitted his findings mechanically. It discloses a certain pre-determination to punish the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner is a bank employee and he was required to maintain the highest degree of honesty, integrity and devotion in the discharge of his duty, but, if certain charges have been levelled against him and he denies the charges, then the same are required to be proved as per law. The fact that he is a bank employee does not mean that the inquiry officer is absolved of his duty to hold an inquiry into the charges and to record his findings impartially, objectively and in a fair manner after considering the entire material on record. The fact that he is a bank employee does not mean that the inquiry officer is absolved of his duty to hold an inquiry into the charges and to record his findings impartially, objectively and in a fair manner after considering the entire material on record. There cannot be any presumption about the guilt of the petitioner. Absolutely no reason has been assigned as to why the detailed explanations offered by the delinquent in his replies, as also, in his oral statements during the course of the inquiry, extracts of which have been placed on record, were not acceptable to the inquiry officer. Such an inquiry report cannot form the basis for any punishment to the petitioner. 13. A perusal of the show cause notice discloses that conclusive and determinative findings have been recorded by the disciplinary authority, as if, he was passing a final order of punishment and was merely observing a formality of issuing a show cause notice to the delinquent employee after receiving the inquiry report. 14. A perusal of order of punishment of 30.09.2006 discloses that, to justify his punishment, the disciplinary authority has referred to his observations made in the show cause notice dated 11.05.2006, which also goes to show that the observations contained therein were based on a pre-determination, which had influenced the mind of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has not considered the entire material on record, i.e. the charges, the replies/ explanations of the petitioner, the evidence etc. while passing the punishment order but has merely referred to the observations made in the show cause notice coupled with a superficial discussion of the representation dated 01.06.2006 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The punishment order runs hardly into two pages and does not disclose due and proper application of mind by him. The disciplinary authority has cursorily rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2006 to the show cause notice. It does not show proper application of mind of his end. 15. The appellate authority did not consider the pleas raised in the appeal, instead awarded a lesser punishment adopting a humanitarian approach. 16. In pursuance to the appellate order dated 28.04.2007, the petitioner was reinstated and has continued in service albeit on a lower pay/ grade. 17. It does not show proper application of mind of his end. 15. The appellate authority did not consider the pleas raised in the appeal, instead awarded a lesser punishment adopting a humanitarian approach. 16. In pursuance to the appellate order dated 28.04.2007, the petitioner was reinstated and has continued in service albeit on a lower pay/ grade. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the alleged inquiry report, and the order of punishment dated 30.09.2006 and the appellate order dated 28.04.2007 do not stand the scrutiny of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same are accordingly quashed. 18. The matter is remanded back to the inquiry officer for submitting a fresh inquiry report based on the inquiry already conducted by him and the material collected therein. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. On submission of such inquiry report, the disciplinary authority shall take a considered and reasoned decision, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of inquiry report after serving the inquiry report to the delinquent employee. 19. As we are remanding the matter, status quo. as existing in pursuance to the appellate order dated 28.04.2007 shall continue till final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working with the Bank for the past seven years, after his reinstatement, it is further provided that if the disciplinary authority decides to punish the petitioner, he shall not award a punishment severe than the one awarded by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.04.2007. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed.