JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. The appellant/petitioner herein was a Clerk-cum-Cashier of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The said petitioner while discharging his duties as Clerk-cum-Cashier was placed under suspension by the Chairman of the said Bank. The Chairman of the said Bank assumed the power of the disciplinary authority and issued chargesheet to the said appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner categorically denied all the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer after holding the enquiry submitted report and a copy of the said enquiry report was thereafter forwarded to the appellant/petitioner by the Chairman who claimed himself as the disciplinary authority. The appellant/petitioner was also granted opportunity to submit reply on the findings of the enquiry officer. The appellant/petitioner submitted written submissions on the findings of the enquiry officer. In the said written submission, appellant/petitioner raised several objections in respect of findings of the enquiry officer and requested the disciplinary authority to exonerate the said appellant from all the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet. The Chairman of the Bank thereafter claiming himself as the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of removal from service of the appellant/petitioner and before taking final decision with regard to the aforesaid punishment an opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner was also informed that instead of appearing in person written representation can also be submitted. The appellant/petitioner appeared before the Chairman and claimed himself innocent. The appellant categorically submitted before the Chairman that he has been victimized at the instance of other employees of the Bank. The Chairman of the Bank again claiming himself as the disciplinary authority issued the final order of punishment removing the said appellant/petitioner from service. Challenging the aforesaid punishment order, appellant herein filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal. Assailing the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant/petitioner herein preferred the instant appeal and also filed stay application in connection with the said appeal. The appellant/petitioner herein challenged the validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said appellant on the ground that the Chairman of the Bank could not assume the power of the disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant herein as per the Service Regulations. Referring to the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, Mr. The appellant/petitioner herein challenged the validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said appellant on the ground that the Chairman of the Bank could not assume the power of the disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant herein as per the Service Regulations. Referring to the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Chairman of the Bank is not the disciplinary authority of the appellant herein and therefore, the said Chairman had no right to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant herein assuming the power of the disciplinary authority. Mr. Saha Roy further submitted that the Chairman of the Bank is the appellate authority and therefore the said Chairman could not initiate the disciplinary proceedings assuming the power of the disciplinary authority. Mr. Saha Roy also submitted that the power of the disciplinary authority should be exercised by the authority prescribed under the statute and not even by the higher authority. According to Mr. Saha Roy, General Manager of the Bank is the disciplinary authority of the appellant herein and the Chairman is the appellate authority. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said appellant lost the appellate forum since the appellate authority in the present case acted as the disciplinary authority. Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate of the appellant submitted that in terms of the Service Regulations, General Manager being the competent authority alone could issue chargesheet against the appellant and the said General Manager being the disciplinary authority is only entitled to impose punishment on the appellant. The learned counsel of the appellant further submitted that at no point of time, Chairman of the Bank was the disciplinary authority of the appellant and therefore the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by issuing the chargesheet and also imposition of punishment by the said Chairman being the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Mr. Saha Roy also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant was vitiated due to non-compliance of the statutory Service Regulations since the power of the disciplinary authority was not exercised by the authority mentioned in the Service Regulation. Mr. Mr. Saha Roy also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant was vitiated due to non-compliance of the statutory Service Regulations since the power of the disciplinary authority was not exercised by the authority mentioned in the Service Regulation. Mr. Saha Roy specifically submitted that the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated by the prescribed authority only and therefore the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the present case cannot be held to be proper and valid. Mr. Saha Roy referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his aforesaid arguments :- 1. Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors. Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 , Para-26. 2. A. K. Roy & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1986) 4 SCC 326 , Para-10. 3. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Paul George, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 352, Paragraphs-46, 47, 49 & 50. The aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel of the appellant have also no manner of application in the facts of the present case relating to initiation of disciplinary proceedings by an authority superior to the disciplinary authority since the charged employee in the present case did not lose the right of appeal. The learned advocate representing the respondent Bank also submitted that the Chairman being the superior authority of the General Manager can assume the power of the disciplinary authority in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and the appellant cannot suffer any prejudice since the appellate forum is still available to the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge categorically held that in the present case Chairman also preserved the right of the appellant to prefer appeal before the Board of the respondent Bank. The aforesaid question has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 . In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :- “Para – 5. It is permissible for an authority, higher than the appointing authority to initiate the proceedings and impose punishment, in case he is not the appellate authority so that the delinquent may not lose the right of appeal. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 . In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :- “Para – 5. It is permissible for an authority, higher than the appointing authority to initiate the proceedings and impose punishment, in case he is not the appellate authority so that the delinquent may not lose the right of appeal. In other case, the delinquent has to prove as to what prejudice has been caused to him.” We have already observed that the appellant in the present case did not loose the right of appeal since it was open to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the Board of the respondent Bank from the order passed by the Chairman of the said Bank who acted as the disciplinary authority in the present case. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be vitiated only on the ground that the Chairman of the said Bank acted as the disciplinary authority instead of the General Manager since we find that the appellant herein did not lose the right to prefer appeal before the Board of the respondent Bank. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant that both the order of proposed punishment and final order of punishment issued by the Chairman are not sustainable in the eye of law for not assigning the reasons. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the disciplinary authority should have furnished at least brief reasons while proposing the punishment and also in the final order of punishment. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the disciplinary authority did not assign any reason for accepting the findings of the enquiry officer specially when the appellant submitted a detailed representation narrating the irregularities committed by the said enquiry officer and prayed for rejecting the wrong and erroneous findings of the enquiry officer. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the disciplinary authority should have disclosed the reasons for non-accepting of the explanations of the charged employee namely, the appellant herein in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer. Mr. Saha Roy, learned counsel of the appellant submitted that the appellant should know why the disciplinary authority disbelieved the explanations of the appellant and accepted the findings of the enquiry officer. Mr. Saha Roy, learned counsel of the appellant submitted that the appellant should know why the disciplinary authority disbelieved the explanations of the appellant and accepted the findings of the enquiry officer. The learned advocate representing the respondent Bank however, submitted that the disciplinary authority is not bound to furnish detailed reasons specially when the findings of the enquiry officer were accepted by the disciplinary authority. The learned advocate representing the respondent Bank submitted that it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to discuss the evidence and reiterate the findings of the enquiry officer even after accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. The learned advocate of the respondent Bank referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 12. The learned advocate of the respondent Bank specifically relied on Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid decision which is set out hereinbelow:- “Para-6. So far as the second point is concerned, it has been brought to our notice that the Enquiry Officer’s report was accepted by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Board of the Institute. This was at its meeting held on February 10, 1982. Thereafter, a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was sent to the respondent and he was asked to show cause why a penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. After considering the reply filed by the respondent, an order was passed on September 2, 1982 in which it was stated that the Board, after considering the report at its meeting held on August 2, 1982 and the reply of the respondent to the show cause notice, had arrived at the conclusion that there was no reason to alter the decision already taken by the Board regarding the penalty proposed to be imposed on the respondent. The High Court has taken the view that the Board should have passed a reasoned order. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that more detailed reasons were not necessary. The High Court has referred, in its judgment, to the decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. The High Court has taken the view that the Board should have passed a reasoned order. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that more detailed reasons were not necessary. The High Court has referred, in its judgment, to the decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana pointing out that when by an impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss the evidence, reiterate the same findings and give the reasons for the findings. In our opinion, the principle of this decision will apply to the facts of this case particularly as the issue before the Board was a very short one as to whether the writing of certain letters by the respondent, which he admitted, constituted misconduct or not.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision made it clear that the decision will apply to the facts of the said case particularly when the issue before the Board was a very short one as to whether the writing of certain letters by the employee concern constitute misconduct or not. The principle decided in the aforesaid case has no manner of application in the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 approved the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 . In the aforesaid case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :- “Para-27. …………………………………………..The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.” The learned advocate of the appellant also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :- “Para-23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned…………………………” The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on the appellant herein is not supported by any independent reason. Therefore, it is difficult for the appellant herein to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority without knowing the reasons which persuaded the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment on the appellant. The disciplinary authority forwarded the report of the enquiry officer to the appellant herein with a direction to submit written comments on the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, when the written comments on the findings of the enquiry officer were submitted by the appellant herein, the same should have been considered by the disciplinary authority and adequate reasons for accepting the findings of the enquiry officer should have been furnished. In the present case, the disciplinary authority only record the findings of the enquiry officer in the proposed order of punishment and also in the final order of punishment but did not assign any reason for accepting the findings of the enquiry officer disregarding the objections of the appellant herein in relation to the said findings of the enquiry officer. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (supra), we are of the opinion that the unreasoned order of punishment of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law since we have held that the appellant herein was entitled to know why the objections raised by him in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer had been rejected by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer heavily relied on the alleged confessional statement of the appellant herein although the appellant herein categorically informed the enquiry officer and subsequently to the disciplinary authority that the said appellant was forced to make confessional statement. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted before this court that the alleged confessional statement made by the appellant herein was never proved in the departmental proceedings. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that no evidence has been brought on record in order to establish that the appellant had defalcated the sum of Rs. 1,47,150/- on 18th November, 2010. The learned advocate of the appellant specifically submitted before this court that the appellant herein was forced to make confessional statement which could not be relied upon by the enquiry officer since there was no direct evidence or even any indirect evidence to establish that the appellant had defalcated any amount of the Bank. The learned advocate representing the appellant further submitted that the punishment for removal from service of the appellant is shockingly disproportionate since the Bank did not suffer any pecuniary loss. The adequacy and/or the proportionality of the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority cannot be examined in the present case since the disciplinary authority did not assign any reason in support of the final order of punishment issued to the appellant. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority proposing punishment and the subsequent order regarding imposition of punishment of removal from service are not supported by any reason assigned by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the aforesaid orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are accordingly, quashed. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Therefore, the aforesaid orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are accordingly, quashed. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The disciplinary authority is directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant/petitioner de novo from the stage of submission of reply by the appellant/petitioner on the findings of the enquiry officer. The said disciplinary authority is directed to pass appropriate final order upon considering the comments of the appellant on the findings of the enquiry officer without any further delay and assigning proper reasons. In view of quashing of the final order of punishment of removal of the appellant/petitioner from service, the said appellant should be treated under suspension although and will also remain under suspension till the final order is passed by the disciplinary authority in terms of this order. Needless to mention that the appellant/petitioner will be entitled to receive the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension at the rate last received by the said appellant. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the arrear subsistence allowance within two weeks from date positively and current subsistence allowance should be paid regularly within 7th of each succeeding month according to English Calendar. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of both the applications as well as the appeal without awarding costs.