JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Messenger at Badapokhari Branch of Balasore Gramya Bank has filed this application challenging the order dated 6.6.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of removal from service under Annexure-11 under Regulation 30 (2) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority vide Annexure-13 dated 13.03.2001 under Regulation 32 (b) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980. 2. The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner being an under matriculate was engaged on daily wage basis as Messenger in Balasore Gramya Bank on 5.3.1986. Pursuant to which, he joined in the said post and subsequently his services were regularized in the year 1992. Thereafter he was posted at Balasore Branch and while he was discharging his duty at the said branch, having committed certain irregularities while functioning as Messenger, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegation of misappropriation of depositors money amounting to Rs. 20952/- in sixteen numbers of savings bank accounts by issuing fake deposit receipts/counterfoils to the depositors, borrowing of Rs. 6000/- from two numbers of IRDP beneficiaries, misappropriation of Rs. 6000/- by encashing withdrawal slip of Smt. Padmabati Rout in her S.B. Account No. 919 without her knowledge, misappropriation of Rs. 25500/- from two numbers of IRDP loanees by issuing fake counterfoils/receipts, non-adjustment of sundry debtors advance of Rs. 928/- availed of by him against T.A./L.F.C. and taking away of bank's petromax light from Badapokhari branch. Therefore, he was placed under suspension along with one Sudarsan Dehuri, Cashier of the very same branch on the selfsame charge as per Rule 30 (4) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Regulation 1980') vide letter dated 14.6.1997 under Annexure-4 by the Chairman of the bank. Accordingly, articles of charges and memorandum of charges/allegations were served on the petitioner vide letter dated 11.12.1997 under Annexure-5 with instruction to submit his explanation/written statement in defence within a period of 15 days and such charge sheet had been issued without prejudice to the bank's right for issuing further charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet in respect of other irregularities, misconduct, if any, noticed during the course of further investigation. In response to the same, the petitioner filed written statement of defence vide Annexure-6 dated 22.12.1997 denying the allegations made against him and stating that he being a messenger is not legally authorized to make any transaction to any of the books of account nor has he been lawfully entrusted to execute any transaction in the pass book or any books of account so used in the banking transaction. Therefore, any irregularity so committed in the books of accounts and for the resulted loss to banks money only person or incumbent so lawfully authorized would be liable and as such Sri Sudarsan Dehury, Cashier, who was also placed under suspension has committed all the irregularity and he being the author of all such documents so referred is liable for punishment. Therefore, the petitioner is no way concerned with such allegation and accordingly sought for exoneration from the charges levelled against him. But without considering such contention raised by the petitioner, the order of removal has been passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-11 as a major punishment as per provisions contained under Regulation 30 (2) of the Regulations, 1980. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority without considering the grievance of the petitioner in proper perspective has confirmed the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-13 dated 13.03.2001 under Regulation 32 (b) of the Regulations, 1980. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that admittedly the petitioner has discharged his duty of a messenger and he has not been entrusted with the job of handling of bank accounts or the register so as to commit irregularity or illegality in misappropriating the bank money in any manner. It is stated that the Chairman being the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service and he is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, the appellate authority, and being one of the members of the appellate authority he has confirmed his own order in appeal. Therefore, the Board of Director being biased against the petitioner has confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the Board of Director being biased against the petitioner has confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is further stated that in view of the admission of the manager and cashier that they are the custodian of seal, receipts and they authenticated the books of accounts, no liability is attributable on the messenger as he is no way connected with the alleged misappropriation of bank's money and as such proceeding as against the cashier Sri Sudarsan Dehury was initiated by putting him under suspension and thereafter he has also been removed from service. He has also admitted in the proceeding that he has committed such irregularity and illegality and thereafter deposited the amount before the bank. It is stated that the charges were proved and order has been passed on no evidence. It is stated that the material witnesses namely Maya Marandi and Asu Hansda have not been examined so far as charge No. 2 is concerned. Similarly, so far as charge Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, Smt. Padmabati Rout and Dasaya Singh were not examined. Therefore, the punishment of removal of service imposed by the authority is shockingly disproportionate to the allegation made against the petitioner as the petitioner being a messenger is not authorized to deal with bank's money. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal vide Annexures-11 and 13 respectively and grant of all consequential relief as due and admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law. To substantiate his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments in State of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) Vs. Narul Latif Khan Gangadhar Mishra Vs. Director, Text Book Production and Marketing and Others, and Dwijabar Bhuyan Vs. Konark Television Ltd. and Another, . 4. Mr. G. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party-bank justified the action taken against the petitioner by stating that in the inquiry proceeding vide Annexure-8 considering the evidence of the witnesses who have deposed that they have handed over the cash to the petitioner which he received and consequentially issued counterfoils to them and accordingly the petitioner made entry in their pass book, it was proved that the petitioner has misappropriated the deposit money and acted in contravention to the relevant provision of bank's norm. It is stated that all the six charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and accordingly the disciplinary authority passed order of removal from service as per Regulation 30 (2) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980. So far as charge No. 5 is concerned, the same having been proved, the disciplinary authority stated that non-adjustment of sundry debtors advance recovered from the petitioner with interest @17.5% per annum was well within the complete domain of the authority and as such no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the bank in the disciplinary proceeding. He has relied upon the inquiry report and also stated that basing upon the evidence available on record, punishment has been imposed by the disciplinary authority and having found the same justified, the appellate authority confirmed the same vide impugned order in Annexure-13 dated 13.03.2001. Therefore, there is no illegality and irregularity in awarding the punishment against the petitioner. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, it should be examined:-- "i. whether the petitioner being a messenger has been entrusted with the work of maintaining the bank accounts, register and utilize the seals; ii. whether the Chairman as disciplinary authority has passed impugned order of removal from service in Annexure-11 and also was a party to the order of passed by the appellate authority or not;" 6. In answering issue No. i, admittedly the petitioner was discharging duty of messenger and as such there was no entrustment to any of the messengers to handle the bank documents, maintain the records of books of account and utilize the seal of the bank. The custodian of the records being the manager and the cashier of the bank, the petitioner is no way connected with the charge of alleged fraudulent misappropriation and unauthorized borrowings of the bank borrowers etc. May be while discharging the duty of messenger, the petitioner might have carried the deposit slips to the depositors on instruction of the cashier so as to facilitate speedy movement of the customers, but that ipso facto cannot be construed that the petitioner has been entrusted with the duty and responsibility of maintaining the bank accounts and documents so as to become liable for misappropriation of banks money unauthorizedly and irregular borrowings from the bank borrowers. While conducting inquiry though the witnesses have been examined, who have unequivocally stated that they have handed over the bank deposit slips and received the counterfoils from him. That itself cannot be sufficient to prove that the petitioner has in any manner misappropriated the money when the counterfoils are not signed by the petitioner in any manner. The deposits made by the customer having been duly acknowledged by the cashier and accordingly counterfoils being granted, the disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no entrustment of the money to the petitioner so as to prove the allegation of misappropriation of banks money by the petitioner. Both the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have committed gross error apparent on the face of the record that if the entrustment of the work has not been done in favour of the petitioner, he cannot be found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the basic requirement of law is to prove the entrustment in favour of the petitioner and in absence of such entrustment, any findings, in contra, cannot sustain and as such no punishment can be imposed against the petitioner. Since the cashier is being entrusted with the work and admittedly proceeding has been initiated against him and he has been removed from service, the finding of the inquiry officer that the petitioner is responsible because he has been allowed to carry some deposit slips and pass counterfoils to the depositors that ipso facto cannot be sufficient to proceed against the petitioner on the ground of misappropriation of bank's money. In absence of any scope on the part of the petitioner to handle the cash and maintain the accounts, this Court fails to understand how the petitioner can be held guilty of charges of misappropriation of the banks money. If any assistance has been rendered by the petitioner to the cashier to facilitate the customers to expedite the deposits by handing over the deposit slips on acceptance by the cashier all the deposits made, it cannot be said that the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of bank's money. If any assistance has been rendered by the petitioner to the cashier to facilitate the customers to expedite the deposits by handing over the deposit slips on acceptance by the cashier all the deposits made, it cannot be said that the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of bank's money. More so, when the cashier, who has been lawfully entrusted with the job has been punished and removed from service for the illegality and irregularity committed by following disciplinary proceeding against him, no fault can be found with the petitioner for the alleged charges levelled against him. 7. Similar question has been considered by this Court in Gangadhar Mishra and Dwijabar Bhuyan (supra) and this Court on consideration of the same, quashed the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. So far as reliance placed on the judgment in The State of Bombay (supra) is concerned, the ratio decided therein has no application to the present context. 8. Applying the same analogy to the present context, the petitioner having not been entrusted with the job of maintaining the bank account and records, this Court is of the considered view that the imposition of penalty of removal from service by the disciplinary authority and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority cannot sustain in the eye of law. 9. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, it is urged that the Chairman being the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service against the petitioner and he being one of the members of the Board of Director in which the Chairman is a member acted as the appellate authority considered the appeal. Therefore, the appellate authority while confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was grossly biased against the petitioner. But on perusal of the records, it appears that in the appeal proceeding, the appellate authority Sri S.K. Chakraborty, being the regular incumbent of the post of Chairman remained absent during the deliberation and the said appeal matter of the petitioner was deliberated under the chairmanship of Sri U.K. Mishra, sponsor Bank nominee director. Therefore, no bias can be attributable to the decision of the appellate authority. Therefore, no bias can be attributable to the decision of the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the appellate authority does not suffer from the vice of bias as the chairman who has passed the order of removal as disciplinary authority was not a party to the proceeding of the appellate authority which considered the appeal of the petitioner. Issue No. ii is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that since there was no entrustment to the petitioner as a messenger to maintain the banks account record, books of accounts and documents, the order of punishment of removal from service vide Annexure-11 and confirmation thereof vide Annexure-13 cannot sustain. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and extend all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order to costs. Final Result : Allowed