Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Heard on admission. 2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has partly allowed Respondent’s WP(C) No. 6482/2006. 3. The respondent was serving as Regional Manager of the appellant-Bank at Silchar Regional Office. He was due to retire from service on 30.9.1999 and was served with a charge sheet on the same date in respect of the misconduct allegedly committed by him between 1993 and 1995. The respondent filed reply to the charge sheet which was not found to be satisfactory. In the result, enquiry officer was appointed and respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. During the course of enquiry, respondent filed an application for inspection of certain documents which was denied on the ground of relevancy. The appellant examined two witnesses who supported the charges against the respondent. Both these witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent. Later, the same witnesses were again re-examined by the appellant and despite request by the respondent they were not allowed to cross-examine by him. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report against the respondent and imposed a penalty on him of reduction of basic pay at six stage in the time scale of pay as applicable on 30.9.1999. Aggrieved, the respondent filed WP(C) No. 6482/2006 which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed to the extent that he has set aside the order of punishment with a direction that disciplinary authority shall conduct the disciplinary proceeding de novo by allowing the respondent to inspect all relevant documents, to lead evidence in defence, after such inspection and cross-examination the appellant’s witnesses who introduced new facts on re-examination. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that since respondent has suffered disciplinary proceedings for more than 25 years it was expected on the part of disciplinary authority not to impose major penalty having regard to the nature of allegation leveled against him as there was no allegation of misappropriation of any Bank money. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dislodge the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent was not permitted to cross-examine the appellant’s witnesses despite they had introduced new facts on their subsequent re-examination. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dislodge the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent was not permitted to cross-examine the appellant’s witnesses despite they had introduced new facts on their subsequent re-examination. Likewise, the findings of the learned Single Judge that respondent was not allowed to inspect relevant documents which were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in holding the charges proved against respondent. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the order passed today (04.04.2016) in WA No. 360/2015, this Misc. case stands disposed of.