ORDER : Govind Mathur, J. By order dated 29.6.2013, the notified Disciplinary Authority of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits upon the petitioner, who was working with the Bank as "Daftari". An appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.11.2013. To challenge the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. Before coming to facts of the case, it shall be appropriate to state that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted as per the bi-partite agreement dated 10.4.2002, but that is not available with learned counsels for the parties. Be that as it may, looking to the nature of case, I have heard the writ petition even in absence of the applicable agreement. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Smt. Sarki Rebari submitted a written complaint to the Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Manadar Branch with assertion that she gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Shri Joga Ram Daftari in the month of December, 2000 to get the same deposited in her saving bank account. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was again given in the month of June, 2011 but the amount was not deposited in her account. The complainant Smt. Sarki Devi on 7.2.2012 conveyed to the authorities of bank that she want to withdraw the complaint against Shri Joga Ram, being the matter settled between the parties. 4. The Disciplinary Authority subsequent thereto served a charge-sheet on 01.11.2012 upon the petitioner alleging that he unauthorisedly accepted money from Smt. Sarki Devi but did not deposit that in her account. 4. The Disciplinary Authority subsequent thereto served a charge-sheet on 01.11.2012 upon the petitioner alleging that he unauthorisedly accepted money from Smt. Sarki Devi but did not deposit that in her account. Specific details of the charge aforesaid was bifurcated in four parts, that reads as under :- ^^d & fnukad 03 fnlEcj] 2010 dks Jherh lkjdh nsoh Lo;a ds cpr [kkrs esa :i;s 20000@& tek djokus vk;h rc vkius muls :i;s 20000@& ysdj bl jkf'k dh jlhn cSad dh lhy yxkdj o Lo;a ds gLrk{kj djds ns nhA [k & fnukad 27 twu] 2011 dks Jherh lkjdh nsoh vius ifr ds lkFk iqu% :i;s 20000@& dh jkf'k tek djokus vk;h rc Hkh vius muls :i;s 20000@& ysdj bldh jlhn cSad dh lhy yxkdj o vius gLrk{kj djds ns nhA ,oe~ vkius vius gkFk ls nksuksa jkf'k;ksa dh izfof"V muds ikl cqd esa dj nhA x & fnukad 12-12-2011 dks tc Jherh lkjdh nsoh us 'kk[kk esa :i;s 10000@& tek djok dj jksdfM;k ls ikl cqd esa izfof"V djok;h rks :i;s 20000@& dh nksuksa izfof"V;ka ugha ik;h o [kkrs dk 'ks"k ek= :i;s 10119@& ik;k x;kA Jherh lkjdh nsoh ds vuqlkj mDr nksuksa jkf'k;ka :i;s 20000@& ,oa :i;s 20000@& vki }kjk muls cpr [kkrs esa tek ugha dh x;hA ?k & twu 2011 esa Jherh lkjdh nsoh vius ifr Jh oxrk jke ds lkFk cSad esa :i;s 20000@& tek djokus vk;h rks vkius muds (lkjdh nsoh) ,oa muds ifr dk vaxwBk fu'kkuh yh rFkk cqd esa muds ifr dh QksVksa yxkdj uke fy[k fn;kA ijUrq ckn esa iwNrkN djus ij irk pyk fd [kkrk muds vdsys uke ls gSA** 5. While submitting explanation, the petitioner stated that the charge levelled against him is ill-founded and false. He denied acceptance of money from Smt. Sarki Devi on 3.12.2000 and 27.7.2011. He also referred the letter dated 7.2.2012 where-under the complaint was withdrawn by Smt. Sarki Devi. 6. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation given, appointed Enquiry Officer to have regular enquiry in the matter. 7. During the course of enquiry statement of one Shri Indarmal Rawal (DW-1), Branch Manager, Manadar Branch of the bank were recorded. Suffice to mention that Shri Indarmal Raval came to be posted as Branch Manager of the Branch concerned on 7.7.2012 i.e. after a lapse of about eight months from the date Smt. Sarki Devi submitted complaint to the authority competent. Suffice to mention that Shri Indarmal Raval came to be posted as Branch Manager of the Branch concerned on 7.7.2012 i.e. after a lapse of about eight months from the date Smt. Sarki Devi submitted complaint to the authority competent. Shri Indarmal Raval while deposing before the Enquiry Officer stated that on the date of incident, he was not working as Branch Manager of Manadar Branch, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, but he was knowing about the complaint, being available on record. This witness further stated that during his tenure he did not receive any complaint from Smt. Sarki Devi and the original receipts which were said to be given by the delinquent employee were also not with the Bank but were with Smt. Sarki Devi only. No other person was produced in evidence by the employer to substantiate the charge. 8. The petitioner in defence adduced evidence and he also submitted written arguments. 9. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving record of enquiry, under a communication dated 29.6.2013 informed the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer held him guilty and by taking into consideration the record submitted by the Enquiry Officer he propose to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. He advised the petitioner to submit his explanation, if any, in relation to the proposed punishment. 10. On asking, the Disciplinary Authority under a letter dated 02.7.2013 supplied crux of the report given by the Enquiry Officer. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were also supplied to the delinquent officer and that is available on record as Annex.9. After receiving findings of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted objections in detail on 9.7.2013 with assertion that the material available is not sufficient to held him guilty for the charge of misconduct. In quite specific terms he stated that the only witness who adduced evidence against him did not support the allegations. An opportunity of personal hearing was also given by the Disciplinary Authority on 26.7.2013 and while availing the same, the delinquent officer again raised certain issues in relation to the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer in writing. The Disciplinary Authority then passed the order impugned dated 02.8.2013 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. 11. The Disciplinary Authority then passed the order impugned dated 02.8.2013 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. 11. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed under the order dated 7.11.2013. Pertinent to mention here that in the appeal memo the petitioner questioned correctness of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on several counts including that :- 1. No evidence is available on record to held him guilty, specially, looking to the fact that the complainant Smt. Sarki Devi was not even called to substantiate the contents of the complaint; 2. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is bad as no copy of Enquiry Report was supplied; 3. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order; 4. No loss was caused either to the bank or to Smt. Sarki Devi; and 5. The Disciplinary Authority has not taken into consideration the evidence adduced in defence. 12. The Appellate Authority under the order dated 7.11.2013 though referred that he considered contents of appeal but did not refer any argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 13. The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are non-speaking and unreasoned orders. The orders do not disclose the material on the basis the petitioner is held guilty of the allegation levelled. 14. Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondent-Bank the petitioner participated in enquiry, adequate opportunity was given to him to defend himself and his explanation was sought even for the proposed punishment, therefore, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is not well founded. 15. During course of arguments it is also stated that before holding enquiry, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner admitted his guilt. 16. So far as this argument is concerned, that is not acceptable as during the course of regular enquiry neither report of preliminary enquiry was produced nor the person who conducted preliminary enquiry was examined as bank witness by the Enquiry Officer. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. 16. So far as this argument is concerned, that is not acceptable as during the course of regular enquiry neither report of preliminary enquiry was produced nor the person who conducted preliminary enquiry was examined as bank witness by the Enquiry Officer. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. The Disciplinary Authority under the letter dated 29.6.2013 instructed the petitioner to tender explanation, if any, with regard to findings of guilt and the proposed punishment. 19. A report of the enquiry was not supplied to the delinquent officer along with this communication. The crux of the report of Enquiry Officer and note of finding arrived by the Enquiry Officer were supplied to him subsequently. A detailed note thereafter was given by the delinquent officer to the Disciplinary Authority but the Disciplinary Authority while imposing penalty of compulsory retirement under the communication dated 02.8.2013 did not choose to refer the objections raised by the delinquent officer in relation to the findings arrived. The Disciplinary Authority simply mentioned that an opportunity was given to the delinquent officer to submit his explanation and for personal hearing but he failed to establish his innocence. 20. It is well settled that report of Enquiry Officer is a material adverse to the delinquent officer and, therefore, the explanation with regard to that must be called for and the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the objections, if any given by the delinquent officer is required to deal with all the issues raised as such. In the case in hand, the Disciplinary Authority has not considered even a single objection raised by the delinquent officer in relation to the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority too. As a matter of fact, the order dated 02.8.2013 is nothing but a copy at verbatim of the communication dated 29.6.2013. The Disciplinary Authority should have examined the evidence available and then by discussing that should have formed his opinion founded on reasons. The order impugned is lacking such reasons in support of the findings arrived. This clearly indicates mechanical exercise of powers and non-application of mind. 21. Another aspect of the matter is that no report of Enquiry Officer was supplied to the delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing penalty. The order impugned is lacking such reasons in support of the findings arrived. This clearly indicates mechanical exercise of powers and non-application of mind. 21. Another aspect of the matter is that no report of Enquiry Officer was supplied to the delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing penalty. The only material supplied was crux of enquiry report and that does not contain the reason for arriving at the conclusion about commission of misconduct. 22. It is well settled that the Enquiry Officer while arriving at a definite conclusion should examine all material available on record and should give reasons to accept the version more plausible. 23. Such consideration is not the part of the note of crux supplied. In absence of such material, it was quite difficult for the petitioner to defend himself. I have also examined the order passed by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority should have examined all relevant arguments advanced before him while pursuing the appeal. The Appellate Authority must have satisfied himself as to why penalty chosen is adequate or not. In totality, I am not having no hesitation that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not a speaking and reasoned order, as such, violation of principles of natural justice is apparent. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 02.8.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 7.11.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be re-instated in service. The respondent Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to an pass order afresh by giving sufficient reasons. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedy of appeal, if, the Disciplinary Authority imposes any punishment. The issue with regard to grant of backwages shall also be decided by the Disciplinary Authority after examining the entire matter afresh. No order as to costs.