JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Officer JMJS-1, has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 19.1.1996 vide Annexure-8 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmation thereof in appeal by the appellate authority in Annexure-10 dated 21.6.1997 with further prayer for grant of consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 2. The epitome of facts involved in the case, in hand, is that the petitioner while working as Field Officer was allowed to officiate as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Nuapada A.D.B. and due to certain omission and commission, he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and accordingly, memorandum of charge was framed in terms of Rule 50(1)(i) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, which corresponds to new Rule 61(1)(i) of SBI Officers Service Rules. The charges are as follows:- “ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI B.K. MUNI, OFFICER JMGS-I, EX-F.O.” Shri B.K. Muni, Officer JMGS-II, during his tenure as Field Officer/Offg. Branch Manager, at Nawapara A.D.B. from October 1990 to February 1992 failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, in as much as he committed certain serious irregularities in sanction and conduct of advances besides fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of funds from the loan accounts of the borrowers as detailed in the enclosed statement of imputations of misconduct (Annexure-II). 2. Shri Muni, Officer JMGS-I, has thus contravened Rules 32(1), 32(4) and 41(1) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which correspond to new Rules 50(1), 50(4) and 59(1) of SBI Officers Service Rules.” 3. The aforesaid memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner on 18.12.1993, calling upon him to submit his written statement of defence within a period of 15 days to the statement of imputations enclosed in Annexure-ii to the memorandum of charge in Annexure-1 to the writ application. But the petitioner did not submit any reply to such charge, consequently Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the inquiry under Rule- 50(2)(ii) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which corresponds to new Rule 68(2)(II) of SBI Officers Service Rules on 09.02.1994. But the petitioner did not submit any reply to such charge, consequently Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the inquiry under Rule- 50(2)(ii) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which corresponds to new Rule 68(2)(II) of SBI Officers Service Rules on 09.02.1994. The reasons for non-filing of reply to the memorandum of charge has been indicated in the letter dated 25.01.1994 vide Annexure-3, by which he sought for one month time from 27.01.1994 to enable him to peruse the records and submitted the reply. However, the inquiry commenced on 21.03.1994. The petitioner submitted his defence argument and defence brief vide Annexures-5 and 6 respectively. The inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 31.05.1995 by serving a copy on the petitioner on 02.06.1995, but no reply has been filed by the petitioner. Consequently, order was passed against him imposing major penalty of dismissal from service on 19.01.1996 vide Annexure-8 and he has been called upon to prefer an appeal within a period of 45 days as provided in Rule 51 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which corresponds to new Rule 69 of SBI Officers Service Rules. Against imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.03.1996 and on consideration of the same, it has been rejected on 20.06.1997, which has been communicated to the petitioner on 21.06.1997 vide Annexure-10. Hence this application. 4. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is gross non-compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 68(2) (iii)(iv)(v) of the SBI Officers Service Rules and due to non-supply of the documents, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice for which he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments in Jagannath Mohapatra v. Utkal University & Others, (1979) 47 CLT 5; State of U.P. v. Satrughan Lal, AIR 1998 SC 3038 ; State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Others, AIR 2001 SC 343 , Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others, 2011 (5) SCC 142 , Mathura Prasad v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2007 SC 381 . 5. Mr. 5. Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, learned counsel for the Bank while refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained on the basis of the materials available on record inasmuch as, there is no violation of the provisions contained in 68(2) (iii)(iv)(v) of the SBI Officers Service Rules and whatever documents have been sought for have been provided to the petitioner and therefore, there is compliance of the principles of natural justice. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Narayan Panda v. Zonal Manager, Bank of India and another, (1993) 76 CLT 237, Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, AIR 2005 SC 2090 ; Amulya Kumar Jena Vs. Chief General Manager, S.B.I. & Others, 2003 (Suppl.) OLR 359. 6. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the following questions emerge for consideration:- (i) Whether there is violation of Rule 68(2) (iii)(iv)(v) of the SBI Officers Service Rules? (ii) Whether there is violation of the principles of natural justice in not supplying the documents sought for by the petitioner? 7. So far as question no.(i) is concerned, it appears that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section(1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Board of the State Bank of India has made Rules determining terms and conditions of appointment and service of officers of the Bank called, “State Bank of India Officers Service Rules”. The said Rule has got statutory force and therefore, the provisions envisaged thereunder have to be followed scrupulously. If the authority has taken a decision to initiate a proceeding against its employees then, it has to follow certain procedures for disciplinary action. Rule 68(2) (iii) (iv) and (v) are referred to hereunder for proper adjudication of the case. “68(2) (i) to (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer. Rule 68(2) (iii) (iv) and (v) are referred to hereunder for proper adjudication of the case. “68(2) (i) to (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer. The articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority not exceeding 15 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defence. (iv) On receipt of a written statement of the officer, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an inquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary to do so appoint under clause (ii) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose. Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge. (v) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the Inquiring Authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority:- (a) a copy of the articles of charge and statements of imputations of misconduct; (b) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer; (c) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (d) a copy of statements of witnesses, if any; (e) evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge under clause (iii); (f) a copy of the order appointing the “Presenting Officer” in terms of clause (vi). 8. On perusal of Clause-iii of Rule 68(2), it is made clear that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officers. 8. On perusal of Clause-iii of Rule 68(2), it is made clear that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officers. The articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority not exceeding 15 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority a written statement of defense. The petitioner states that he received the statement of allegation together with the articles of charge, which has been communicated to him on 10.01.1994. He was not given opportunity to submit his written statement of defence in view of the fact that there was a bereavement in the family, for which he remained on leave till 24.01.1994 and as such, he prayed for one month time to peruse the records and file the reply, but the same have not been provided to him, consequence thereof, he could not give his effective reply to the allegations made against him in the memorandum of charge supplied to him. 9. Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the Bank has produced the disciplinary proceeding file of the petitioner which contains documents of inquiry report. No where it indicates that petitioner has been granted opportunity to submit his written statement of defence as required under Rule 68(2)(iii). As it appears, the petitioner vide Annexure-3 requested the General Manager (Operation) through the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, his letter dated 25.01.1994, stating therein that he received the letter dated 18.12.1993 on 10.01.1994 his mother expired on 12.01.1994 and therefore, he was on leave up to 22.01.1994 to perform his religious rites and joined his duties on 24.01.1994 and therefore, he sought for one month time from 27.01.1994 to peruse the records and to give his reply. On perusal of record, it appears that nothing has been communicated on such letter to the petitioner. On perusal of record, it appears that nothing has been communicated on such letter to the petitioner. The inquiry officer without following due procedure as envisaged under the Rules submitted his report and the disciplinary authority without application of mind mechanically passed the order imposing major penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 67(h) of the SBI Officers Service Rules on 19.01.1996 in Annexure-8. While preferring appeal the petitioner has categorically stated that the provisions of the service rules applicable to the petitioner having not been complied with, action taken is in violation of the said Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is non-compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 68(2)(iii) of the S.B.I. Officers Service Rules. 10. With regard to question No.(ii), so far as non supply of documents is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has sought for documents for his perusal and to that extent correspondence has been made with the Inquiry Authority but the Bank has not given the documents as per DEX- 11, thereby the petitioner has become handicapped to give exhaustive reply to the contentions raised. More so the documents, which have not been supplied to the petitioner, have been utilized against him to impose major penalty of dismissal from service. Though such point has been raised before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has neither considered the same in proper perspective. The disciplinary file produced before this Court indicates that documents asked for by the petitioner have not been supplied to him, rather, the same have been utilized against him for imposing such major penalty, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. The reliance placed on Narayan Panda (supra) by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties is a case where appointment of Inquiry Officer was made in the charge sheet, employee participated in the inquiry proceeding without raising any objection and subsequently he raised the question of bias, the Apex Court held that the petitioner having participated in the proceeding itself without raising any objection, the order of disciplinary authority basing on such inquiry proceeding cannot be vitiated. The said judgment is not applicable to the present context in view of the fact that the petitioner has not made out a case in that respect, rather his case is altogether different than that of the case mentioned above. 12. The said judgment is not applicable to the present context in view of the fact that the petitioner has not made out a case in that respect, rather his case is altogether different than that of the case mentioned above. 12. In Canara Bank Vs. V. K. Awasthy (supra), while considering the scope of judicial review, the Apex Court held that the same is very limited one. In the said case the ground of prejudice or violation of principles of natural justice not being raised by the employee either in the memorandum of appeal or at the time of personal hearing before the appellate authority, the Apex Court held that post-decisional hearing can obliterate the procedural deficiency of a pre-decisional hearing, and therefore there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The ratio of the decision in the said case is not applicable to the present context, because of the reason that though the petitioner sought for time, the same was not granted and as such he sought for perusal of documents, the same has neither been granted to him nor copies thereof were supplied to him. 13. In Amulya Kumar Jena (supra) this Court refused to interfere holding that the finding has been arrived at on the basis of acceptable evidence. The judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, are of no assistance since this Court has come to a conclusion that there is contravention of the provisions contained in Rule 68(2)(iii) read with the principles of natural justice and these questions were raised before the appellate authority and the appellate authority did not deal with the same in proper perspective. 14. In State of Punjab v. Bhagatram, AIR 1974 SC 2335 , State of U.P. v. Mohmed Sarif, 1982 (2) SCC 376 , Kasinath Dikshita v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , the apex Court held that non-disclosure of documents would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. 15. In Indu Bhuasan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278 , the apex Court has held that reasonable opportunity includes the duty to disclose material adverse to the employee, even when there is no statutory rule to this effect. 16. 15. In Indu Bhuasan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278 , the apex Court has held that reasonable opportunity includes the duty to disclose material adverse to the employee, even when there is no statutory rule to this effect. 16. In State of U.P. and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 , the apex Court held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the delinquent officer cannot be treated as casual exercise and the inquiry proceeding also cannot be conducted with closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a delinquent officer is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 17. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is made clear that due to non compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 68(2)(iii) read with the principles of natural justice, the major punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the authority and confirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained due to procedural lapses in conducting the inquiry. Accordingly this Court sets aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-8 and the confirmation thereof made by the appellate authority in Annexure-10 and remits the matter back to the disciplinary authority to cause a fresh inquiry by affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Since it is a year-old case, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities shall take expeditious steps for disposal of the proceeding in conformity with provisions of law governing the field, as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner is also directed to co-operate the authority in all respect. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ application stands disposed of. No order to cost.