JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant-State Bank of India is aggrieved of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3255 of 2003 filed by the respondent-employee namely, Anil Kumar Mishra, whereby the penalty of removal from service has been held bad, illegal and unsustainable on account of consultation with the Central Vigilance Officer. 2. The factual matrix of the case speaks that the respondent no.1writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent) served at Patan Branch of the appellant-Bank from 16.06.1998 to 10.11.1998 and during this period he committed several acts of misconduct for which a chargememo dated 17.06.2000 containing the following charges was served upon him:- (i) The delinquent employee collected Rs.78,411/- from 14 borrowers for credit to their loan accounts under IRDP and misappropriated the entire amount. (ii) He sanctioned IRDP loans to wives of 14 borrowers and got their discharge on the Banker's Cheque for payment of loan however, he kept the amount of Rs.2,45,000/- with himself on the pretext of adjusting the loan accounts of their husbands. (iii) He sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.13.40 lacs in September, 1998 and Rs.4.52 lacs in October, 1998 and thereby exceeded the budgeted level by Rs.6.39 lacs and Rs.9.79 lacs for the respective months and violated the instructions of the controller for not exceeding the budget under advance and the instruction not to exercise discretionary power in sanction of loans till further instructions. (iv) The Charged Officer recovered less margin in respect of PMRY Loan Account Nos. 15 and 16. (v) He sanctioned and disbursed Rs.50,000/- each to 5 borrowers under IRDP Group Finance for Tractor loan, exceeding his discretionary power for sanction of loan without mortgage of land and did not obtain postfacto sanction from the controlling office. (vi) He committed irregularities in sanction/disbursement of cash credit accounts of M/s Jai Hanuman Bhandar, M/s Angad Vastralaya and M/s Shri Manoj Kumar. (vii) Without ascertaining the purpose of the loan, he sanctioned 58 IRDP loans with limit Rs.17,500/- without presanction. 3. An enquiry followed the chargememo, which concluded with submission of the enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. The Enquiring Authority found the charges at Sl. Nos. (i), (iv) and (vi) proved whereas, charges at Sl. Nos. (v) and (vii) were held partly proved. The charges as framed at Sl. Nos. (ii) and (iii) were held “not proved”. 3. An enquiry followed the chargememo, which concluded with submission of the enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. The Enquiring Authority found the charges at Sl. Nos. (i), (iv) and (vi) proved whereas, charges at Sl. Nos. (v) and (vii) were held partly proved. The charges as framed at Sl. Nos. (ii) and (iii) were held “not proved”. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority on the Articles of charge which were found not proved or partly proved and held that the respondent failed to serve the Bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. A copy of the enquiry report with the disagreement note dated 01.10.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority were served upon the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply, denying the charges levelled against him and prayed for exoneration from the charges. What happens thereafter, would lead to the crux of the matter. 4. The Disciplinary Authority recommended punishment of “lowering of Basic-Pay to the bottom of MMGSII for a period of 4 years and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty” however, the Appointing Authority/ Competent Authority took a decision to impose the penalty by “reduction to Grade of JMGSI and the period of suspension to be treated as such”. The Disciplinary Authority sent the entire record to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank through communication dated 07.02.2002 and the Chief Vigilance Officer differing with the Competent Authority suggested penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, the penalty of removal from service under Rule 67(i) of 1992 Rules was passed on 20.03.2002 by the Appointing Authority. The respondent preferred an appeal on 05.06.2002 which stood dismissed vide, order dated 15.01.2003. As noticed above, the respondent approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3255 of 2003 which stands allowed vide, impugned order dated 19.02.2008. SUBMISSIONS: 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant-State Bank of India contended that the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 is based on independent assessment by the Appointing Authority and the said order was not influenced by any suggestion or advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer. It was contended that communication between the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Vigilance Officer was an interdepartmental communication which, in the light of Rule 70, was part of second stage advice during the departmental proceeding and thus, such consultation would not render the penalty order illegal. It was contended that communication between the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Vigilance Officer was an interdepartmental communication which, in the light of Rule 70, was part of second stage advice during the departmental proceeding and thus, such consultation would not render the penalty order illegal. Disputing the plea of breach of rules of natural justice, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 was not passed on the dictate of the Central Vigilance Officer and while so, the copies of communication between the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Vigilance Officer was not required to be served upon the respondent. Distinguishing the decision in “State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another” (1993) 1 SCC 13 , the decision on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said decision which has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in “State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal” (2008) 8 SCC 92 , is not applicable in the present case. 6. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the admitted position is that the Appointing Authority changed his decision to impose a higher penalty upon the respondent, on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the appellant-Bank. It was contended that keeping the nature of misconduct committed by the respondent in mind, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appointing Authority had taken a decision to impose penalty of removal from service upon the respondent and there is no other material except, the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer upon consideration of which the Appointing Authority decided to pass penalty order dated 20.03.2002 of removal from service which, thus, stands vitiated. Reiterating the stand canvassed before the Writ Court, the learned counsel relied on decisions in “State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another” (1993) 1 SCC 13 , “Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank” (1991) 3 SCC 219 and “Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. S.S. Sheokand” (2014) 5 SCC 172 . It was further contended that the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 is liable to be quashed on account of non-supply of reasons by the Disciplinary Authority for differing with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority in favour of the respondent. DISCUSSION: 7. S.S. Sheokand” (2014) 5 SCC 172 . It was further contended that the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 is liable to be quashed on account of non-supply of reasons by the Disciplinary Authority for differing with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority in favour of the respondent. DISCUSSION: 7. Before examining the rival contentions, one thing which needs to be mentioned at the outset, is that, consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer, after the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appointing Authority took a decision on the quantum of punishment, allegedly tentatively, is admitted. The Deputy General Manager (Vig.) vide letter dated 07.02.2002 forwarded the entire record of the disciplinary proceeding to the Chief Vigilance Officer for second stage advice. The said letter is extracted below:- The Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai Dear Sir, FILE No. PAT/N493 PATAN BRANCH SHRI A.K. MISHRA, MMGSII (U/S) MAJOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS On examining the Enquiry Report and other relevant papers including the submissions made by charged officer, the competent authority has ordered the penalty of “Reduction to the grade of JMGSI in terms of Rule 67(g) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules”. The period of suspension would be treated as such, i.e. not on duty. 2. In this connection, we forward herewith copies of the under-noted papers and shall be glad to receive second stage advices in the matter :- i. Chargesheet dated 17.06.2000. ii. Enquiry Report dated 14.09.2001 alongwith presenting officer's brief. iii. Disagreement letter dated 01.10.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority submissions made by the officer dated 05.11.2001 and the defence brief forwarded by the Charged Officer with his submissions on the Enquiry Report. iv. Note No. VIG/KAS/315 dated 23.01.2002 alongwith Tabular Note containing allegations. I.A.'s findings/D.A's views. Charged Officer's submissions and comments. The order of the competent authority has been recorded on the Tabular Note. v. Biodata of the officer vi. Data chart Yours faithfully, Dy. General Manager (Vig.) 8. The Chief Vigilance Officer, in turn, sent a letter of disagreement dated 19.02.2002, which reads as under:- Dear Sir, PATAN BRANCH SHRI A.K. MISHRA, MMGS II (U/S) MAJOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS We refer to your letter no. VIG/CO/KAS/515 dated 7th February 2002. 2. The Chief Vigilance Officer differs with the Disciplinary Authority for the reason stated Name of the official Grade Penalty suggested Shri A.K. Mishra MMGS II Removal from service. VIG/CO/KAS/515 dated 7th February 2002. 2. The Chief Vigilance Officer differs with the Disciplinary Authority for the reason stated Name of the official Grade Penalty suggested Shri A.K. Mishra MMGS II Removal from service. Period of suspension to be treated as such. Reason : Shri A.K. Mishra : We agree with the DA's/AA's observation that lack of integrity/misappropriation is proved. Ends of justice will be met only if a stiff major penalty is imposed. 3. If the Disciplinary Authority is in agreement with the CVO's suggestion, he may proceed accordingly and forward to us for our record an acknowledged copy of the order served on the official. Yours faithfully, For Chief Vigilance Officer 9. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 15.01.2003 has recorded that, “the Appointing Authority had tentatively taken the decision to impose the penalty of reduction of the Grade of JMGSI and the period of suspension to be treated as such but, in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer ultimately decided to impose the penalty of “removal from service” under Rule 67(i) of SBIOSR vide his order dated 20.03.2002”. 10. In the present proceeding, the appellant-Bank filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 18.02.2016 sworn by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India stating as under:- “2. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after reaching to the conclusion of Punishment “Reduction to the grade of JMGS1 in terms of Rule 67(g) of State Bank of India officers “Service Rule” and the period of suspension would be treated as not on duty, had send the matter to the Chief Vigilance Officer for Second stage advises vide letter dated 07.02.2002. 3. That pursuant to the said letter, the Chief Vigilance Officer, had suggested vide letter dated 19.02.2002 for Removal from Service, for the said officer and period of suspension to be treated as such”. 11. From the aforesaid materials, it stands admitted that the Disciplinary Authority recommended the punishment of “lowering of Basic-Pay to the bottom of MMGSII for a period of 4 years”, to which the Appointing Authority did not agree and took a decision to impose the penalty of “reduction to the Grade of JMGSI”. The communication dated 19.02.2002 of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the appellant-Bank discloses that he “differed” with the Disciplinary Authority on the question of penalty and suggested penalty of “removal from service”. 12. The communication dated 19.02.2002 of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the appellant-Bank discloses that he “differed” with the Disciplinary Authority on the question of penalty and suggested penalty of “removal from service”. 12. Now, the precise issue for determination by the Court is, “whether the decision of the Appointing Authority to impose penalty of removal from service was influenced by the consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer or not?” 13. The State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 regulate the terms and conditions of the appointment and service of the officers of the Bank. Chapter-XI of the Rules deals with “Conduct, Discipline and Appeal”. Rule 70 under Chapter-XI provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission, wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having vigilance angle. The controversy involved in the present case, in essence, revolves around the ambit, scope and expanse of consultation with Central Vigilance Commission under Rule 70 of the 1992 Rules. 14. The dictionary meaning of the word “consultation” is “deliberation, or a meeting for deliberation”. The Black's Law Dictionary, VIIIth edition refers to the expression “consultation” as “the act of asking the advice or opinion of the someone (such as a lawyer) or a meeting in which parties consult or confer”. Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 16A, 1956 Edn., p. 1242) also recognises that the word “consult” is frequently used to mean “to discuss something together, or to deliberate”. The expression “consultation” is capable of giving different meanings in different context. Various statutes and rules have also provided consultation between two authorities and while interpreting the nature of consultation in different situations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it would depend on the facts of each case. For example, the word “consultation” occurring in Article 124 of the Constitution of India was given a particular meaning having regard to the significant context in which it was used. The expression “wherever necessary” in Rule 70 amply demonstrates that it is not obligatory on the part of the Bank to consult Central Vigilance Commission in all cases having vigilance angle. Rule 70 when examined in the context of provisions contained in Rule 67 to Rule 69 makes it abundantly apparent that the consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission envisaged under Rule 70 is an executive act which takes place wherever the Bank feels the need for consultation. Rule 70 when examined in the context of provisions contained in Rule 67 to Rule 69 makes it abundantly apparent that the consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission envisaged under Rule 70 is an executive act which takes place wherever the Bank feels the need for consultation. The procedure prescribed under Rules 68 and 69 is elaborate and provides guidelines for conduct of the domestic enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Vigilance Commission has no role to play thereunder. Though, Rule 70 does not refer to Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority and it is primarily for the Bank to consult the Central Vigilance Commission in cases with vigilance angle, any consultation by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority with the Central Vigilance Commission must therefore, remain confined to procedural aspects and not on a matter of substantive nature such as, the question of penalty. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and the question of punishment falls exclusively within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority. 15. In the penalty order the Appointing Authority has recorded that he has applied his mind independently and on examination of the case in its entirety, he came to a conclusion that the respondent failed to serve the Bank with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence however, the fact remains that letter dated 07.02.2002 written by the Dy. General Manager (Vig.) to the Chief Vigilance Officer discloses that the Competent Authority had “ordered” the penalty of “reduction to the grade of JMGSI in terms of Rule 67(g) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules”. The fact that the Appointing Authority did not accept the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty of “lowering of Basic-Pay to the bottom of MMGSII for a period of 4 years” and decided to impose penalty of “reduction to the Grade of JMGSI”, unerringly discloses that the Appointing Authority had taken a final decision in the matter and mere use of the expression “tentatively” in the appellate order dated 15.01.2003 would not lend credence to the plea raised on behalf of the appellant-Bank that the Appointing Authority, upon independent assessment of the materials brought during the domestic enquiry, has taken a decision to impose penalty of removal from service. The contention that the Competent Authority had formed a tentative opinion falls to the ground when it is observed that the Appointing Authority did not accept the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty of “lowering down of Basic-Pay to the bottom of MMGSII for a period of four years.” It may so happen, that an authority before taking a final decision in the matter may agree, tentatively, to accept the recommendations and at this stage it may not invite serious scrutiny of records by the said authority however, the situation would be entirely different when an authority disagrees with the recommendations forwarded to it. In such a situation, an application of mind to the relevant materials would be inferred on the part of the authority so disagreeing with the recommendations forwarded to it. In normal circumstances also, it does not stand to reasons that the authority without application of mind, would form a tentative opinion to disagree with the recommendations forwarded to it. Considering the undisputed documents the inescapable conclusion which arrives, is that, the Appointing Authority, before he passed the final order dated 20.03.2002, had taken a final decision in the matter. Had this been a case in which the consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer took place before the Appointing Authority/Competent Authority took a decision in the matter, the situation could have been different. In that situation, the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer would have been “just another material” which was placed before the Appointing Authority. But, the situation is entirely different in the present case. 16. The Chief Vigilance Officer in his communication dated 07.02.2002 had categorically “differed” with the Competent Authority on the question of quantum of punishment and not only that, the Chief Vigilance Officer suggested the penalty of removal from service and gave reasons for the same which, ultimately was accepted by the Appointing Authority. The appellant has not produced any other material which made the Appointing Authority change its mind on the question of quantum of punishment. Letter dated 07.02.2002 written to the Chief Vigilance Officer admittedly was not by way of “intimation” as in the case of “S.N. Goyal” rather, the Disciplinary Authority sought second stage advice from the Chief Vigilance Officer. 17. The appellant has not produced any other material which made the Appointing Authority change its mind on the question of quantum of punishment. Letter dated 07.02.2002 written to the Chief Vigilance Officer admittedly was not by way of “intimation” as in the case of “S.N. Goyal” rather, the Disciplinary Authority sought second stage advice from the Chief Vigilance Officer. 17. In S.N. Goyal's case, the charges framed vide charge-memo dated 28.04.1994 were found proved and the findings of the Enquiring Authority were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority recommended to take a lenient view in the matter and he suggested that it would meet the ends of justice, if penalty of lowering by 4 stages in timescale in terms of Rule 67(i) of The State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 is imposed. The Supreme Court in paragraph no.30 of the reported decision held that on 18.01.1995, the Appointing Authority had only tentatively approved the proposal of the Disciplinary Authority that a lenient view be taken by imposing the aforesaid penalty. The controversy in the S.N. Goyal's case has been dealt by the Supreme Court in the following words:- “32. The reply dated 7-2-1995 from the Chief Vigilance Officer also makes it clear that he neither issued any direction to the appointing authority to impose a higher punishment nor altered the finding regarding guilt. He merely gave his opinion that the gravity of the proved charge did not warrant leniency and, therefore, suggested that the quantum of penalty may be examined again. The subsequent note put up by the disciplinary authority on 2-5-1995 and the order passed thereon by the appointing authority on 3-5-1995 imposing the penalty of removal, show that they were on independent consideration of the question. Neither the note dated 2-5-1995 nor the order dated 3-5-1995 refers to the opinion or the view expressed by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank. Nor is there any material to show that the order imposing punishment was on the dictates of the Chief Vigilance Officer. There was no mechanical acceptance of any suggestion or advice by the Chief Vigilance Officer nor consideration of any extraneous material as assumed by the courts below. The appointing authority is required to inform the Vigilance Department in regard to cases involving vigilance angle. The appointing authority did so. There was no mechanical acceptance of any suggestion or advice by the Chief Vigilance Officer nor consideration of any extraneous material as assumed by the courts below. The appointing authority is required to inform the Vigilance Department in regard to cases involving vigilance angle. The appointing authority did so. But it did not seek any instruction, direction, suggestion or advice from the Vigilance Department. There was also no direction or circular or instruction requiring the appointing authority to accept or act upon the suggestions or views of the Chief Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Department merely gave its comment or view that it was not a fit case for showing leniency and left it to the authority concerned to take a decision on the punishment to be imposed. So long as the decision was not on the dictates of the Vigilance Department or other outside authority, but on independent consideration, the order of removal cannot be faulted. It cannot be said that either the act of intimating the Vigilance Department about the enquiry or independently reconsidering the issue of penalty after receiving the views of the Vigilance Department amounted to be acting on extraneous material, or acting on the advice or recommendation or direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer.” 18. What distinguishes and takes out the case of the appellant-Bank from the decision in S.N. Goyal case is the fact that the Appointing Authority had, in fact, already taken a decision to inflict penalty of reduction to the Grade of JMGSI. The facts disclosed in the paragraph no.31 of S.N. Goyal's case are entirely different from the facts in the present case. In the said case, only a recommendation was made by the Disciplinary Authority to take a lenient view upon which the Chief Vigilance Officer gave his opinion that the gravity of the proved charges did not warrant leniency and he suggested that quantum of penalty may be examined again. In the present case, may be, the Chief Vigilance Officer did not issue any direction to the Appointing Authority to impose a higher punishment and the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 also does not refer to the opinion or the view expressed by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, it has to be understood in law that the Appointing Authority mechanically accepted the penalty proposed by the Chief Vigilance Officer. In “Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. In “Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank” (1991) 3 SCC 219 , the employer-Bank had referred the matter to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner for advise who made a specific recommendation that the employee may be compulsorily retired by way of punishment and the Bank accordingly imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held thus:- “19. ................................ The punishment to be imposed whether minor or major depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved. The authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government. No third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officer”. 19. The penalty order dated 20.03.2002 thus, warrants interference. Since the Appellate Authority erred in ignoring the aforesaid error committed by the Appointing Authority, the same also requires interference. 20. The contention that the order passed by the Appointing Authority in the file which was not communicated to the respondent could have been corrected or altered is also liable to be rejected for the reason that the appellant-Bank has failed to substantiate that it was done for valid reasons. 21. While arriving at the conclusion that the penalty order is vitiated on account of consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer, another related issue which requires to be addressed is, whether the respondent was entitled for supply of a copy of communication dated 07.02.2002 or not. The learned Single Judge held that the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer made behind the back of the respondent and without his knowledge was in breach of the rules of fair play. The issue is, in fact, concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court. In “State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another” (1993) 1 SCC 13 , without taking a decision on the recommendation of the Enquiring Authority who had exonerated the employee, the government sent the record to the Central Vigilance Commission who disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority and recommended that the penalty of removal from service may be imposed upon the delinquent employee. A copy of the Central Vigilance Commission's recommendation was not furnished to the employee and the Disciplinary Authority acted on the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission. The facts in the said case were different from the present case only to the extent that Central Vigilance Commission had examined the facts of the case and arrived at a finding of guilt of the delinquent employee which was contrary to the findings of the Enquiring Authority. Such findings were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority without giving opportunity to the employee to comment upon the Central Vigilance Commission's report. In the said case also the Disciplinary Authority took the final decision on the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission. The Supreme Court found the order of punishment vitiated on account of non-supply of report of Central Vigilance Commission. The decisions in D.C. Aggarwal and Nagraj cases were noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. S.S. Sheokand” (2014) 5 SCC 172 wherein, it has been held thus;- “20. ...................................... It is quite possible to say that the bank management did arrive at its decision to maintain a major penalty at a later stage on its own, and not because of the dictate of CVC, but at the same time it has got to be noted that CVC report had been sought by the management of the Bank, and thereafter the punishment had been imposed. As observed in SBI [ (1993) 1 SCC 13 ], may be that the disciplinary authority had recorded its own findings, and had arrived at its own decision, but when this advice from CVC was sought, it could not be said that this additional material was not a part of the decision-making process. When this report was not made available to the respondent, it is difficult to rule out the apprehension about the decision having been taken under pressure. Any material, which goes into the decision-making process against an employee, cannot be denied to him. In view of the judgment in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regl. Manager, the decision of the Bank could have been approved on merits, however, the two judgments in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi [ (1991) 3 SCC 219 ] and SBI lay down the requisite procedure in such matters, and in the facts of this case, it will not be appropriate to depart from the dicta therein. Manager, the decision of the Bank could have been approved on merits, however, the two judgments in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi [ (1991) 3 SCC 219 ] and SBI lay down the requisite procedure in such matters, and in the facts of this case, it will not be appropriate to depart from the dicta therein. On this yardstick alone, the part of the judgment of the High Court interfering with the punishment will have to be sustained”. 22. In view of the aforesaid decisions, on admitted facts, it is held that non-supply of communication dated 07.02.2002 of the Chief Vigilance Officer to the respondent renders the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 unsustainable. 23. There is another infirmity which vitiates the penalty of removal from service. It is not in dispute that the Enquiring Authority exonerated the respondent from charge nos. (ii) and (iii) and charge nos. (v) and (vii) were only partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiring Authority on the above charges and served a disagreement note upon the respondent on 01.10.2001. The plea raised by the writ petitioner is that the disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority does not contain any reason. In the writ petition, the said plea has been taken in paragraph no.11 which is extracted below:- 11. That it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the finding of the inquiry officer, but has not stated the reasons for differing and why he is differing with the report. The petitioner was asked to give his submissions on the findings of the inquiring authority and the Disciplinary Authority. 24. Disputing the aforesaid plea, the Bank took the following stand in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ proceeding:- “13. That with regard to the statements made in paras 9 to 11 of the writ application it is stated that the enquiry officer found that the allegations leveled against him in respect of para (i), (iv) and (vi) are proved and para (ii) and (iii) are not proved and para (v) and (vii) are partially proved. The enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of lack of devotion and diligence in discharging his duties as required by Rule 50(4) of the Officers Services Rules but had not found guilty of any lack of honesty and integrity. The enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of lack of devotion and diligence in discharging his duties as required by Rule 50(4) of the Officers Services Rules but had not found guilty of any lack of honesty and integrity. The D.A. has however differed with the I.A. only on the point of lack of honesty and integrity on the part of Shri Mishra. The allegation No.I contained in Annexure II of the chargesheet states as under:- “You collected a sum of Rs.78,411/- from the 14 borrowers for credit of their loan accounts under IRDP. Six out of 14 accounts were already written off and rest i.e. 08 accounts were in active ledger. You issued counter foils to each borrower in token of the receipt of the amount on 28.11.1998. You did not deposit the amount in their respective accounts and misappropriated the entire funds amounting to Rs.78,411/- mentioned in enclosed annexure”. This allegation has been held as fully proved by the I.A. This allegation is corollary to the change of lack of honesty and integrity on the part of Shri Mishra. Further, 5 out of 7 allegations has been fully proved/partly proved during the enquiry. As such, the DA held the charge of lack of honesty and integrity also as proved. Thus, the DA has given cogent reasons for disagreement with I.A.” 25. The gravamen of allegations against the respondent is that he collected a sum of Rs. 78,411/- from 14 borrowers and issued counterfoils to each of them in token of the receipt of the amount on 28.11.1998 however, he failed to deposit the aforesaid amount in their respective accounts and misappropriated the entire fund of Rs. 78,411/-. During the enquiry, none of the borrowers was produced as witness by the department and wives of three borrowers who were examined as defence witness deposed that they had not deposited any money for which the counterfoils were allegedly issued by the respondent. The respondent denied the charge and claimed that the aforesaid 14 borrowers were defaulters since long, who were issued legal notices and reminders. He further claimed that suppression of document at Sl. No. (ii) and Sl. No. (viii) in the list of documents which were written statement of Branch Manager, Patan Branch and the written statement of Assistant/Cash/Accounts had caused prejudiced to him and had those documents been produced, his innocence would have been proved easily. 26. He further claimed that suppression of document at Sl. No. (ii) and Sl. No. (viii) in the list of documents which were written statement of Branch Manager, Patan Branch and the written statement of Assistant/Cash/Accounts had caused prejudiced to him and had those documents been produced, his innocence would have been proved easily. 26. The Enquiring Authority observed that the area where the respondent was posted was infested with Naxalite problems and therefore, there was a possibility that he might have issued the counterfoils under undue pressure. The Enquiring Authority however, held that the allegation is proved even though, there is possibility of some foul play in the issuance of the receipts. The Enquiring Authority concluded that none of the allegations, proved or partly proved, substantiates that the respondent did not discharge his duty with utmost integrity and honesty though, he was found lacking in exercise of due diligence and devotion. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority favourable to the charged officer and opined that the charges have been fully proved against the respondent. The learned Single Judge noticed that while deferring with the favourable findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority did not give any reason. 27. At this stage, it would be apt to reproduce the “disagreement note” of the Disciplinary Authority. The said note reads as under:- STATE BANK OF INDIA No. DGM/DPS/R/Gen/203 (Code-6662) Shri A.K. Mishra, MMGSII (U/S) State Bank of India Sasaram Dear Sir, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Pursuant to the conclusion of the departmental enquiry in respect of the chargesheet on you vide letter no. DGM/DPS/R/Gen/102 dt. 17.06.2000. I forward herewith a copy of the enquiry report dated 12.09.2001 submitted by shri I.S. Thakur, Chief Manager (domestic enquiry), the Inquiring Authority. 2. I disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority in respect of the Articles of Charge, which I hold fully proved for the following reasons :- Charge Out of 7 allegations, 5 are proved/partially proved, particularly, allegation no. (I) is fully proved which is corollary to the charge regarding lack of integrity and honesty on your part. Thus it is fully proved that you failed to serve the Bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. 3. (I) is fully proved which is corollary to the charge regarding lack of integrity and honesty on your part. Thus it is fully proved that you failed to serve the Bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. 3. If your intend to make any submission on the findings of the Inquiring Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, you may do so within 10 days from the receipt of this letter. 4. Please note that no extension of time will be granted to you. In case we do not receive your submission within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have no submission to officer and the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority shall take the decision in the matter accordingly. Yours faithfully Dy. General Manager Disciplinary Authority. 28. A bare reading of the “disagreement note” discloses that the Disciplinary Authority has given no reason for disagreeing with the favourable findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority. Mere service of disagreement note containing no reasons is definitely violative of the principles of natural justice. The delinquent employee has been denied an effective opportunity to respond to the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority. Rule 67 of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 enumerates various minor and major penalties which may be imposed upon an officer, for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing. Rule 68(3)(ii) provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement. Rule 68(3)(ii) reads as under:- (ii) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its record is sufficient for the purpose. 29. In “Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra”, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , Regulation 7(2) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that,- “whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiring Authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent.” Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1977 reads as under :- “7. Action on the enquiry report. - (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the enquiring authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the enquiring authority for fresh or further enquiry and report and the enquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further enquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned.” 30. On a comparison, it becomes apparent that Regulation 7(2) is parimateria to Rule 68(3)(ii) of the State Bank of India Rules. Though, the Disciplinary Authority served the disagreement note dated 01.10.2001 to the respondent, the said disagreement note discloses no reason for differing with the favourable findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority. Evidently, the disagreement note dated 01.10.2001 did not provide the respondent an opportunity to demonstrate the sustainability of the conclusions of the Enquiring Authority and the fallibility of the opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority. The principles of natural justice require that before the Disciplinary Authority came to a conclusion, the respondent should have had an opportunity to reply to his disagreement with the Enquiring Authority and that alone could have provided an opportunity to the respondent to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to accept the favourable findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority. 31. In “Kunj Behari Misra” case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard, otherwise the delinquent officer would be condemned unheard. 31. In “Kunj Behari Misra” case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard, otherwise the delinquent officer would be condemned unheard. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Kunj Behari Misra” has been consistently approved and followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. In the present case, it is really immaterial that a copy of the disagreement note was served upon the respondent. In fact, it is inconsequential for non-supply of reasons in the disagreement note and the result is, as if, the disagreement note was not supplied to the respondent and on this score also, the penalty order dated 20.03.2002 is liable to be quashed. 32. Normally, in cases of violation of rules of natural justice the matter is remitted back to the Authority to proceed in the matter after complying with the rules of natural justice however, in the present case it not required. Now, it is 16 years since chargememo dated 17.06.2000 was served upon the respondent. Moreover, in view of the findings recorded on the question of consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer and non-supply of the communication with the Chief Vigilance Officer, penalty order dated 20.03.2002 and appellate order dated 15.01.2003 are liable to be quashed and the impugned order of the Writ Court on this aspect does not warrant interference in the present appeal. 33. However, the learned Single Judge committed a serious error on the question of punishment and for that reason the impugned order dated 19.02.2008 needs to be modified. The Competent Authority to pass order of punishment is the Appointing Authority who had taken a decision to impose the penalty of “reduction in the Grade of JMGSI and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty” however, the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition modified the order of removal from service to one which was recommended by the Disciplinary Authority. In view of this error committed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dated 19.02.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.3255 of 2003 is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be inflicted with penalty of “reduction in the Grade of JMGSI and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty”. 34. In view of this error committed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dated 19.02.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.3255 of 2003 is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be inflicted with penalty of “reduction in the Grade of JMGSI and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty”. 34. The Letters Patent Appeal thus stands dismissed but for modification, in the aforesaid terms.