JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent, Punjab National Bank. 2. The petitioner who was serving as a Junior Management Grade Scale I, was served with a charge sheet dated 30.5.2012, inter alia, alleging that while conducting his duties, the petitioner had not followed the prescribed guidelines and have also acted in a manner which has caused a financial loss to the Bank as well as there is a loss of faith on the petitioner. 3. The charges were that the petitioner did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and also committed misconduct. Article 1 of the charges alleges that the petitioner had fraudulently debited the suspense account against pension. Allegations were also made that the petitioner had submitted a scroll amount which was in excess of the actual amount of pension that were paid to the pensioner and that the petitioner had unauthorisedly debited various accounts of the customers and had withdrawn amounts for his personal gain. A further charge was that the accounts were not properly maintained and there were clear indications that the petitioner had manipulated the same in a manner which would give him personal gain, at the expenses of the depositor's money. 4. All the charges against the petitioner are stated to be serious enough to make the Bank to lose its confidence on integrity of the petitioner. But, at the same time, all the charges would also have to be proved by the departmental authorities by substantiating it on the basis of the records. In the process, the manner in which the enquiry was conducted would be most relevant and the delinquent employee must be given every opportunity to know in detail as to what are the allegations of misconduct against him and should also be allowed to inspect such documents so as to enable him to give his reply. 5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly states that along with the charge sheet, no list of documents and list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner. 5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly states that along with the charge sheet, no list of documents and list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner. Accordingly reference had been made to the provisions of regulation 6(3) of the Punjab National Bank's Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which, inter alia, requires that along with the charge sheet, a list of document to be relied upon along with its copies and also a list of witnesses along with the copies of the statement of witnesses, if any, are to be served on the delinquent. When the charge sheet annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4 is examined, it is noticed that the said charge sheet neither contains any list of documents and the copies thereof nor it contains a list of witnesses with copies of their statements, which otherwise the delinquent petitioner is entitled. Further ground has also been taken by the petitioner that the entire enquiry was conducted within a period of 2 days and the required procedure prescribed under the clauses 6(11) to 6(21) of the aforesaid Regulations have not been followed. It is noticed that clauses 6(11) to 6(21) of the Regulations provide for an elaborate procedure and steps that are to be followed while conducting the enquiry. 6. Some of the relevant and pertinent provisions of the procedure are that on the date fixed for the enquiry, the presenting officer shall be examined and he may also be cross-examined by the concerned delinquent employee. Sub-clause (14) of the clause 6 also provides that the enquiry authority may allow the presenting officer to produce evidence not included in the charge sheet but in such case, the concerned delinquent employee shall be given an opportunity to inspect such documents before it be taken on record and the enquiry authority shall also allow the delinquent employee to produce any new evidence if it is necessary in the interest of justice. Further, after allowing the departmental authorities to present their case, the delinquent would be allowed to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer and if it is made orally, the same shall be recorded which the delinquent employee would be required to sign. 7. Further, after allowing the departmental authorities to present their case, the delinquent would be allowed to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer and if it is made orally, the same shall be recorded which the delinquent employee would be required to sign. 7. In the premises of the aforesaid provisions of the procedure that is required to be followed, when the proceedings of the enquiry officer is examined, it is noticed that the procedure followed in the present case is contrary to the required procedure and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, gives an indication that the delinquent official was not provided with an adequate opportunity to present his case. The entire enquiry was conducted over two days, i.e., 31.7.2012 and 10.8.2012. The original proceedings of the enquiry officer was examined, which reveals as under: 8. On 31.7.2012, a question was put by the enquiry officer to the presenting officer as to whether he had prepared and collected all the documents which would be relied upon to prove the charges, to which, the presenting officer replied that he was not ready with the documents. Thereafter, a question was put to the delinquent official as to whether he would like to produce any document to defend himself to which the delinquent official had replied in the affirmative and had referred to certain documents which he would like to rely. The enquiry proceeding of 31.7.2012 concluded as such. 9. On 10.2.2012, the enquiry officer had asked the presenting officer as to whether he had provided the documents to which he replied in affirmative and, accordingly, a list of 147 documents were referred. Thereafter, the enquiry officer informed the delinquent official that the said documents were being handed over by the presenting officer to be marked as Management Exhibit as ME-1 to ME-146. Thereafter, the enquiry officer took over the documents provided by the delinquent official and marked them as DEI and DE2. Then the delinquent official with the permission of the enquiry officer submitted some further documents which were marked as DE3 — DE8. The enquiry officer also allowed the presenting officer to submit further document. 10. Thereafter, the enquiry officer took over the documents provided by the delinquent official and marked them as DEI and DE2. Then the delinquent official with the permission of the enquiry officer submitted some further documents which were marked as DE3 — DE8. The enquiry officer also allowed the presenting officer to submit further document. 10. Thereafter the enquiry officer asked the presenting officer as to whether he would like an to give an oral or written brief of his argument to which the presenting officer replied that he would like to give a written brief and the entire enquiry ended at that stage. 11. From the aforesaid procedure adopted in the enquiry, it is seen that firstly the 147 documents relied upon by the departmental authority were simply kept on record and were marked as ME1 to ME 147, but at no stage, the said documents or a copy thereof was given to the delinquent official for his examination for preparing his statement in defence against the same. Secondly, although, the Regulations clearly provide that it is the delinquent official who is required to be given an opportunity of making his argument either orally or written, but in the instant case, it is noticed that no such opportunity was given to the delinquent whereas, on the other hand, such opportunity was given to the presenting officer to present his argument. 12. In the above view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is not in conformity with the required procedure provided in clauses 6(11) to 6(21) of the Regulations, and, secondly, the manner in which the enquiry was done, the delinquent officer was not given an adequate opportunity to present his case against the documents relied upon by the departmental authority. 13. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the procedure adopted in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated and the same has caused prejudice to the delinquent official in presenting his defence. As the enquiry proceeding itself is found to be vitiated all further consequential actions taken thereupon, including the order of penalty of dismissal from service are also accordingly found to be vitiated. 14. In the above premises, the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner from the stage of conducting the enquiry onwards is hereby set aside. 15. As the enquiry proceeding itself is found to be vitiated all further consequential actions taken thereupon, including the order of penalty of dismissal from service are also accordingly found to be vitiated. 14. In the above premises, the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner from the stage of conducting the enquiry onwards is hereby set aside. 15. Considering the nature of charges made against the petitioner which are very serious, it is deemed appropriate that the respondents in the Punjab National Bank be given the liberty to proceed further with the departmental proceeding from the stage of conducting the enquiry onwards. In the event, such enquiry proceeding is conducted, it is expected that the procedure prescribed in the Regulations would be duly complied with and the delinquent official would also fully cooperate with the enquiry. 16. It is also noticed that under the Regulations, the list of documents and the copy thereof and also the list of witnesses and the statement thereof are required to be submitted along with the charge sheet. Accordingly, the respondent-Bank is given the liberty to serve a supplementary charge sheet on the petitioner by providing with the list of documents and the copy thereof and also the list of witnesses and the statement thereof. In the event, such supplementary charge sheet is given to the petitioner, the petitioner correspondingly shall also be entitled to file supplementary written statement against the same. 17. In view of the order of penalty being set aside, the respondent-Bank shall reinstate the petitioner but without any order of back wages for the period during which he was not in service and it would be open for the respondent-Bank to place him under suspension for the period for which the enquiry may be conducted. 18. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.