JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the memorandum of charges framed against the petitioner under Annexure-1, inquiry report under Annexure-4, order of penalty under Annexure-5, order of appellate authority under Annexure-6 and further the order under Annexure-10 passed by the reviewing authority. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner while continuing as a regular employee as Scale-1 Officer by the opposite party-Bank and particularly working as Branch Manager at Chandiput, Orissa, was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.2.2000 pending further investigation and the disciplinary action in terms of Regulation 12 of the Indian Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 1985. The petitioner was served with charge sheet by communication dated 25.9.2010 placed at Annexure-1. Basing on service of charge sheet, petitioner submitted his response to the charge sheet. Employer being not satisfied with the response proceeded for a disciplinary proceeding and in the process, appointed Inquiry Officer, namely R.N. Koley. During the process of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer was replaced by another Inquiry Officer, namely, Sriram Salvraj, an Officer who belongs to Vigilance Wing, who on completion of the inquiry submitted a report finding the inquiry against the petitioner. Petitioner being asked to submit his comment on the findings in the inquiry report at Annexure-4, the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the response of the petitioner was pleased to impose major penalty of removal from service, finds place at Annexure-5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal and the appellate authority upon hearing the parties rejected the appeal on 26.4.2007, finds place at Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review. The review at the instance of the petitioner has also been negated, as found place at Annexure-10. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the averments made in the writ petition contended that the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as the order of the appellate authority were illegal, arbitrary, beyond the mandate of the service rules and against the settled principle of law, against the weight of materials on record. Further the impugned orders are not only based on no evidence on record but also suffers on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Further the impugned orders are not only based on no evidence on record but also suffers on account of violation of principle of natural justice. It is alleged that inquiry not being conducted in accordance with the service rules specifically attributing that when the order of suspension involving the petitioner was issued by the Zonal Manager, being the disciplinary authority, the charge sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager, a person below the rank of Zonal Manager. Sri Rath further contended that looking to the mandate of Rule 6(3) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the disciplinary authority is alone permissible to frame charges and, therefore, the Assistant General Manager has no competency in framing charges. It is under this ground and for incompetency, the Assistant General Manager, who framed charges involving the petitioner, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel also contended that the entire inquiry proceeding vitiates. Further, referring to the final order of the disciplinary authority, Sri Rath contended that the order of penalty was also required to be passed by the Zonal Manager, the disciplinary authority so far as the petitioner is concerned and, therefore, the order of penalty also vitiates for being passed by a incompetent officer. So far as the allegation of principle of natural justice is concerned, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel taking this Court to the pleadings and documents available on record contended that petitioner’s specifically asked for supply of document vide letters dated 1.11.2002 and 6.11.2002, there was no supply of documents. Therefore, there is serious prejudice to the petitioner, who thus is entitled to ask for declaring the inquiry otherwise bad. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that dispute regarding non- supply of documents to the delinquent, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and concluded the same. Therefore, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel contended that there has been no proper application of mind by the Inquiry Officer. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that dispute regarding non- supply of documents to the delinquent, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and concluded the same. Therefore, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel contended that there has been no proper application of mind by the Inquiry Officer. Referring to the provision at Rule 6(2) of the Service Rules, Sri Rath further contended that for the provision speaking for change of the Inquiry Officer in the event of the previous Inquiry Officer ceases to exercise jurisdiction for having no such contingency, appointment of second Inquiry Officer was illegal and the inquiry having been concluded by the subsequent Inquiry Officer in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Service Rules, the inquiry report also otherwise vitiates. Sri Rath also further submitted that even if the delinquent is not examining himself, it becomes mandatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer following the provision at Rule 6(18) of the Service Rules to generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him on evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him. Further, following the provision of Sub-Rule 15 of Rule 6, the Inquiry Officer shall also afford an opportunity of filing or recording evidence of his case, when the case in support of charges is closed. Sri Rath, thus contended that the inquiry has been concluded in a perfunctory manner. Further, the inquiry also suffers on account of non-examination of the vital witness as well non-production of the field inquiry report despite requisitioning under Annexure-8 series. Further, despite charge nos. 6, 7, 11 and 13 not being proved and charge nos. 1, 5 and 16 having been partly proved, there has been no proper consideration of the issues by the Inquiry Officer making the report otherwise vitiate. Further, there has been also no proving of material documents by the establishment. Sri Rath, learned senior counsel further taking this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble apex Court rendered in the case of Baradakanta Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa and Another, AIR 1976 SC 1899 submitted that for the direct application of the decision indicated hereinabove, the petitioner has also a case requesting this Court for interference in the impugned orders. 4. 4. Sri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties-the bank authority while reiterating the stand of the opposite parties disputing the claim made by the petitioner, further on the submission that the order of suspension was issued by the Zonal Manager being the disciplinary authority but however answering the allegation in response to the allegation to the extent that the charge sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager and the penalty has been imposed by an Officer other than the disciplinary authority, submitted that though the Service Regulation, 1976 stipulates that the Zonal Officer is the disciplinary authority but for the change in the structural set up of the bank communication in the meantime the tier of the Zonal Office have been changed and in the process, the circle head became the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the circle head having issued the charge sheet, there is no defect in issuing the charge sheet. Further, taking resort to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Defence and Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, AIR 2012 SC 2250 , Sri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that legal position has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreting the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, 1950 thereby observing the removal and dismissal of delinquent on misconduct must be by the authority not below the appointing authority does not mean that disciplinary proceeding may not be initiated against the delinquent by the authority lower than the appointing authority and a disciplinary proceeding is permissible to be initiated by an authority higher than the appointing authority, in case is not appellate authority. Sri Dey also further submitted that this point having not been raised at any stage of the proceeding, the petitioner is estopped from raising such objection in the writ petition. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the article of charges placed at Annexure-1 involving the petitioner was issued by the Assistant General Manager, the disciplinary authority, even though the order of suspension issued by the Zonal Manager. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the article of charges placed at Annexure-1 involving the petitioner was issued by the Assistant General Manager, the disciplinary authority, even though the order of suspension issued by the Zonal Manager. Looking the provision contained in Indian Bank Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, this Court finds for the petitioner continuing in Scale-1, the disciplinary authority so far the petitioner is concerned, was the Zonal Manager, whereas the appellate authority became the General Manager, Inspection and Vigilance and the Reviewing Authority became the Executive Director. From the submissions of the respective parties, this Court finds the suspension order was passed by the Zonal Manager, the charge sheet was submitted by the Assistant General Manager showing to be the disciplinary authority and that too in terms of Regulation 6(4) of Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) (Amendment) Regulation 1985 above, as the petitioner placed reliance of Regulation 1976 which appears to not be in force. This Court at some places finds reliance of Regulation, 1982. It is for this reason, this Court observes, the petitioner is unable to rightly place as to provisions of which Regulation has been violated. The order of punishment vide Annexure-5 based on the charge sheet under Annexure-1 though appears to be communicated by the Chief Manager but the contents of the letter at Annexure-5 at page 61 clearly discloses that the order of removal of service of the petitioner has been imposed by the Deputy General Manager & Disciplinary Authority in terms of amended Regulation 4 (i) of the Indian Bank Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976/1982. The document attached to Annexure-5, the speaking order in respect of the charge sheet involving the petitioner starts from page 62 ending at page 69 gives a different picture establishing that the speaking order appears to have been passed by the Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary Authority and the appeal order at Annexure-6 has been passed by the General Manager as the appellate authority. It is at this stage, this Court now considering that there is a structural change in the hierarchy of the opposite party-Bank and for ambiguity in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in not sure itself as to which Regulation has been referred to in his case, this Court takes into account the counter statement of the opposite parties, particularly made in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: “(10) That in reply to para-11, it is submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to allege that the very issuance of the charge sheet itself is without power, authority and jurisdiction and beyond the sanction of the service rules and that, entire enquiry proceeding on such charge sheet is void, the order of the Major penalty is without power, authority and jurisdiction. The allegations are not correct, baseless, not admitted and are denied. It is humbly submitted that when the petitioner was suspended on 09.02.2000, Zonal Manager (ZM) was the Disciplinary Authority. When charge-sheet was issued on 25.09.2001, the structural setup of the Bank has already undergone change and the tier of Zonal Offices had been altogether removed by de-layering. Circle Heads became the authorized Disciplinary Authorities and accordingly, charge-sheet dated 25.09.2001 was issued by Circle Head, Bhubaneswar. This is in order and does not violate service rules.” 6. Even though the petitioner has filed rejoinder, this Court finds the petitioner did not object to the response of the opposite parties in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit in the rejoinder. Presumably, petitioner has accepted that there is a change in the structural position of the management of the bank and, therefore, this Court declines to entertain the claim of the petitioner that the inquiry vitiates for being not conducted by the disciplinary authority. 7. Now coming to decide on the question of violation of natural justice, on the allegation of non-compliance of natural justice to the extent explained in paragraph-5 hereinabove, as well as the complains in several paragraphs involving the writ petition, this Court in entire scan of record involving the brief finds, the petitioner never raised these points particularly, petitioner has no single document accompanied with the writ petition and the rejoinder to establish non-compliance of natural justice and violation of any provision of the rules as quoted therein. In neither of the stages such as the petitioner got an opportunity to raise these objections in his response to the show cause by the disciplinary authority before imposition of penalty nor in the stage of appeal nor even in the stage of review to the ultimate authority, the petitioner could bring such allegation. In the event the petitioner had these objections to his rescue, nothing prevented the petitioner for filing the copies of the documents to at least establishing a case of non-compliance of natural justice or the violation of provisions of the rules/regulations. May be this reason, for which the petitioner chose not to file any such document involved. At the cost repetition, this Court again observes that for the petitioner’s referring to Regulation, 1976, the petitioner himself is not sure if the Regulation applies to his case. 8. It is at this stage what this Court finds here is petitioner by making pleading of non- supply of copies, not providing opportunity of evidence and not providing scope to perusal records and further for non-compliance of certain provisions in the Service Regulation applied here claims that the enquiry proceeding suffers for non-compliance of natural justice. Law is fairly settled on this score by observing that once one alleges suffering in an enquiry proceeding, it not only requires to make specific pleadings but one must also establish the prejudice for such non-compliance and a mere allegation won’t do. This Court taking into consideration finds, in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349 at paragraphs-83 and 84 the Hon’ble apex Court observed as follows:- “83. Earlier, in some of the cases, this Court had taken the view that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself a prejudice and no other “de facto” prejudice needs to be proved. In regard to statutory rules, the prominent view was that the violation of mandatory statutory rules would tantamount to prejudice but where the rule is merely directory the element of de facto prejudice needs to be pleaded and shown. With the development of law, rigidity in these rules is somewhat relaxed. The instance of de facto prejudice has been accepted as an essential feature where there is violation of the non-mandatory rules or violation of natural justice as it is understood in its common parlance. With the development of law, rigidity in these rules is somewhat relaxed. The instance of de facto prejudice has been accepted as an essential feature where there is violation of the non-mandatory rules or violation of natural justice as it is understood in its common parlance. Taking an instance, in a departmental enquiry where the department relies upon a large number of documents majority of which are furnished and an opportunity is granted to the delinquent officer to defend himself except that some copies of formal documents had not been furnished to the delinquent. In that event the onus is upon the employee to show that non-furnishing of these formal documents have resulted in de facto prejudice and he has been put to a disadvantage as a result thereof. 84. Even in the present cases, Rule 9(2) empowers the disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry itself or appoint other authority to do so. We have already held that the language of Rule 9(2) does not debar specifically or even by necessary implication appointment of a former employee of the Railways as enquiry officer. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed otherwise, all the respondents have participated in the departmental enquiries without protest and it is only after the orders of the competent authority have been passed that they have raised this objection before the courts. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is obligatory upon the respondents to show that they have suffered some serious prejudice because of appointment of retired railway officers as enquiry officers. We have no hesitation in stating that the respondents have in no way satisfied this test of law. Thus, if their argument was to be accepted on the interpretation of Rule 9(2), which we have specifically objected, even then the inquiries conducted and the order passed thereupon would not be vitiated for this reason.” 9. Further from the entire reading of the inquiry report, there is no dealing with any such issue. Similarly, reading of the order of the appellate authority also this Court finds there is no mentioning of any allegation of the petitioner in violation of natural justice or violation of any rule/regulation thereof by the disciplinary authority. Further from the entire reading of the inquiry report, there is no dealing with any such issue. Similarly, reading of the order of the appellate authority also this Court finds there is no mentioning of any allegation of the petitioner in violation of natural justice or violation of any rule/regulation thereof by the disciplinary authority. In absence of any material at least bringing a case of violation of natural justice by either of the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, this Court perused the discussions and findings of the Inquiry Officer. For the observations therein, this Court finds there is a clear case of establishing charges against the petitioner by the establishment and there being strong foundation in the inquiry report, this Court finds no fault in any of the orders like the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority or the reviewing authority. This Court, therefore, finds no scope for interfering in any of the impugned orders. Resultantly the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.