JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Shri S.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Kailash Ch. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2. 2. At the outset, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority in the matter of enhancement of punishment particularly while hearing an appeal at the instance of the delinquent/petitioner Shri Das, learned counsel also alleged that the impugned order also suffers for being passed without afford of opportunity to respond to its desire for enhancement of the punishment involving the matter. Shri Das, learned counsel further taking this Court to the provisions for appeal involving the Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2000 (for short “Regulation, 2000”), contended that there being no specific provision authorizing the appellate authority to enter into enhancement of the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority is estopped from exercising such right. It is under the circumstance, Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellate order so far enhancing the punishment is bad and this Court should interfere with the same and pass appropriate order involving the appeal. 3. Shri Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2 though has no objection to the objection by the counsel for the petitioner that once there is an attempt for enhancement of punishment involving the disciplinary proceeding by the appellate authority, there must be an opportunity to the delinquent or to the party likely to be affected to have his objection in the matter of enhancement of the punishment before taking such decision. But, however, taking this Court to the provision at Regulation 47 of the Regulation, 2000, Shri Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2, submitted that for the provisions therein the appellate authority has the right to consider the appeal and pass suitable order within a specified time indicated therein. Further, referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vrs. Further, referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vrs. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 608, Shri Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 taking support of the observations there in paragraph-19, submitted that for the support of the decision to the case of opposite party nos.1 and 2 to this case, there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate authority requiring any interference by this Court. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the admitted position involved in this case is that the petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding and suffered an order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority in acceptance of the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority in terms of Regulation 47 of the Regulation, 2000. Further, there is also no dispute that the appellate authority before entering into the question of enhancement of punishment, admittedly not putting the petitioner/delinquent to notice of enhancement. It is now taking into account the provision for appeal under the Regulation, 2000, this Court finds Regulation 47 of the Regulation, 2000 runs as follows :- “47. Right to appeal (i) An officer or employee shall have right of appeal against any order passed under these Regulations which injuriously affects his interest. (ii) The appeal shall be preferred to the Appellate Authority mentioned in the Regulation 48 within 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal and pass suitable order preferably within a period of 6 months.” Reading of the aforesaid provision, this Court finds, not only the appeal shall be preferred within forty-five days of receipt of the order appealed against, but the appellate authority is also required to consider the appeal and pass a suitable order preferably within a period of six months. It is at this stage, looking to the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioner at Annexure-15, this Court finds, the petitioner in making the appeal to the appellate authority has the following prayer :- “In view of the facts stated above it is prayed that, the Hon’ble Board or Directors may kindly be pleased admit the memorandum of appeal and after perusing the records may kindly quash the impugned final order of the Disciplinary Authority passed on dt. 05.06.04. And may kindly pass any other order/orders which the Hon’ble Board of Directors feel deemed fit and proper for my benefit and for which act of kindness, I shall be grateful to you. Sirs.” Reading the grounds taken in the Appeal and the prayer made therein, this Court finds, the petitioner has a prayer for setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is under the circumstance, this Court observes that for no specific provision authorizing the appellate authority to also have the right to go for enhancement of the punishment in deciding the appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to confine to the request made in the appeal and in disposal of the Appeal either to allow the appeal or to enter into reduction in the punishment in the event the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the quantum of offence or even remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration on the question of imposition of punishment. In absence of any specific provision authorizing the appellate authority to go for enhancement of punishment suo-motu, this Court finds there was no scope with the appellate authority to go for enhancement of punishment. 5. Now, coming to consider the decision cited by Shri Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2, this Court finds, for the pleadings involved therein, the issue involving therein and for no involvement of question on the issue as to whether a punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority can be enhanced by the appellate authority taking up the appeal by the delinquent in absence of notice being involved therein, this Court finds, the decision indicated above has no application to the case at hand. 6. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court takes into consideration the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vrs. 6. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court takes into consideration the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vrs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has even gone to the extent stating that even in case the Management is not agreeing with the enquiry report and taking a different view then previous to reaching finality, it must give an opportunity to the delinquent on taking decision on enhancement punishment differing from the view of the enquiry report. 7. For the observations hereinabove and the decision referred to hereinabove, the decision of the appellate authority becomes bad and as re-consideration of the appeal is necessity, this Court interfering with the appellate order set-aside the same and remits the matter back to the appellate authority for rehearing of the appeal and passing order strictly confining to the prayer in the appeal and by disposing the appeal within a period of four months hereinafter. Since the petitioner is retired in the meantime, there may not be any notice for appearance to the petitioner and this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority along with a certified copy of this order within three weeks hence to facilitate the appellate authority to proceed with the fresh adjudication of the Appeal involving the petitioner. 8. The writ petition succeeds but with an order of remand with aforesaid observation and direction. No cost.