JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. A dismissed employee, while working as a Manager of the Dalhousie Square Branch of Bharat Oversead Bank Limited, assails a memo dated October 30, 2013. 2. By the impugned memo, Indian Overseas Bank, purporting to review the decision of the appellate authority for concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority and awarding a sentence of compulsory retirement, refused to review such decision. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was discharging his duties as Managing of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, Dalhousie Branch at the fateful time. A current bank account was opened in the name of South Eastern Railways at such Branch. The account opening form bore the signature of a natural person as the introducer. It was alleged that, the petitioner in connivance and collusion with the person introducing the account and persons defrauded Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (in short TISCO) as well as South Eastern Railways by facilitating cheques issued by the TISCO to be encashed in such bank account and the proceeds to be disbursed therefrom. He submits that, although, the petitioner was the Manager of such branch at that material point of time, the petitioner did not participate in any criminal activity or acted fraudulently or dishonestly with the banking transaction had in such account. In fact, immediately upon discovery of the fraud, even much prior to the initiation of any proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner informed the Chairman of the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited about the misdeeds. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet as appearing in the enquiry report against the petitioner, the evidence collected against the petitioner and the report submitted by the enquiry officer. He submits that, essentially the charge against the petitioner is of entering into a criminal conspiracy to allow a government organisation to open a bank account in a private bank and facilitating disbursal of funds from such bank account. Such charge, according to him, from the basis of both the disciplinary proceedings as also the criminal proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the disciplinary authority awarding punishment of dismissal from service on May 7, 1996. He draws the attention of the Court to the report of the enquiry officer. Such charge, according to him, from the basis of both the disciplinary proceedings as also the criminal proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the disciplinary authority awarding punishment of dismissal from service on May 7, 1996. He draws the attention of the Court to the report of the enquiry officer. He submits that, although, about thirteen charges were framed in the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner stood exonerated in most of the charges. In respect of first charge, which relates to opening of the bank account concerned although, the enquiry officer found that, the petitioner did not have any collusion or connivance with any other person. Nonetheless, it returned a finding on the alleged admission of the petitioner, that the petitioner was liable. He submits that, such finding is perverse. As against such enquiry report, the petitioner submitted a written representation. He submits that, the disciplinary authority ought to have issued the second show cause notice inviting objection from the petitioner as to quantum of punishment that the disciplinary authority proposed to impose on the basis of the enquiry report. In fact, he submits that, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner at the stage when disciplinary authority was contemplating accepting the enquiry report. Such procedure was not adopted. The disciplinary authority proceeded to award a sentence of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed therefrom. The appellate authority purported to dispose of such appeal as communicated by a writing dated December 26, 1996. In fact, the letter dated December 26, 1996 issued by the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited written by a Deputy General Manager purported to communicate the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank acting as the appellate authority in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, but substituting the award of punishment from dismissal of service to compulsory retirement. He submits that, the appellate authority did not afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appellate authority did not consider the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner. The decision of the appellate authority was not communicated to the petitioner. The writing dated December 26, 1996 is, at best, a communication of the decision of the appellate authority and not the decision of the appellate authority itself. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that it is the decision of the appellate authority. The decision of the appellate authority was not communicated to the petitioner. The writing dated December 26, 1996 is, at best, a communication of the decision of the appellate authority and not the decision of the appellate authority itself. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that it is the decision of the appellate authority. Consequently, the decision of the appellate authority should be deemed to be uninformed with reasons. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the appellate authority ought to have taken note of the procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings which irregularities according to him, are fatal to the disciplinary proceedings itself. The appellate authority ought to have considered the grounds of appeal and pronounced thereon. It should have passed a reasoned order and communicated the same to the petitioner. He submits that, subsequent to the order of the appellate authority, a review petition was filed. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner stood acquitted honourably in the criminal case. He draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order of the criminal Court dated April 26, 2010. Although, the criminal Court exonerated the petitioner of the same charges, on the basis of the same witnesses and the evidence led before the criminal Court as that of the disciplinary proceedings, the reviewing authority ought to have taken such facts into consideration. The reviewing authority acted wrongly in not doing so. The reviewing authority passed an order which was assailed. The order of the reviewing authority was set aside by the judgment and order dated September 19, 2013 passed in W.P. No. 1375(W) of 2012. He draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated September 19, 2013 passed in such writ petition and submits that, the reviewing authority was required to consider the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case and to pass a reasoned order thereon. The reviewing authority, purporting to act in terms of the judgment and order dated September 19, 2013, passed the impugned order. He submits that, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the reviewing authority failing to apply the correct principles of law. 7. The reviewing authority, purporting to act in terms of the judgment and order dated September 19, 2013, passed the impugned order. He submits that, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the reviewing authority failing to apply the correct principles of law. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, when a delinquent in a departmental proceeding although being found guilty in such proceeding and although, the standard of proof in the two proceedings are different, is honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings, on the basis of the same charges, same evidence and same witnesses, then, the disciplinary authority should take note of such fact. In support of such contention, he relies upon the decisions reported in the case of (Capt. M. Paulanthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 ), (G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 446 ), (Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & ors., (2006) 8 Supreme 690 ), (Satyanarayan Pandey vs. State of West Bengal & ors., (2009) 2 CalHN 860) and (State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Vidyasagar Pandey & anr., (2011) 1 CalHN 84 (Cal)). He draws the attention of the Court to the charges made in the disciplinary proceedings and the charges framed in the criminal proceedings. He also draws the attention of the Court to the list of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in the disciplinary proceedings and the list of witnesses in the criminal proceedings. He submits that, the list of witnesses in the criminal proceedings are exhaustive with more witnesses being examined than the disciplinary proceedings. He also draws the attention of the Court to the exhibits marked in the criminal proceedings which, according to him, are larger in number than those taken note of in the departmental proceedings. Consequently, he submits that, the test laid down in the G. M. Tank (supra) and Capt M. Paulanthony (supra) being satisfied, the petitioner is entitled to be exonerated of the charge in the disciplinary proceedings also. The petitioner should be granted consequential benefits. The petitioner having superannuated during the pendency of the proceedings, the monetary benefits receivable by the petitioner should be directed to be paid by the Indian Overseas Bank as Indian Overseas Bank took over the assets and liabilities of the Bharat Overseas Bank in the meantime. 8. The petitioner should be granted consequential benefits. The petitioner having superannuated during the pendency of the proceedings, the monetary benefits receivable by the petitioner should be directed to be paid by the Indian Overseas Bank as Indian Overseas Bank took over the assets and liabilities of the Bharat Overseas Bank in the meantime. 8. Learned advocate for the Indian Overseas Bank relies upon a press release dated March 30, 2007 and submits that, the petitioner stood dismissed as an employee much prior to Indian Overseas bank took over the assets and liabilities of Bharat Overseas Bank. Therefore, Indian Overseas Bank has no liability as against the petitioner if the Court finds that the petitioner was wrongly dismissed from service. 9. The petitioner was working as a Manager of Dalhousie branch of Bharat Limited Overseas Bank on January 30, 1995 when a clerical staff of the branch of such bank introduced a senior store officer of South Eastern Railways to the petitioner. A current account was opened in the name of South Eastern Railways at the branch of such bank. It is alleged as against the petitioner that, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with few persons in order to facilitate the opening of such bank account in the name of South Eastern Railways and allow the operation of such account so as to defraud the South Eastern Railways and TISCO. 10. Bharat Overseas Bank Limited appointed an Enquiry Officer in respect of such allegations against the petitioner by an order dated October 19, 1995. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on September 19, 1995. There were fifteen charges against the petitioner. Essentially, the charges levelled revolve around the criminal conspiracy that the petitioner allegedly entered into with few persons to facilitate opening a current account in the name of South Eastern Railways to facilitate the defraud, as noted above. On the basis of selfsame facts, a criminal proceeding was also initiated. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner resulted in a report of the Enquiry Officer dated March 15, 1996. Before the Enquiry Officer, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The enquiry report finds the petitioner not to have acted with any dishonest motive in opening the current account in the name of South Eastern Railways. However, it proceeds to find the petitioner guilty on the basis of his so-called admission. Before the Enquiry Officer, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The enquiry report finds the petitioner not to have acted with any dishonest motive in opening the current account in the name of South Eastern Railways. However, it proceeds to find the petitioner guilty on the basis of his so-called admission. The so-called admission of the petitioner is not identified in the enquiry report. The enquiry report proposes a punishment of dismissal from service. In normal course of action the disciplinary authority ought to have afford one opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the disciplinary authority was concurring with the proposed order of punishment. However, in the facts of the present case, nothing is placed on record to suggest that the disciplinary authority provided the petitioner with such opportunity. Be that as it may, the petitioner on his own submitted a written objection to the disciplinary authority contending that the charges were proved and that the proceedings should be dropped. The disciplinary authority passed a final order dated May 7, 1996. The final order of the disciplinary authority runs in two pages. It notes that, fifteen charges were framed against the petitioner by the charge sheet dated September 19, 1995. It notes that, the petitioner denied all the charges against him. It also notes the report of the enquiry officer holding that, some of the charges were proved against the petitioner, two charges were partly proved and some were not proved. It records that, a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner for comments and that, the petitioner submitted a reply dated April 6, 1996. It proceeds to say that, the disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and the reply dated April 6, 1996 carefully and did not find any substance in the comments made by the petitioner. It does not discuss that the report of the enquiry officer and the reply given thereto by the petitioner at all. It records the final finding of the disciplinary authority without discussing the materials on the basis of such findings were arrived at. In my view, the final order of the disciplinary authority dated May 7, 1996 is non-speaking being uninformed with reasons. In administrative jurisprudence when, the administrative authority particularly the disciplinary authority is proceeding to award a punishment, such decision must be informed with reasons. In my view, the final order of the disciplinary authority dated May 7, 1996 is non-speaking being uninformed with reasons. In administrative jurisprudence when, the administrative authority particularly the disciplinary authority is proceeding to award a punishment, such decision must be informed with reasons. Failure to do so renders such decision a nullity. 11. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal from the order of the disciplinary authority. The appeal stood disposed of as appearing from the communication dated December 26, 1996 that the Board of Directors of Bharat Overseas Bank considered the appeal on December 20, 1996 and concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and the decision of the disciplinary authority. However, the appellate authority altered the penalty from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. 12. There are substance in the contentions of the petitioner that, the appellate authority ought to have afforded the petitioner a right of audience before deciding the appeal. Moreover, the decision of the appellate authority was never communicated to the petitioner. The writing dated December 26, 1996 is of the Deputy General Manager of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited. It refers to the decision of the Board of Directors of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited dated December 20, 1996. The decision of the appellate was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to know his fate from the appellate authority. The petitioner is entitled to the order of the appellate authority. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was not provided with the order of the appellate authority. In fact, even on final hearing today, the order of the appellate authority is not on record. 13. The communication dated December 26, 1996, assuming it to be a decision of the appellate authority is uninformed with reasons. With the appellate authority's order not being placed on record, and the writing dated December 26, 1996 stating that, the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer as also the decision of the disciplinary authority, the Court is constrained to hold that, the appellate authority's decision is also uninformed with reasons. Again on the principle that, a decision of the appellate authority which affects the right an employee, must be informed with reasons, the decision of the appellate authority is a nullity. 14. A review was filed by the petitioner. The review was disposed of by rejecting the same. Again on the principle that, a decision of the appellate authority which affects the right an employee, must be informed with reasons, the decision of the appellate authority is a nullity. 14. A review was filed by the petitioner. The review was disposed of by rejecting the same. The petitioner being aggrieved by the reviewing authority's order dated November 19, 2011 approached the Writ Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. No.1375 (W) of 2012. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated September 19, 2013 setting aside the order dated November 19, 2011 of the reviewing authority and requiring the reviewing authority to consider its decision by hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order thereon. 15. The petitioner submitted written notes on submission before the reviewing authority after the order dated September 19, 2013. The reviewing authority passed the impugned order dated October 30, 2013. 16. In the interregnum, the criminal proceeding attained finality. The criminal proceeding was disposed of by a judgment and order dated April 26, 2010. There were four accused in the criminal proceedings, which included the petitioner. Two of the accused were found guilty. Two were discharged honorably. The petitioner is one of the persons who was discharged honorably in the criminal proceeding. 17. In the criminal proceeding, more than, fifty documentary evidences were marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. In the cross-examination more than ten documentary evidences were exhibited. Two material exhibits were taken into consideration by the Criminal Court. Thirty-three prosecution witnesses were examined in the criminal proceedings. Six out of the seven prosecution witnesses examined in the disciplinary proceeding were examined in the criminal proceeding also. One of the prosecution witnesses in the disciplinary proceeding, however, was not examined in the criminal proceeding. That apart as noted above, in aggregate thirty-three prosecution witnesses were examined in the criminal proceeding which is much more than the number of prosecution witnesses examined in the disciplinary proceeding. There were four accused in the criminal proceedings. The criminal proceeding dealt with the entire gamut of the allegations in relation to the incidents resulting in the disciplinary proceeding, as a while. Therefore, it would be safe to infer, in the facts of the present case that, the scope and ambit of the criminal proceedings was well larger than that of the disciplinary proceedings. 18. The criminal proceeding dealt with the entire gamut of the allegations in relation to the incidents resulting in the disciplinary proceeding, as a while. Therefore, it would be safe to infer, in the facts of the present case that, the scope and ambit of the criminal proceedings was well larger than that of the disciplinary proceedings. 18. The charges in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner were charges against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding. In the criminal proceeding, charges under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner. The Criminal Court, upon appraisal of the entire evidence placed before it returned the finding that, the petitioner was no way involved in the criminal conspiracy. It also returned a finding that, the petitioner did not commit any illegality in allowing Mr. Begani as introducer to the bank account. The Criminal Court returned the finding that, the petitioner acting as a branch manager exercised his official discretion in doing so and cannot be faulted for the same. It also returned a finding that, there was no evidence at all to establish that, the petitioner ever entered into an agreement for obtaining the cheque in question from TISCO or in opening the account in the name of South Eastern Railway or in encashment of the cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand). The Criminal Court, therefore, acquitted the petitioner from all charges. 19. As noted above, the decision of the Criminal Court is dated April 26, 2010 by which time, the appellate authority concurred with the enquiry report and the decision of the disciplinary authority in awarding punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. 20. Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) considers the situation where there are departmental and criminal proceedings against the delinquent employee and course of action to be taken in such scenario. It lays down in paragraph 22 as follows: "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It lays down in paragraph 22 as follows: "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 21. Capt M. Paul Anthony is noticed in G.M. Tank (supra). It is of the view that, where, departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same, then, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand when the criminal proceedings resulted in a different finding even after the departmental proceedings. In the facts of that case, the delinquent was discharged honorably in the criminal case subsequent to the decision in the departmental proceeding awarding punishment. In the facts of that case, the delinquent was discharged honorably in the criminal case subsequent to the decision in the departmental proceeding awarding punishment. The departmental proceeding was set aside. 22. Jasbir Singh (supra) is of the view that, if departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on identical set of facts, evidence in both the proceedings are common and the employee is acquitted in the criminal case, an order of dismissal already passed may also be set aside. 23. Impact of acquittal in the criminal case on the disciplinary proceedings and order of punishment was considered in Satyanarayan Pandey (supra). It is of the view that, the Writ Court is entitled to exercise its power to examine whether acquittal in the criminal case has a direct impact on the departmental proceedings and the order of punishment. Vidyasagar Pandey & Anr. (supra) is of the similar view. 24. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the irresistible conclusion on the basis of the materials made available on record is that, the charges against the petitioner in the departmental and the criminal proceeding were the same. The same witnesses and materials were examined in both the proceedings. In fact, a larger number of witnesses and exhibits were examined in the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Court found the petitioner not to be guilty of any of the charges. The disciplinary authority ought to have taken such fact into consideration. The reviewing authority, therefore, erred in not reviewing the decision of the appellate authority after taking into consideration such facts. 25. In such circumstances, the impugned decision of the reviewing authority cannot be sustained. The same is quashed. Referring the matter back to the reviewing authority for reconsideration of its decision would a futile exercise as, the reviewing authority even for the second time as that of the impugned order, did not apply appropriate law in receiving at the decision. Moreover, the petitioner is terminally ill and has superannuated. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 1996, it would be inhumane to direct the petitioner to face the reviewing authority all over again in the facts of the present case. The decisions of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are nullity. The petitioner was compulsory retired from service wrongfully. He must be reinstated from the date of his wrongful compulsory retirement from service. The decisions of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are nullity. The petitioner was compulsory retired from service wrongfully. He must be reinstated from the date of his wrongful compulsory retirement from service. He is entitled to all benefits, financial or otherwise, after treating the petitioner to be in continuous service from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of his superannuation, treating him as if, the order of compulsory retirement was never passed against the petitioner and that, the petitioner did not face any departmental proceedings. 26. The contention of Indian Overseas Bank that, it is not liable to pay the petitioner and not recognise the petitioner as its employee is without any basis. In fact, such a contention is downright dishonest. Indian Overseas Bank took over all assets and liabilities of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited on and from particular date. The petitioner was the manager of Dalhousie Square Branch when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was compulsory retired from service wrongfully by Bharat Overseas Bank Limited. Therefore, the Indian Overseas Bank remains liable to the petitioner as, the petitioner remained an employee of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited on the date of take over by Indian Overseas Bank. the wrongful order of compulsory retirement from service being passed in the interregnum 27. The respondents will disburse the monetary entitlements of the petitioner within four weeks from date. 28. W.P. No.10529 (W) of 2014 is disposed of. 29. There shall be no order as to costs. 30. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.