ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the disciplinary proceeding conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the subsequent orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority inflicting punishment upon the petitioner on the basis of the charge levelled against him in the charge-sheet. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the extent that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner suffers from violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that as per the settled principle of law, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceeding, if it is found that the principle of natural justice has not been followed in decision making process. 4. To meet out the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to go through the record of the case to ascertain whether there is any substance in the contention raised by the petitioner and is there any violation of principle of natural justice in decision making process. 5. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Accountant and was posted at branch Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh, who was served with a charge-sheet on 13.9.2008 (Annexure-P-2) leveling a charge that he has conducted a grave misconduct under rule 56 (1), 11 and 14 of the Banking Services rules. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 29.10.2008 (Annexure-P-6), denied the charge levelled against him and also asked for cancellation of the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report (Annexure-P-7) opined therein that whatever charge levelled against the petitioner is on the documents made available to him and in accordance with the Banking Rules and thus, the charge levelled against the petitioner was found proved. The enquiry report (Annexure-P-7) was the foundation of order of punishment and on the basis of the same, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order on 3.2.2009 (Annexure-P-11) inflicting the punishment of reversion and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Clerk from the post of Assistant Accountant. 7. The petitioner, thereafter preferred an appeal under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short the ‘Act, 1960’) before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sagar Division, Sagar. 7. The petitioner, thereafter preferred an appeal under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short the ‘Act, 1960’) before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sagar Division, Sagar. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.5.2012 (Annexure-P-17) dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, thereafter preferred a second appeal under section 78(2) of the Act, 1960 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and vide order dated 22.1.2014 (Annexure-P-20), the Tribunal has also maintained the order passed by the first Appellate Authority. 8. The respondents/Bank have submitted their reply and denied the ground of challenge made by the petitioner and have also stated that there is no violation of principle of natural justice involved in the case of disciplinary proceeding. 9. However, a perusal of the reply shows that there is no specific averments made by the respondents/Bank as to in what manner, the enquiry had been conducted nor there is any reply to the allegation regarding violation of principle of natural justice raised by the petitioner. 10. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the Rules namely the Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyam wherein, the grave misconduct is defined in rule 56. Rule 57 prescribes punishment if the charge of grave misconduct is found proved. Rule 58 provides that the Authority Competent to inflict punishment if charge of grave misconduct is found proved during the course of the enquiry. Rule 58 also provides as to in what manner, the enquiry is conducted. Rule 57 prescribes punishment if the charge of grave misconduct is found proved. Rule 58 provides that the Authority Competent to inflict punishment if charge of grave misconduct is found proved during the course of the enquiry. Rule 58 also provides as to in what manner, the enquiry is conducted. Rule 58 has significance in this case, therefore, it is reproduced hereinbelow: 58- n.M gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh-& ¼,d½ fdlh Hkh deZpkjh ds fo:) lsok fu;e 56 esa of.kZr dk;ksZ] =qfV;ksa rFkk d`R;ksa ds fy, lsok fu;e 57 ds v/khu l{ke vfËkdkjh }kjk n.M laca/kh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA deZpkfj;ksa vkSj mUgsa n.M nsus ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkfj;ksa dh Jsf.k;ka lsok fu;e 61 ¼N%½ esa nh xbZ gSA ¼nks½ fdlh deZpkjh dks xEHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy, rc rd nf.Mr ugha fd;k tkosxk tc rd fd tkap gsrq vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk fuEukuqlkj tkap djds deZpkjh ds fo:) nqjkpj.k dk nks"k fl) ugha dj fn;k tkrk%& ¼1½ l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok mlds }kjk vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks izk:Ik iv esa xEHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy, vkjksi i= nsxk vkSj lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds fy, izk:i iv esa vkjksi i= nsxkA vkjksi i= esa nqjkpj.k dk rFkk mlds fo:) ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkosxk vkSj mldk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk tkosxkA ¼2½ deZpkjh dks mldk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus gsrq le;] tks fd dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= esa fufnZ"V gksxk] fn;k tkosxkA ¼3½ deZpkjh dks viuk cpko Loa; djus vFkok bl gsrq cSad ds fdlh vU; deZpkjh dh lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr gksxhA fdUrq fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dks deZpkjh ds cpko gsrq iSjoh djus dh vuqefr ugha gksxhA ¼4½ mu izdj.kksa dks NksMdj ftuesa deZpkjh mlds fo:) yxk;s x, vfHk;ksxksa dks Lohdkj dj ysrk gS] deZpkjh dks mlds cpko gsrq lk{; izLrqr djus rFkk fdlh lk{; dk] ftldh lk{kh ij vfHk;ksx vk/kkfjr gks dk izfr ijh{k.k ;k dwV ijh{k.k djus dh vuqefr nh tkosxhA ¼5½ lk{; dh xokgh dk lkj fy[kk tkosxk vkSj mls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ds le{k i ¼6½ n.M dk vkns'k fyf[kr esa gksxk rFkk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ls fuxZfer fd;k tkosxkA n.M lEcU/kh ikfjr vkns'k dh ,d izfr lEcfUèkr deZpkjh dks nh tkosxhA ¼rhu½ dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= esa izLrkfor fd;s x, n.M ls vf/kd n.M ugha fn;k tk ldsxk] fdUrq de fn;k tk ldrk gSA On a bare perusal of sub-rule 4 of rule 58 it is clear that only in case of admission made by the delinquent of the charge levelled against him, regular enquiry will not be required to be conducted, otherwise the enquiry will be conducted in which the delinquent will have an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Sub-rule 5 of rule 58 further provides whatever statement of a prosecution witness is given, the same will be explained and read out before the delinquent employee. 11. Here in the case at hand, the petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet issued to him submitted his reply on 29.10.2008 (Annexure-P-6), denied the charge and asked for cancellation of the charge-sheet. Although, from the enquiry report (Annexure-P-7) submitted by the Enquiry Officer, he has formed his opinion regarding charge found proved on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet. As per the Enquiry Officer, since the delinquent has admitted the charge, therefore, there was no occasion for conducting a regular departmental enquiry and to produce prosecution witnesses. From the report of the enquiry, it can be gathered that the material document on the basis of which, the charge was levelled could not be made available before the Enquiry Officer even on the demand made by the petitioner to show him the said dak-book but that was not made available, therefore, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the delinquent could examine the same. Surprisingly, when there was no document made available, no witness was examined by the prosecution and the reply in which, the petitioner has denied the charge, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously observed that the charge levelled against the delinquent has been accepted by him. This observation so also finding given by the\ Enquiry Officer is apparently perverse. The opinion formed by the Enquiry Officer is without any foundation. It can be seen that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 58 of the Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyam. In the eye of law, it is not an enquiry and it is a glaring example of violation of principle of natural justice. The order of the Disciplinary Authority relying upon the enquiry report forming the same opinion that the delinquent has accepted the charge levelled against him is nothing but an example of illegality which makes the decision making process defective. I have no hesitation to say that when the foundation of the order of the Disciplinary Authority suffers from violation of principle of natural justice, then the subsequent orders based on defective foundation do not deserve to survive. 12. I have no hesitation to say that when the foundation of the order of the Disciplinary Authority suffers from violation of principle of natural justice, then the subsequent orders based on defective foundation do not deserve to survive. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondents/Bank have neither conducted the enquiry in accordance with law nor followed the principle of natural justice and on the contrary, they proceeded in the manner forming incorrect view that the delinquent accepted the charge. Thus, it is a fit case in which judicial review can be done and the orders impugned since illegal and against the principle of audi alteram partem hence liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also filed a document i.e. Annexure-P-8 to substantiate that in a similar circumstance, the Cooperative Tribunal has held the enquiry defective and remitted the matter to the Authority to initiate enquiry afresh from the stage from where principle of natural justice is violated. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Of India and others Vs. A. Masilmani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 , S.R. Tewari v. Union of India and another, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 so also by this Court in the case of Shanti Tiwari v. State of MP. reported in ILR [2011] 3 MP 1657, the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry from the point it stood vitiated from i.e. after the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the delinquent. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the enquiry report (Annexure-P-7) and the subsequent orders passed therefrom are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents/Authority to initiate proper enquiry as per the procedure prescribed under rule 58 of the Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyam by giving proper opportunity to the delinquent and then take appropriate decision in accordance with law.