Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 564 (ORI)

Arjuna Charan Mishra v. State Bank of India

2019-09-05

B.R.SARANGI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, by way of this writ application, seek to quash the orders dated 17.08:1988 passed by opposite party No. 1-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (disciplinary authority) in Annexue-7, dated 11.06.1990 passed by the appellate authority-opposite party No. 5 in Annexure-9; and dated 20.08.2001 passed by opposite party No. 6-reviewing authority in Annexure-13 imposing and confirming the punishment inflicted on him in a departmental proceeding by violating the norms and procedures prescribed in the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, (for short 'Staff Rules') and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, i.e., non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, was served with a memorandum of charges under Rule 50(1)(i) of the Staff Rules on 28.05.1986 to the following effect: "(i) During 1982-83 while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, he conducted himself in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank by sanctioning loans under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and Economic Rehabilitation of the Rural Poor (ERRP) schemes and while disbursing the loans he had retained amounts ranging from 10% to 20% as illegal gratification in sanctioning the loans and recommending them for subsidy. (ii) In many cases loans were sanctioned for purchase of goatery units/bullocks, whereas no assets were purchased. The disbursements were made in cash contravening the laid down instructions. (iii) The Petitioner accepted illegal gratification from number of borrowers and committed irregularities mentioned. (iv) The Petitioner debited the total project cost to the loan accounts without receiving permissible subsidy from the concerned Government body. Therefore, he has deviated from the laid down procedure to collect the subsidy amount in advance as a result, interest burden on the borrower increased. (v) Some loan accounts credits were made few weeks after raising the debits. It was therefore concluded that the Petitioner had with him duly signed forms and deposit vouchers, which he had been putting to use as and when required." In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show-cause/explanation denying all the charges levelled against him, on receipt of which, inquiring officer was appointed. It was therefore concluded that the Petitioner had with him duly signed forms and deposit vouchers, which he had been putting to use as and when required." In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show-cause/explanation denying all the charges levelled against him, on receipt of which, inquiring officer was appointed. During course of enquiry, the petitioner, vide letter dated 30.09.1986, requested the inquiring officer to supply him relevant documents to prepare his written statement of defence. In the said letter, the petitioner also indicated that he had not verified certain documents produced by the presenting officer and requested to allow him five days time for the said purpose", and also for supply of the documents requisitioned therein. But the inquiring officer did not supply the requisitioned documents to him. The petitioner again, vide letter dated 29.05.1987, requested the inquiring officer for supply of some documents, on which reliance was placed, and the inquiring officer, without allowing the said application, directed the concerned authorities to produce the available documents only, and accordingly the documents, which were called for by the petitioner, were not supplied to him. The inquiring officer proceeded with the enquiry proceeding without supplying the documents, as requested by the petitioner, and without affording opportunity of adequate hearing to defend his case properly, submitted his report on 30.11.1987 as follows: "(i) Charge No. 1 was not proved. (ii) Charge No. 2 was partially proved holding that disbursements were made by cash contravening the laid down norms. (iii) Charge No. 3 was not proved. (iv) Charge No. 4 was fully proved. (v) Charge No. 5 was partially proved regarding liquidation of loans in short period." 2.1. On receipt of such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority-opposite party No. 1, without serving a copy thereof on the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing, accepted such enquiry report and also modified the finding with respect to charge No. 5 by holding that the said charge was totally proved Accordingly, vide order dated 17.08.1988, he imposed punishment of "reduction of basic pay by one stage" in terms of Rule-49(e) ibid w.e.f. the date this order is served on him and further directed that the period of suspension of the petitioner would be treated as not on duty. Against the said order of the disciplinary authority-opposite party No. 1, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-opposite party No. 1, who dismissed the same, vide order dated 11.06.1990, directing the period of suspension to be treated as on duty and the petitioner should be paid the emoluments for the suspension period less the subsistence allowance already paid to him, but did not modify the order of reduction of basic pay by one stage. Against the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred review, as provided under the Staff Rules before the reviewing authority who dismissed the same vide order dated 30.10.1991. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 7996 of 1992. This Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order dated 30.10.1991 and remitted the matter to the reviewing committee with a direction that the officers who are unconnected with the disciplinary proceeding may re-hear the review afresh, vide judgment dated 23.01.2001, which was reported in 91 (2001) CLT 418. In compliance thereof, the review committee rejected the application, vide order dated 20.08.2001, confirming the order passed by the appellate authority-opposite party No. 1. Hence this application. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority, as referred to above, cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that during process of enquiry, when the petitioner asked for supply of certain documents, the same were not supplied to him and the inquiring officer submitted his report with the finding that on the basis of the materials placed before him he found the petitioner guilty of charges, as mentioned hereinbefore, and thereby adequate opportunity of hearing has not been given to him. It is further contended, when the inquiring officer found that charge No. 5 was partially proved, the disciplinary authority, held that the charge No. 5 was fully proved, but, however, without endorsing any ground for such disagreement with the finding of the inquiring officer, thereby, the order so passed cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended, when the inquiring officer found that charge No. 5 was partially proved, the disciplinary authority, held that the charge No. 5 was fully proved, but, however, without endorsing any ground for such disagreement with the finding of the inquiring officer, thereby, the order so passed cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the reviewing authority, without considering the AGL circular No. 16 of 1979, has passed the order, which amounts to non-application of mind, and as such, preponderance of probabilities is enough for the authority to punish only when there is legal and reasonable evidence. The documents relied upon by the prosecution were not exhibited/produced in the enquiry. No witness was produced by the bank to prove the charge nor on cross-examination was any legal or reasonable evidence brought out to substantiate the charge. Therefore, the orders so passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, as well as the reviewing authority in Annexures-7, 9 and 13 cannot sustain and the same are liable to be quashed. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, AIR 1998 SC 3038 ; State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, AIR 2002 SC 1241 ; Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 , S.B.I. and others v. Arvind K. Shukla, AIR 2001 SC 2398 ; Union of India v. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286 ; and Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police, AIR 1999 SC 677 . 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party Bank, justifying the action taken by the authorities, contended that the same has been done in consonance with the provisions of law and interference of this Court at this stage may not be called for. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Nirmal J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2013 SC 151; and of this Court in Abhiram Samal v. Indian Bank [W.P.(C) No. 7848 of 2009 disposed of on 16.04.2015]. 5. This Court heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party Bank. 5. This Court heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party Bank. Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Bank, and it is a matter of 2002 and in the meantime 17 years have passed, this Court is not inclined to grant further adjournment and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings available on record, as it is a certiorari proceeding, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. For just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, the relevant provisions of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules are quoted below:- "Section 2-DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL 49. Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in these rules, any one or more of the following penalties may be imposed on an employee, for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason:- Minor Penalties (a) censure, (b) withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; (c) withholding of promotion, (d) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. Major Penalties (e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (f) compulsory retirement; (g) removal from service; (h) dismissal. Major Penalties (e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (f) compulsory retirement; (g) removal from service; (h) dismissal. Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule: (i) withholding of one or more increments of an employee on account of his failure to pass a prescribed department test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post which he holds; (ii) stoppage of increments of an employee at the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the grounds of his unfitness to cross the bar; (iii) non-promotion, whether in an officiating capacity or otherwise of an employee to a higher grade or post for which he may be eligible for consideration but for which he is found unsuitable after consideration of his case (iv) reserving or postponing the promotion of an employee for reasons like completion of certain requirements for promotion or pendency of disciplinary proceedings; (v) reversion to a lower grade or post, of an employee officiating in a higher grade or post, on the ground that he is considered,' after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct; (vi) reversion to the previous grade or post, of an employee appointed on probation to another grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or rules or orders governing such probation; (vii) reversion of an employee to his parent organization in case he had come to deputation; (viii) termination of service of an employee: (a) appointed on probation in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 13; (b) 'appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment; (c) appointed under a contract or agreement, in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement; and (d) as part of retrenchment. (ix) termination of service of an employee in terms of rule 18; (x) termination of service of an employee in terms of clause (b) of rule 19. (xi) retirement of an employee in terms of rule 20. (ix) termination of service of an employee in terms of rule 18; (x) termination of service of an employee in terms of clause (b) of rule 19. (xi) retirement of an employee in terms of rule 20. 50.(1)(i) The Disciplinary Authority may itself, or shall when so directed by its superior authority disciplinary proceedings against an employee. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties in rule 49 on an employee. Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is lower in rank than the Appointing Authority in respect of the category of employees to which the employee belongs no order imposing any of the manor penalties specified in clauses (e)(f)(g) and (h) of rule 49 shall be made except by the Appointing Authority or any authority higher than it on the recommendations of the Disciplinary Authority. (2)(i) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clause (e)(f)(g) and (h) of rule 49 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this sub-rule. (ii) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct against an employee, it may itself enquire into, or appoint any other employees or a public service (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority) to inquire into the truth thereof. Explanation: When the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the enquiry, any reference in clauses (viii) to (xxi) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as the reference to Disciplinary Authority. (iii) Where it I proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame indefinite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the employee. The articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the employees, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority not exceeding 15 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defence. (iv) On receipt of a written statement of the employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary to do so appoint under clause (ii) an inquiring Authority for the purpose. (iv) On receipt of a written statement of the employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary to do so appoint under clause (ii) an inquiring Authority for the purpose. Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an enquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the employee in his written statement but it shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge. (v) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring Authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority:- (a) a copy of the article of charge and statements of imputations of misconduct, (b) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the employee; (c) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (d) a copy of statements of witnesses, if any; (e) evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge under clause (iii); (f) a copy of the order appointing the "Presiding Officer" in terms of clause (iv). Note: The forwarding of the documents referred to in this clause need not necessarily be done simultaneously. (vi) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself enquires or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an enquiry, the Bank, may, be an order, appoint an employee or a public servant to be known as the "Presiding Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge, (vii) The employee may take the assistance of an employ as defined in clause (u) of Rule 3 (hereinafter referred to as employee's representative) but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose Provided that where the Presiding Officer is a public servant other than an employee of the Bank, the employee may take the assistance of any public servant. (viii)(a) The Inquiring Authority shall by notice in writing specify the date on which the employee shall appear in person before the Inquiring Authority, (b) On the date fixed by the Inquiring Authority, the employee shall appear before the Inquiring Authority at the time, place and date specified in the notice (c) The Inquiring Authority shall ask the employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to all or any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the employee thereon. (d) The inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the employee concerned pleads guilty. (ix) If the employee does not plead guilty, the Inquiring Authority may, if considered necessary, adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding 30 days or within such extended time as may be granted by it. (x)(a) The Inquiring Authority shall where the employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge furnish to such employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. (b) The Inquiring Authority shall also record an order that the employee may be for the purpose of preparing his defence: I - inspect and take notes of the documents listed within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as Inquiring Authority may allow; II - submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for inquiry; III - be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier and the Inquiring Authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority; IV - give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of the documents referred to at (II) above. Note: The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to at (II) above shall be given by the employee concerned. Note: The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to at (II) above shall be given by the employee concerned. (xi) The Inquiring Authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of the documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents on such date as may be specified. (xii) on receipt of the requisition under clause (ix), the authority having custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall arrange to produce the same before the Inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition. Provided that the authority having custody or possession of the requisitioned documents may claim privilege of the production of such documents will be against the public interest or the interest of the Bank. In that event, it shall inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly, (xiii) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral an documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Bank. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer shall be examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the employee. The Presiding Officer shall be entitled to re-examine his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on a new matter without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. (xiv) Before the close of the case in support of the charges, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the charge-sheet or may itself call for new evidence or recall or re-examine any witness. In such case the employee shall be given opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence before it is taken on record, or to cross-examine a witness who has been so summoned. The Inquiring Authority may also allow the employee to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. (xv) When the case in support of the charges is close, the employee may be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. The Inquiring Authority may also allow the employee to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. (xv) When the case in support of the charges is close, the employee may be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the employee shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer. (xvi) The evidence on behalf of the employee may then be produced. The employee may examine himself as a witness in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The witnesses, if any, produced by the employee shall then be examined employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which he have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. (xvii) The Inquiring Authority may, after the employee closes his evidence, and shall if the employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (xviii) After the completion of the production of the evidence, the employee and the Presenting Officer may file written briefs of their respective cases within a reasonable time but not exceeding 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence. (xix) If the employee does not submit the written statement of defence referred to in clause (iii) on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person, or through the employee's representative or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of these rules which require the presence of the employee or his representative, the Inquiring Authority may hold the enquiry ex-party. (xx) Whenever any Inquiring Authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or part of the evidence in an inquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiring Authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the Inquiring Authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by itself. (xx) Whenever any Inquiring Authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or part of the evidence in an inquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiring Authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the Inquiring Authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by itself. Provided that if the succeeding Inquiring Authority is of the opinion that further examine of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall and cause them to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined as hereinbefore provided. (xxi) On the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall appear a report which shall contain the following:- (1) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct; (2) a gist of the defence of the employee in respect of each article of charge, (3) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (4) the findings on each article of charge and the reason therefor. Explanation: If, in the opinion of the Inquiring Authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original article of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge. Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the employee has either admitted specifically and not by inference the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge (b) The Inquiring Authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include:- (1) the report of the inquiry prepared by it under (a) above; (2) the written statement of defence, it any, submitted by the employee referred to in clause (xv); (3) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; (4) written briefs referred to in clause (xviii), if any, and (5) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry. (3)(i) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority-whether the Inquiring Authority is the same or different-for fresh or further inquiry and report, and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold further inquiry according to the provisions of sub-rule (2) as far as may be. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (iii) if the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 49 should be imposed on the employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), make an order imposing such penalty: Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the penalty to be imposed is any of the manor penalties specified in clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of rule 49 and if it is lower in rank to the Appointing Authority in respect of the category of employees to which the employee belongs, it shall submit to the Appointing Authority the records of the enquiry specified in clause (xxi) (b) of sub-rule (2), together with its recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed and the Appointing Authority shall make an order imposing such penalty as it considers in its opinion appropriate. (iv) If the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass on order exonerating the employee concerned. 4(i) Where it is proposed to impose any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (a) to (d) of rule 49 the employee shall be informed in writing of the imputations of lapses against him and be given an opportunity to submit his written statement, of defence within a specified period not exceeding 15 days or such extended periods may be granted by the Disciplinary Authority. The defence statement, if any, submitted by the employee shall be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority before passing orders. (ii) Where, however, the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that an enquiry is necessary, it shall follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in sub-rule (2) (iii) The record of proceedings in such cases shall include: (a) a copy of the statement of imputations of lapses furnished to the employee; (b) the defence statement, if any, of the employee; and (c) the orders of the Disciplinary Authority together with the reasons therefor. (5) Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority as the case may be under sub-rules (3) and (4) shall be communicated to the employee concerned, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry, if any (6) Where two or more employees are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose a major penalty on all such employees may make an order directing that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. (7) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and 4, where an employee is at any time or has been adjudicated insolvent or has suspended payments or has compounded with his creditors or is or has been convicted by a criminal court of an offence involving - moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may discharge the employee from the Bank's service without any notice whatsoever, any no appeal shall lie against such discharge. (ii) Without prejudice to what is stated in clause (i) above and not withstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and 4, the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 49, if the employee has been convicted of a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial." In view of provisions contained in Rule 49, as mentioned above, reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale, which has been provided under sub-rule (e), comes under the category of major penalties. For imposition of major penalty, procedure has been prescribed under Rule-50, as indicated above. For imposition of major penalty, procedure has been prescribed under Rule-50, as indicated above. Sub-clause (b)(II) of sub-rule (x) of Rule-50 clearly prescribes that the inquiring officer has to supply the list of documents and witnesses so as to enable the petitioner to give written statement of defence. But in the present case, though the petitioner requested the inquiring officer, vide letter dated 30.09.1986, for supply of the relevant documents and also for verification of documents, the same was not done. Again on 29.05.1987, when the petitioner requested for verification of documents, the inquiring officer, without allowing the said application, directed the concerned authority to produce the available documents only. Accordingly, the documents, which were called for by the petitioner, were not supplied to him, thereby the authorities have acted in gross violation of the Staff Rules and non-compliance of the principle of natural justice 7. The inquiring officer submitted his report on 30.11.1987 by holding that charge No. 5 was partially proved regarding liquidation of loans in short period, but the disciplinary authority, in disagreement with finding given by the inquiring officer, held that the said charge is proved, but, however, without assigning any cogent reason which is in gross violation of the provisions contained in sub-rule (xxi) (3)(ii) of Rule-50 of the Staff Rules and also violates the principle of natural justice. The inquiring officer has also committed gross error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in recording the finding in respect of charge No. 2 that it is partially proved, when neither the charge-sheet nor the statement of article of charges specify any particular instruction which was violated during disbursement of loan and, as such, the allegation, that disbursement of loan was made in cash contravening the laid down instruction, is vague and baseless. Besides, the inquiring officer during course of inquiry has also not referred to any particular instruction, which has been allegedly violated by the petitioner at the time of disbursement of loan. Had there been any particular instruction clearly violated by the petitioner, then it - would have been reflected in the enquiry report submitted by the inquiring officer. In the instant case, the enquiry report does not refer any particular instruction to that effect. 8. Had there been any particular instruction clearly violated by the petitioner, then it - would have been reflected in the enquiry report submitted by the inquiring officer. In the instant case, the enquiry report does not refer any particular instruction to that effect. 8. At this stage, it is worthwhile to refer clause (iv) of the AGL Circular No. 10 of 1980, which reads as follows: "(iv) Where the branch is situated at a manageable distance from the fair/Market, (where the official is not compelled to camp at the fair overnight), the Bank's officials need carry from the branch in a day only that much of cash which is required for payment on deals already concluded. This would avoid the keeping of cash on his, person overnight." The finding of the inquiring officer in respect of charge No. 4, which was fully proved, is that the petitioner during his tenure at Satkosia Branch sanctioned loans under different Government sponsored schemes like IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Programme), I.T.D.P. (Integrated Tribal Development Programme), M.A.D.A. (Modified Area Development Agency), E.R.R.P. (Economic Rehabilitation of the Rural Poor) which did not have the same laid down procedure towards administration of subsidy. The I.R.D.P. Schemes was introduced in the year 1979-80 in certain selected Blocks in the country, which was extended to all the Blocks of the country w.e.f. 2.10.80. At the time of inception of the said scheme, Bank Authority issued AGL Circular No. 16 of 1979 prescribing the procedure of administration of subsidy and the said procedure does not clearly prohibit the bank to disburse the beneficiary with the full project cost, by debiting the entire project cost to his loan account for which the sanction has been made by obtaining the pronote/loan bond for the full unit cost from the borrower. The petitioner followed the procedure prescribed in the AGL Circular No. 16 of 1979 is not unique event but it is adopted by all the branches throughout the country. The prevailing practice in disbursement of the IRDP Scheme was that the entire project cost was disposed of by 'the bank' and that the subsidy received, which was duly reflected. In the borrower's account. In fact, the LB Circular No. 5 of 1986 dated. The prevailing practice in disbursement of the IRDP Scheme was that the entire project cost was disposed of by 'the bank' and that the subsidy received, which was duly reflected. In the borrower's account. In fact, the LB Circular No. 5 of 1986 dated. 5.3.1986, which was introduced after Circular No. 4 of 83, not only noticed the said prevailing practice but also indicated that in all the cases where interest was liable to be paid by the borrower for the short period, only the subsidy was received, the Bank was advised not to charge interest for that period. The scheme, as such, being beneficial one if the total project amount was not disbursed, asset could not be even purchased, which would result in the scheme becoming totally redundant. No loss was caused to the bank and after 86 Circular, no interest burden was passed on to the borrower. In any event, the borrower having duly executed loan documents, it-is clarified that practice of sanction and disbursement of all the entire loan, including subsidies, was only made in the case of the IRDP scheme, as has been noticed in the 86 Circular in view of that, the finding arrived at by the inquiring officer cannot have any justification. 9. While dealing with charge No. 5, the inquiring officer came to a finding that the same is partially proved but as it appears, getting no evidence in respect of pre-signed vouchers to liquidate the loan account the inquiring officer held that the accounts were liquidated in quick interval and, as such, the charge is partly proved. In support of his conclusion, he has taken note of the evidence adduced by the petitioner, but, for the reasons best known to him, he did not rely fully upon the witnesses who categorically stated before him that they have liquidated their loan account on their will. There is no iota of evidence in record even to suggest that it was the petitioner who had been benefited from the entire transaction and that the alleged pre-signed vouchers were fabricated. To the contrary, the borrowers have categorically stated that they had availed the loan and made good the same from their own sources of income. There is no iota of evidence in record even to suggest that it was the petitioner who had been benefited from the entire transaction and that the alleged pre-signed vouchers were fabricated. To the contrary, the borrowers have categorically stated that they had availed the loan and made good the same from their own sources of income. There is evidence that agreements were duly signed between the bank and the borrowers, along with the creation of assents through the instrumentality of the bank, who made payment to the suppliers. Therefore, the finding of the inquiring officer in respect of charge No. 5 cannot have any justification. 10. As provided in sub-rule (5) of Rule-50 of the Staff Rules, copy of the enquiry report should be supplied to the employee, but in the present case, before the order passed by the disciplinary authority, copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, which contravenes the said provision. On the other hand, the disciplinary authority, without serving a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing, not only accepted the enquiry report but also modified, the finding in respect of charge No. 5 holding that the said charge was fully proved and accordingly, vide his order dated 17.08.1988, imposed major punishment of 'reduction of basic pay by one stage' in terms of Rule-49 (e) w.e.f. the date of service of the order, and further directed the period of suspension of the petitioner may be treated as not on duty. But the appellate authority, vide order dated 11.06.1990, modified the order of the disciplinary authority holding that the period of suspension of the petitioner may be treated as on duty and be paid the emoluments for the suspension period less the subsistence allowance already paid to him, without interfering with the penalty of "reduction of basic pay by one stage" imposed by the disciplinary authority. Though a specific plea was taken before the appellate authority with regard to the irregularities committed in, course of enquiry as well as by the disciplinary authority, but the same was not taken into consideration in an arbitrary and unreasonable mariner. Against the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred review but the reviewing committee, vide order dated 20.08.2001, affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. Against the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred review but the reviewing committee, vide order dated 20.08.2001, affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. Challenging the order of the reviewing committee, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 7996 of 1992, in which the order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the reviewing committee was set aside, on the ground that the disciplinary authority was one of the members of the reviewing committee, it was directed that the officers who are unconnected with the disciplinary proceeding may re-hear the review afresh. 11. As it appears, the article of charges, which were served on the petitioner, do not indicate any particular instructions prohibiting him from cash disbursement and prescribing the procedure of administration of subsidy which are violated or deviated by him in sanction of different loans for different schemes Thereby, the allegation is definite or specific But the inquiring officer during enquiry proceeding relied upon one circular deterring the bank to other circulars, thereby, the charges so framed against the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. 12. In Punjab National Bank (supra), the apex Court while considering the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act held that in a disciplinary enquiry natural justice is the rule. Inquiry Officer's report in favour of delinquent should be supplied and he must give opportunity of hearing to the delinquent before recording its conclusion and natural justice rule has to read in Regulation 7(2) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations (1977). 13. In State Bank of India (supra), the apex Court, while considering Section 49 of the State Bank of India Act read with Regulation 49(g), 68(3), held that in a disciplinary enquiry if the disciplinary authority disagreed with conclusions and findings arrived at by inquiring officer, he is required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and reasons should be given to delinquent officer to represent before ultimate finding is recorded. Non-furnishing of reasons to delinquent officer is fatal and vitiates ultimate order of dismissal 14. In view of aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court and applying the same to the present context, it is clearly proved that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice and the Staff Rules governing the field. Non-furnishing of reasons to delinquent officer is fatal and vitiates ultimate order of dismissal 14. In view of aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court and applying the same to the present context, it is clearly proved that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice and the Staff Rules governing the field. The reliance placed by the opposite party-Bank on the cases of Nirmal J. Jhala and Abhiram Samal (supra) have no application to the present case, as the same has been decided in different context altogether. 15. Considering the factual and legal aspects, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority-opposite party No. 1, the appellate authority-opposite party No. 5 and the reviewing authority-opposite party No.6 in Annexures-7, 9 and 13 dated 17.08.1988, 11.06.1990 and 20.08.2001 respectively cannot sustain in the eye of law. The same are liable to quashed and are hereby quashed, as the same are violative of principle of natural justice and the Staff Rules governing the field. 16. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.