JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order contained in letter No. ZO/DA/02-03/267 dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-16) by which a punishment order of compulsory retirement from Bank services in terms of Regulation 4(H) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 has been passed against the petitioner (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in letter no ZO/PRS DD/03- 04/1135 dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure-19) by which the appeal preferred as against the order dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-16) has been dismissed without considering the appeal & materials available on the record. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in letter no CO/HRD/LEGAL/2012-13/288 dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure- 24) by which the appeal for review as against the inquiry report/findings of Inquiry Authority (IA) dated 18.02.2002(Annexure-8), order contained in letter No. ZO/DA/02-03/267 dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-16) and order contained in letter no ZO/PRS DD/03-04/1135 dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure-19) have been dismissed without considering the review appeal and materials available on the record. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to hold and declare that the action of the respondents is not legal and valid, as admittedly the charges have not been proved, more so, the recommendation of DA/AA for exoneration or lesser punishment have been suggested, but contrary to that, the compulsory retirement has been passed only on the direction of the chief vigilance officer & the Reviewing Authority has just observed the formalities & dismissed the review appeal (Annexure-21 & 23) without considering it & material available on the record, which is impermissible in law. (v) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to hold and declare that the orders passed by the DA/AA are without application of their independent mind & are solely & wholly in obedience of the chief vigilance officer (Respondent No.4) direction/recommendation & the order of the Reviewing Authority is without application of their mind and as such grossly illegal & vitiated by biasness, malice & prejudice both in Law as well as in facts and therefore, the entire process of award of punishment is vitiated and nullity in law. (vi) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to produce the recommendation & advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer with respect to the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings vis-à-vis, the recommendations made by the Disciplinary Authority & the Appellate Authority which were not provided to the Petitioner in spite of several requests (Annexure-15 & 18) and also to hold and declare that advice of Chief Vigilance Officer could not have been acted upon. (vii) For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. The facts as narrated in the instant writ application are that while the petitioner was posted as Manager at Jamshedpur Branch of the respondent Bank, a memorandum of charge was issued on 19.7.1999 and delivered to him on 30.7.1999 whereby, it was proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him with regard to imputation of misconduct. Thereafter, in terms of the aforesaid charge sheet (Annexure 5), the departmental enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner filed a detailed written brief denying all allegations leveled against him. Thereafter, the Inquiry officer has submitted his enquiry report on 18.2.2002, which was delivered to the petitioner on 28.2.2002. Pursuant to that, petitioner filed a detailed reply against the finding of the Inquiry Officer (Annexure 9), and finally the order for removal from service has been passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority (Annexure-16). Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.01.2003, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure 19). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 444 of 2005 (Annexure 20)before this Court and the said writ application was disposed of by order dated 1st March, 2012, whereby the petitioner was directed to prefer a review application and the reviewing authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court, the petitioner filed a review application (Annexure 21), which was also dismissed. 4. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate and review order are non est in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the issue raised by the petitioner; repeatedly, right from the stage of enquiry proceedings, has not been considered by either of the authorities. 4. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate and review order are non est in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the issue raised by the petitioner; repeatedly, right from the stage of enquiry proceedings, has not been considered by either of the authorities. He further referred to Rule 6(5) and 6(10) of the CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as “The Regulation”) and contended that it is a mandatory requirement that the Inquiry Authority, where the Officer/Employee does not admit all or any of the article of charge, furnish to such officer a list of documents and list of witnesses along with the article of charge. However, in the instant case, the mandatory requirement as enshrined in the aforesaid Regulation has not been complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the specific stand taken by this petitioner in Paragraph 38 of the writ application, wherein it has been specifically stated that the list of witnesses proposed and the documents relied upon by the Bank were never supplied to the petitioner and the witnesses were produced on a particular date without the knowledge of the petitioner, thus, depriving him of the opportunity to prepare himself for the cross-examination of the witnesses as per rule. He contended that the respondent Bank has given an evasive reply by only stating that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. This is not the true position of law. In this regard he submits that Order VIII-Rule 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with evasive denial and after going through the reply made in Paragraph 37 of the counter affidavit it can be inferred that the denial is not specific and as such, the statement made in writ application should be taken as admitted. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and G.V. ASWATHANARAYANA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 LLJ 36 Para 23 & 27. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and G.V. ASWATHANARAYANA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 LLJ 36 Para 23 & 27. Relying upon the aforesaid contention and the judgments, learned counsel prays that the impugned order of punishment as well as the subsequent orders should be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, supports the impugned order; however, could not demonstrate that the mandatory requirement as envisaged in Rule 6(5) and 6(10) of the Regulation was complied with. He cannot dispute the averment made in the counter affidavit while replying to the categorical statement made in the writ application at Para 38. However, he reiterated that principle of natural justice has been complied with. He further contended that the petitioner has not been prejudiced by non-supply of documents and he was given ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Further, the petitioner never requested before the Inquiry Authority to cross examine the witness. He further defended the action of the respondent Bank by submitting that when the witnesses were examined, the petitioner should have cross examined them and raising dispute before this Court that mandatory provisions as enshrined in Rule 6(5) read with Rule 6(10) of the Regulation has not been complied, is misconceived. Relying upon the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instant application deserves to be dismissed and no interference is required, whatsoever. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the instant writ application, it is necessary to go through the Regulation of the Central Bank of India. For better appreciation of this case, Rule 6(5) and 6(10)(a) is quoted herein below: “6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the instant writ application, it is necessary to go through the Regulation of the Central Bank of India. For better appreciation of this case, Rule 6(5) and 6(10)(a) is quoted herein below: “6. (5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority: (i) a copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior; (ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee; (iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (iv) a copy of statements of the witnesses, if any; (v) evidence proving the delivery of articles of charge under sub –regulation(3); (vi) a copy of the order appointing the ‘Presenting Officer” in terms of sub-regulation (6).” “(10) (a) The Inquiring Authority shall, where the officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer 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 officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence: (i) inspect within five days of the order ……………..” After going through the specific provisions of Bank’s Regulations, it clearly transpires that where the Officer Employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge; the Inquiry Authority shall furnish to such officer a list of documents and list of witnesses before starting the proceeding. This aspect of the matter and the Regulation of the Respondent Bank have been discussed in detail in the case of G.V. ASWATHANARAYANA (supra) where the Karnataka High Court has held in Paragraph 23 and 27 as under: “23. In this case, it is also relevant to notice that regulation 6(5)(iii) requires a list of documents has to be enclosed with the charge memo itself. In this case, along with the charge memo, neither the list of witnesses nor the list of documents are enclosed. 27. In this case, it is also relevant to notice that regulation 6(5)(iii) requires a list of documents has to be enclosed with the charge memo itself. In this case, along with the charge memo, neither the list of witnesses nor the list of documents are enclosed. 27. In conclusion we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority in conduct of the domestic enquiry against the appellant’ is not only in violation of Regulations but also in utter violation of principles of natural justice and fair-play in action. We also hold that on account of the failure of the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer to furnish the documents sought by the delinquent, prejudice has been caused to him in defending himself effectively.” Further, in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceeding would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: 6. Sub-rule (v) of Rule 7 mandates that the copies of the documentary evidence mentioned in the charge-sheet has to be served on the government servant along with the charge-sheet. The aforesaid sub-rule is as under: “7. (v) The charge-sheet, along with the copy of documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records in case the charge8 sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the inquiry officer.” A perusal of the aforesaid rule would clearly show that the disciplinary authority is duty-bound to make available all relevant documents which are sought to be relied upon against the government servant in proof of the charges. It is only when the charge-sheet together with documents is supplied that the government servant can be said to have had an effective and reasonable opportunity to present his written statement of defence. 37. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant.” After going through the aforesaid Judgments and the categorical statement made at Para 38 of the writ application, it appears that the petitioner had taken a specific stand that the list of witnesses proposed and the documents relied upon were never supplied to the petitioner and the witnesses were produced on a particular date without the knowledge of the petitioner and thus, depriving him of the opportunity to prepare himself for the cross examination. This specific statement of the petitioner has been replied in Paragraph No. 37 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Bank wherein the respondent Bank has stated as under: “37. That in reply to the statements made in para 38 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and fair play and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his case and defend himself. The allegations made in the para under reply are denied.” From bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph it can be easily inferred that this is an evasive reply. This Court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that every allegation, if not denied specifically, shall be taken to be admitted. The concept of evasive denial/specific denial can be borrowed from Order VIII Rule 4 and 5(1) of the C.P.C. For ready reference the relevant portion is quoted hereunder: “4. Evasive denial.- Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. The concept of evasive denial/specific denial can be borrowed from Order VIII Rule 4 and 5(1) of the C.P.C. For ready reference the relevant portion is quoted hereunder: “4. Evasive denial.- Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. 5. Specific denial.- [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.” After going through the specific provision under Code of Civil Procedure and in the background of the statement given in the counter affidavit it can be easily inferred that the statement made in Paragraph 38 of the writ application regarding non supply of documents and list of witnesses, are not denied specifically by the respondents. Since regulation 6(5)(iii) read with 6(10)(a) requires a list of documents and list of witnesses to be enclosed with the charge memo itself and since in this case, along with the charge memo, neither the list of witnesses nor the list of documents were enclosed; the same is against the settled proposition of law and also against their own Regulation. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is having no hesitation to hold that there is a procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order of punishment. As such, the impugned order of punishment and all subsequent orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Normally, in such type of cases, the matter should have been remitted back to the competent authority to start the proceeding from the stage of the irregularity commenced; by following principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned order of punishment and all subsequent orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Normally, in such type of cases, the matter should have been remitted back to the competent authority to start the proceeding from the stage of the irregularity commenced; by following principles of natural justice. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has already retired on 31.3.2010 and at present he is about 74 years. Further, the case relates to the year 1999 and calling the management witness now will be a futile exercise; as such, no fruitful purpose would be served to remit the case back to the Disciplinary authority for compliance of mandatory requirements of the Regulation. Consequently, the Impugned Order contained in letter No. ZO/DA/02-03/267 dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure- 16) and all subsequent orders are hereby quashed and setaside. The Respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this Judgment. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application is allowed and disposed of.