JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner - an erstwhile bank employee with a prayer and for a direction to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 05.06.2003 confirmed in appeal by order dated 13.10.2003 and the order of 22.07.2006 by which the petitioner’s review application for reconsideration was not entertained. 2. Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a clerk cum cashier at the Manavadar Branch of the Union Bank of India. For an incident which took place on 08.11.2002, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 15.02.2003 inter-alia stating that on 08.11.2002, a proprietor of M/s. N.P. Traders issued a self cheque of Rs. 11 lakhs and presented it for payment at the Manavadar Branch. Since, the Branch did not have sufficient cash, the branch arranged for inward remittance of Rs. 10 lakhs from State Bank of Saurashtra. Instead of paying Rs. 11 lakhs, the petitioner paid the party - the petitioner Rs. 10 lakhs i.e. Rs. 1 lakh short. When the party on 10.11.2002 reported a shortage of Rs. 1 lakh to the branch manager, the petitioner was found to be in possession of Rs. 90 lakhs from his residence and that he unauthorizedly removed Rs. 10,000/- from the cash safe. 2.2 On 11.03.2003 the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. On 13.03.2003 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner levelling the charge as aforesaid. On 16.04.2003 the petitioner replied to the charges admitting the guilt. During the course of the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner admitted his guilt and made a confession. On 30.04.2003 the Inquiry Officer gave his finding in the report which was forwarded to the petitioner by a letter of 14.05.2003 and the petitioner was advised to remain present for a personal hearing. Accordingly, after hearing the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 05.06.2003. 2.3 On an appeal being preferred before the Appellate Authority, during the course of written submissions filed on 30.09.2003, the petitioner once again on a personal hearing being given, was heard and the Appellate Authority by an order dated 10.10.2003, rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal. In a review filed, on 15.02.2016 the review was so dismissed. Hence, the petition. In a review filed, on 15.02.2016 the review was so dismissed. Hence, the petition. 3. Mr. B.S. Patel learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Nidhika Jhaveri took the Court through the paper-book and made the following submissions: 3.1 Mr. B.S. Patel submitted that the petitioner was not an officer of the bank and therefore, the regulations relied upon by the bank would not be applicable. He would rely on the definition of Section 3(g) of the Officers Employees Regulations. Inviting the attention of the Court to the bipartite settlement annexed to the petition. Mr. Patel would submit that reading of bipartite settlement would indicate that an employee can be punished for being guilty of any misconduct and the inquiry can be dispensed with or an inquiry need not be held if the misconduct is such that the bank does not intend to award punishment of discharge when the employee makes the voluntary admission of his guilt. He would therefore submit that reading the bipartite settlement, particularly clause 19.12 thereof only when the punishment of dismissal is not warranted, the voluntary admission can be taken into consideration and the inquiry can be dispensed with. In the present case, according to Mr. Patel, evidently and admittedly, solely based on a confession made by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of dismissal without holding any formal inquiry into the charge against the petitioner. 3.2 Mr. Patel would also submit that reading of the Inquiry Officer’s report, the finding recorded and the penalty order, it is evident that one Shri R.N. Joshi was the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer. He would submit that the order of penalty is vitiated as the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority are the same. For the purposes of relying on clause 19(12) with regard to dispensation of inquiry Mr. Patel would rely on the decision reported in case of Annamalai vs. Regional Manager, Regoin IV State Bank of India, 1987 Law Suit (Mad) 89. Reliance is also placed on the decision in case of Amymiyan Permian Kadri vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 1992 (2) GLH 21 for his submission that an Inquiry Officer is to be appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and has to be a different entity. 3.3 Relying on several clauses of bipartite settlement especially clause 19.16 thereof, Mr. Reliance is also placed on the decision in case of Amymiyan Permian Kadri vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 1992 (2) GLH 21 for his submission that an Inquiry Officer is to be appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and has to be a different entity. 3.3 Relying on several clauses of bipartite settlement especially clause 19.16 thereof, Mr. Patel would submit that the petitioner communicated in the Gujarati language and since the communications to the petitioner were addressed in English, this was in violation of the bipartite settlement. 3.4 Mr. B.S. Patel would further submit that confessional statement can be result of a misrepresentation, assurance by plea bargaining and therefore the petitioner was not put to caution regarding the order of dismissal being passed. He placed reliance on the decisions in case of Natverbhai S. Makwana vs. Union Bank of India, 1984 GLH 791 and Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Another vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Others, 1984 (Supp) SCC 554. He would therefore submit that the confessional statement would not inspire confidence. An inquiry ought to be held. No officer or customer was examined, all questions were put by the disciplinary authority in his capacity as an inquiry officer and therefore there was no evidence to hold the charge. 3.5 As far as the appellate order is concerned, Mr. Patel would submit that the appellate order was an order without any reasons and therefore ought to be set aside. 4. Mr. Varun Patel learned advocate appearing for the bank would rely on the affidavit in reply and submit that the petitioner had admitted his guilt on charges on six occasions which have been set out in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply at Page 219. He would therefore submit that it is now not open for the petitioner to raise any contention regarding breach of principles of natural justice. He would rely on the following decisions: (i) S.H. Doshi v. Dena Bank and Others, Special Civil Application No. 8441 of 2002 (ii) The Central Bank of India vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, AIR 1968 SC 266 4.1 With regard to the contention that the Disciplinary Authority and the authority which was inquiring into the charges were the same, Mr. Varun Patel would rely on the circular on the bank no. Varun Patel would rely on the circular on the bank no. 4846 dated 24.04.2002, wherein, it has been provided that the Disciplinary Authority appointed for the departmental inquiry may either hold inquiry himself or may direct any other officer to hold an inquiry. He would further submit that there is nothing in law which prohibits the disciplinary authority from acting as an inquiry officer. In absence of any prejudice shown by the petitioner and also in view of the admission of his charges on six different occasions, the petition may not be entertained. He relied on the decision in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 . 5. Mr. Varun Patel would further submit that the order of the dismissal is a well reasoned order and looking to the past misconduct, wherein it is observed that the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of 10 increments, the repeated acts of the petitioner left the bank with no other alternative but to impose a penalty of dismissal from service. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the facts indicate that the gravity of the misconduct against the petitioner was serious. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that the charge leveled against the petitioner was that on 08.11.2002, one proprietor of M/s. N.P. Traders issued a self cheque of Rs. 11 lakhs presented for payment at the Manavadar branch. Since the branch had no sufficient funds, remittance was invited from the State Bank of Saurashtra. 08.11.2002 was a Friday. When the party made a payment to the other party of the cash, he found that there was a shortage of Rs. 1 lakhs which was reported to the Branch Manager on Sunday, the 10th November 2002. On record and so is also admitted by the petitioner that Rs. 90,000/- of the 1 lakh short cash was recovered from the petitioner’s residence. As far as the remaining Rs. 10,000/- was concerned, the petitioner took out the cash safe of the branch manager from the table and removed cash of Rs. 10,000/- denomination and thereby made good the shortfall of Rs. 1 lakhs. 6.1 In his response to the show cause notice dated 15.02.2003 on 11.03.2003, the petitioner unequivocally has admitted the fact that he got the Rs. 90,000/- from his residence and also Rs. 10,000/- denomination and thereby made good the shortfall of Rs. 1 lakhs. 6.1 In his response to the show cause notice dated 15.02.2003 on 11.03.2003, the petitioner unequivocally has admitted the fact that he got the Rs. 90,000/- from his residence and also Rs. 10,000/- were made over from the bank cash safe. 6.2 To the charge-sheet dated 13.02.2003, the petitioner responded by a letter dated 16.04.2003. Perusal of response to the charge-sheet, also indicates that the petitioner reiterates his confession of the charge made. When the inquiry proceedings were held on 16.04.2003, the proceedings of the inquiry which are annexed to the petition, would indicate that the petitioner unequivocally when put questions regarding the charge, made a confessional statement. It will be worthwhile to reproduce the question-answer made by the Inquiry Officer to which the petitioner responded: “CSE. Yes, I have received the said notice of inquiry and accordingly, I remained present today in the inquiry proceed Do you wish to be defended by any of the representative mentioned in the Notice of Inquiry No. RO/STF/110/2003 dated 3.4.2003. CSE. I donor wish to be defended by any of the person or union representative mentioned in the notice of inquiry. I wish to defend my self in the inquiry. EO. Since CSE has shown his desire now to be defended by any of union representative, he is permitted accordingly. The contents of inquiry proceedings have been made understood to him (CSE) in Gujarati Language. EO. Do you wish to plead all or any of the allegation and misconducts levelled upon you vide aforesaid charge-sheet and memorandum? CSE. Sir, I wish to plead guilty of all the allegations and misconducts levelled on me vide aforesaid chargesheet and memorandum & desire to make confession statement. EO. Since CSE has shown his desire is give confession, statement the same is allowed to him hereafter. SE. I submit to you my confession letter dated 16.4.2003 addressed to Enquiry Officer and requested you to take the same as records of inquiry. The said confession statement is in Gujarati having two pages. Apart from my confession statement, I request you to take as records my explanation dated 11.3.2003 and request you is treat as part of my confession statement. I have given my whole - hearted confession statement which is as per my willingness and without any force or promise. The said confession statement is in Gujarati having two pages. Apart from my confession statement, I request you to take as records my explanation dated 11.3.2003 and request you is treat as part of my confession statement. I have given my whole - hearted confession statement which is as per my willingness and without any force or promise. I request you to pardon me for my gross mistake and lapses. EO. The confession statement dated 16.4.2003 and explanation dated 11.3.2003 of Mr. N.P. Dhabhi, CSE are taken an records of inquiry and marked as Exhibit. Ex.D-1 and D-2 Copy of which given to Mr. Dabhi, CSE and MR. EO. Since Mr. N.P. Dhabhi, CSE has given confession statement as per Ex.D-1 MR do not proceed to prove the case of management. However he may make submission in the inquiry if so desired.” 6.3 This obviously shows that before the Inquiry Officer the petitioner in no uncertain terms admitted the guilt and confessed to having made such defalcation. It is on this basis that a finding of the inquiry officer has been recorded on 30.04.2003 which has been produced during the course of written submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the written submissions filed, the inquiry officer held that on careful examination of the contents of the charge-sheet and from the confessional statement, inquiry is held to be proved and the charge of the petitioner having given a shortfall cash of Rs. 1 lakh stands proved. 6.4 From the further proceeding, it appears that on 14.05.2003, the report of the finding was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to remain present for personal hearing on the question of penalty. Vide memorandum dated 05.06.2003, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of dismissal from service. 6.5 Reading the order of dismissal from service would indicate that the petitioner had confessed to his charge. It will be worthwhile to reproduce contents of the dismissal of the order as under: “While concluding the personal hearing Shri N.P. Dabhi has confirmed having understood the contents of the proceeding of personal hearing in Gujarati and thereafter has signed the proceedings. It will be worthwhile to reproduce contents of the dismissal of the order as under: “While concluding the personal hearing Shri N.P. Dabhi has confirmed having understood the contents of the proceeding of personal hearing in Gujarati and thereafter has signed the proceedings. From the foregoing, I have observed that Shri N.P. Dabhi, CSE has received finding report dated 30.4.2003 on the departmental inquiry conducted against him at Manavadar Branch on 16.4.2003 in to the allegations and misconduct levelled and charged vide Charge-Sheet No. ZP/WZI/DP/131 dated 15.2.2003. I have further observed that he has attended the personal hearing granted to him as regarding the proposed punishment mentioned in the finding report. He was granted opportunity in view of the principles of natural justice to make Submission in the personal hearing regarding the proposed punishment. I have noted the submissions made by CSE regarding his personal and family reasons for imposing light punishment than the proposed punishment. I have also noted the submissions made MR regarding confirming the proposed punishment upon CSE. I have carefully observed from the allegations and misconducts levelled against CSE as also the confession statement given by him during the inquiry proceedings of 16.4.2003 that the acts of CSE for not paying full amount to the customers namely M/s. N.P. Traders on 8.11.2003 and keeping the amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac with him unauthorisedly from 8.11.2002 to 10.11.2002 shows the malicious intention of CSE to misappropriate of Rs. 1.00 Lac of customer and has further used Rs. 10,000/- from the said amount which evident the intention of CSE. The said amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac has been found at the residence of CSE which clearly indicates the intention of CSE for illegal gain. The acts of CSE which are proved beyond doubt during the departmental inquiry are indeed grave in nature and the submissions of CSE to impose any punishment then the dismissal punishment in view of the dependent family members, heavy loan installments and assurance to perform duties with devotion do not merit any consideration for revision of the proposed punishment. The acts of CSE which are proved beyond doubt during the departmental inquiry are indeed grave in nature and the submissions of CSE to impose any punishment then the dismissal punishment in view of the dependent family members, heavy loan installments and assurance to perform duties with devotion do not merit any consideration for revision of the proposed punishment. I have already given my observations in the finding report dated 30.4.2003 at Page No. 5 while proposing the punishment on CSE that the employee of the financial institutions like Bank which is a custodian of the public money are expected to have utmost trust and doubtless integrity and any such deviation or the employee with doubtful integrity affects the institution and its image in public. Any such incidence of misappropriation can not be weighed lightly even though CSE has five dependent family members and heavy loan installments. The submissions of CSE do not deserve consideration for imposing any light punishment. The past record of CSE also speaks of the doubtful integrity of the CSE and his continuance in the bank’s service will have adverse effect on the other employees of the Bank.” 6.6 Before the Appellate Authority also the petitioner during the course of his written submissions and personal hearing on 30.09.2003 admitted the guilt by virtue of which the disciplinary authority’s order was confirmed in appeal. Therefore, there is force in submission of Mr. Varun Patel learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner not only once but on six occasions confirmed and admitted the guilt in having caused the charged misconduct. Those instances of admission are as under: “8. It is thus submitted that the petitioner had confessed his guilt not once but on several occasions which are as follows: (i) In his letter dated 10.11.2002 to Branch Manager, Manavadar Branch. (ii) In his letter dated 11.03.2003 to the Branch Manager. (iii) Vide letter dated 16.04.2003 to the inquiry officer. (iv) During the inquiry proceedings held on 16.04.2003. (v) Vide letter dated 30.09.2003 to the appellate authority. (vi) During the proceedings of personal hearing held on 30.09.2003 before the appellate authority.” 7. With regard to the contention of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel that the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer cannot be same, perusal of the petition and paper-book therein would indicate that the communication appointing the Inquiry Officer categorically relies on the branch circular dated 24.04.2002. With regard to the contention of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel that the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer cannot be same, perusal of the petition and paper-book therein would indicate that the communication appointing the Inquiry Officer categorically relies on the branch circular dated 24.04.2002. The petitioner therefore, while participating in the inquiry before the authority was categorically aware of the existence of the branch circular dated 24.04.2002 by which it was provided that the disciplinary authority may himself hold an inquiry. 8. That the admission of guilt would not dispense with the inquiry is no longer in doubt in view of the decision of this Court in case of S.H. Doshi (supra) on which Mr. Varun Patel has placed reliance. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the decision read as under: “10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the bank and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Bank committed any error in passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. 11. I am not at all impressed with the defence of the writ-applicant that he was made to believe that if he would admit the charges, then the Bank would deal with him leniently. The charges levelled against the writ applicant are otherwise also very serious. He was serving as a Branch Manager of a Nationalized Bank. I take notice of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and more particularly, the following: 6.2 As regards to the contention raised in Para 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the appeal, I observe that during the enquiry proceedings the Appellant was given opportunity to plead his case. However, he preferred to admit all the charges levelled against him. Moreover, the appellant has not given any proof to substantiate that there was a formal understanding with the Management to view the matter leniently. 6.3 With reference to contention raised in Para 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, I observe that during the inquiry proceedings the appellant had admitted all the charges levelled against him. Further, during the said inquiry proceedings, he was time and again asked whether he had anything to submit in his defence. However, he preferred to remain silent. 6.3 With reference to contention raised in Para 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, I observe that during the inquiry proceedings the appellant had admitted all the charges levelled against him. Further, during the said inquiry proceedings, he was time and again asked whether he had anything to submit in his defence. However, he preferred to remain silent. Therefore, I observe that the Inquiring Authority did not abruptly concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry findings as per the provisions of Dena Bank Officer Employees' (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. 12. In the case of The Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Karunamoy Benerjee, AIR 1968 SC 266 , the Supreme Court observed as under: 19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose.” 9. The decision of the Supreme Court also in the case of Karunamoy Banerjee (supra) which is reproduced as under, would indicate that it is open for the authorities not to hold an inquiry when the delinquent has admitted his guilt. The decision of the Supreme Court also in the case of Karunamoy Banerjee (supra) which is reproduced as under, would indicate that it is open for the authorities not to hold an inquiry when the delinquent has admitted his guilt. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner when he, on six different occasions has admitted his guilt, not only during the course of inquiry but before that and thereafter in the appellate proceedings: “19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied, by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits. his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence above the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence' that he may choose.” 10. The reliance placed on by Mr. Patel on the decision in case of Annamalai (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as, in the said case the charge that was leveled, did not indicate the charge which the delinquent had admitted and on the basis of which the penalty was imposed. 11. Even in the case of Mohd. The reliance placed on by Mr. Patel on the decision in case of Annamalai (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as, in the said case the charge that was leveled, did not indicate the charge which the delinquent had admitted and on the basis of which the penalty was imposed. 11. Even in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) Para 8 and 16 of which read as under, indicate that it is open for the departmental proceedings to be held by the disciplinary authority and to act as an inquiry officer. Said paragraphs read as under: “8. We may now refer to the rules relating to disciplinary inquiry against government servants. The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in force are of 1965. In the States they have their own rules but the rules whether of the Centre or of the States have adopted a common pattern. In respect of major penalties the procedure in the Rules (See Rule 14) seems to be that the disciplinary authority may himself hold the inquiry into the charges or he may appoint an Inquiry Officer who would conduct the inquiry and submit the proceedings of enquiry to the disciplinary authority for being finalised. When the disciplinary authority himself inquires into the charges there is no occasion for submission of an inquiry report. The entire evidence oral and documentary - along with submissions, if any, are available to him to proceed to arrive at final conclusions in the inquiry. Where, however, the disciplinary authority delegates the inquiry to another, such Inquiry Officer may furnish a report on the basis of the evidence recorded by him and in some cases the Inquiry Officer even recommends the punishment to be imposed. In cases where the Inquiry Officer merely transmits the records of inquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority there is indeed no distinction to be drawn between the inquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority himself or the inquiry officer. This is so on account of the fact that there is no further material added to the record at the time of transmission to the disciplinary authority. 16. This is so on account of the fact that there is no further material added to the record at the time of transmission to the disciplinary authority. 16. At the hearing some argument had been advanced on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution, namely, that in one set of cases arising out of disciplinary proceedings furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report would be insisted upon while in the other it would not be. This argument has no foundation inasmuch as where the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer there is no report. He becomes the first assessing authority to consider the evidence directly for finding out whether the delinquent is guilty and liable to be punished. Even otherwise, the inquiries which are directly handled by the disciplinary authority and those which are allowed to be handled by the Inquiry Officer can easily be classified into two separate groups - one, where there is no inquiry report on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer and inquiries where there is a report on account of the fact that an officer other than the disciplinary authority has been constituted as the Inquiry Officer. That itself would be a reasonable classification keeping away the application of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 12. In the facts of the present case the branch circular itself permits such procedure which was never challenged by the petitioner. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.