JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Bhatia, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.2.2022 whereby a major punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 8.8.2022 whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The brief facts that emerge are that the petitioner was employed as an officer with the respondent-bank. On 14.11.2019, the petitioner was called upon to explain to tender an explanation in respect of the transactions in the statement of account of the petitioner for the period 2015 to 2019. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said explanation vide a letter dated 3.12.2019 stating that the father of the petitioner was suffering a paralytic attack and was on bed since 2009 and on account of medical and family exigencies certain amounts were borrowed from the family members. 4. It is argued, that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 10.2.2021 wherein, it was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner had made huge transactions of funds regularly in and from her account which are much higher than her salary while working as an officer for the period from 11.8.2015 to 23.1.2019 which would constitute a misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 (1), Regulation 3 (3) and Regulation 20 (4) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab and Sindh Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Regulations'). Along with the said chargesheet, the statement of account of the petitioner containing the transactions was appended as the proposed document to be relied upon to substantiate the charges. Along with the said chargesheet, the statement of account of the petitioner containing the transactions was appended as the proposed document to be relied upon to substantiate the charges. The single charge leveled against the petitioner is as under:- "Ms Renu Chaurasiya (PF Code: R16432), Officer is charged for Major Penalty Proceedings under Regulation 6 of the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (as amended time to time) for making huge transactions of funds regularly in and from her accounts much higher than her salary income while working as Officer at branches Rajajipuram Lucknow (L0779) from 11.8.2015 to 20.09.2015, Indra Nagar Lucknow (L0802) from 21.09.2015 to 22.01.2019 & Gomti Nagar Lucknow (L0917) from 23.01.2019 to till date under Lucknow zone as per articles of charges (ANNEXURE-I) based upon Statement of Allegations (ANNEXURE-II). A list of documents by which article of charges are proposed to be substantiated is also enclosed as per ANNEXURE III." 5. The petitioner moved an application dated 8.3.2021 stating that the chargesheet was vague and lacks clarity and the chargesheet is not accompanied by the list of documents and the list of witnesses and prayed that the relied upon documents be supplied so as to enable the petitioner to give a proper reply. 6. In response to the said letter, the respondent-bank gave a reply on 31.3.2021 stating that complete set of documents as mentioned in the list of documents (Annexure No.4) (wrongly referred as Annexure No.4 and appears to be Annexure No.3) in the chargesheet dated 10.2.2021. It was denied that at that stage no list of witnesses was annexed and, thus, a plea taken was found to be unfounded. 7. The petitioner once again wrote a letter stating that the charges are vague and the petitioner is unable to understand the charges. As the petitioner did not submit any reply, in fact, took a ground that the petitioner was being victimised for no fault of hers, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations. 8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 3.1.2022 recording that on the basis of documents marked as Management Exhibit-1 to Management Exhibit 10311, the allegations with regard financial transactions as evidenced in the statement of account were true. 8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 3.1.2022 recording that on the basis of documents marked as Management Exhibit-1 to Management Exhibit 10311, the allegations with regard financial transactions as evidenced in the statement of account were true. With regard to each transaction, the Inquiry Officer recorded that the amount was deposited in her account and as the chargesheeted officer, the petitioner herein did not give any justification/reason or the source of cash so deposited in her account, he proceeded to record that the transaction remained unexplained by the chargesheeted officer. A similar finding was recorded in respect of each financial transaction which appeared in the statement of account of the petitioner. After recording the same, the Inquiry Officer recorded that on the perusal of management exhibits, it was clear that the transactions in various accounts of the petitioner are much higher than the salary income receipt of the petitioner. It further records that from the assets and liability statement of the C.S.O. for the corresponding period do not show any other sources which can justify the unreasonably high transactions in her account. It further records that the C.S.O. has not mentioned any details pertaining to the said transaction in her assets and liability statements of the relevant papers and after recording the same, held that the allegation no.1 is proved in totality. 9. The said inquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority, on receiving the said report the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 19.1.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit a written comment on the findings of the Inquiry Authority. In reply to the same, the petitioner sent a reply on 27.1.2022 taking a ground that the petitioner was unable to understand the charge which was framed against the petitioner, she also took a ground that the relied upon document and the list of witnesses were never provided to the petitioner as a result whereof the petitioner could not understand the charges and, thus, the petitioner was unable to answer. The petitioner also took a ground that the transactions referred to were the transactions in between the petitioner and her family members after the said reply was filed, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass an order on 11.2.2022 wherein, the report of the Inquiry Officer was considered. The petitioner also took a ground that the transactions referred to were the transactions in between the petitioner and her family members after the said reply was filed, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass an order on 11.2.2022 wherein, the report of the Inquiry Officer was considered. The disciplinary authority consider the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of each transaction and recorded that the petitioner had been making huge transactions of funds through the various accounts and despite giving opportunities to explain, the petitioner was reluctant and has not furnished any justification/reason in that regard. It further recorded that the salary income receipt by the petitioner from the bank does not commensurate with the amount involved in the corresponding period and went ahead to record that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct as per the regulations of 1981 specially Regulation 3 (1), Regulation 3 (3) and Regulation 20 (4) read with Regulation 24 and after holding the petitioner guilty proceeded to award major punishment of reduction of four increments to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of 2 years. It further ordered that she will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of her pay, the said punishment was awarded under Regulation 4 (F) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 as amended. 10. Challenging the said order of punishment awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a comprehensive appeal before the appellate authority. In the said appeal, the petitioner denied the allegation and pleaded that the petitioner could not be held guilty of misconduct. It was submitted that all the transactions referred to were in between the petitioner and her family members and details with regard to each deposit was specifically mentioned in paragraph 14 of the appeal. The petitioner also took other grounds in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority passed an order dated 8.8.2022 dismissing the appeal. Both the said orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 11. The petitioner also took other grounds in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority passed an order dated 8.8.2022 dismissing the appeal. Both the said orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 11. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the regulations under which the petitioner was working, the petitioner was under obligation to disclose the assets and liabilities in the prescribed form along with the format annexed to the said form, one such format is contained in Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. In the light of said submission, it is argued that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose the carry home salary of the petitioner and apart from that, the petitioner was obliged to disclose details such as rent, receipt, interest/dividend, other receipts such as disposal of movable/immovable assets, gifts, encashment of NSE, NSS/PPF/FDRs/ LIC, mutual fund, etc., and while filling the said form the petitioner had disclosed 'NIL'. The petitioner was also under an obligation to disclose the details of immovable properties and once again the petitioner disclosed the same as NIL. 12. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer wherein the petitioner had made a specific statement that in terms of Regulation 20 (4) of the 1981 Regulation, it was an obligation of the petitioner to disclose every transaction 'concerning movable property' owned or held by the petitioner, if the value of such properties exceeds Rs. 25,000/-and the petitioner never owned any movable property of Rs. 25,000/-or more in between the financial year 2016 and 2020. He draws my attention to that Regulation 3(1), 3(3) and 20 (4) read with Regulation 24 are quoted hereinbelow:- "Regulation 3(1): Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the ineterests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer employee. Regulation 3(3): No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. Provided wherever such directions are oral in nature the same shall be confirmed in writing by his superior official. Regulation 3(3): No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. Provided wherever such directions are oral in nature the same shall be confirmed in writing by his superior official. Regulation 20(4): Every officer employee shall report to the Competent authority every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him either in his own name or in the name of a member of his family if the value of such a property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. Provided that the previous sanction of the competent authority shall be obtained if any such transaction is - (a) With a person having official dealings with the officer employee or (b) Otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer. Regulation 24: A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under the Punjab & Sindh Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981." 13. The counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the mandate of Regulation 20 (4), the employee is liable to report every transaction concerning to movable property owned or held by him either in his own name or in the name of a member of his family if the value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. He argues that in the entire chargesheet there is no allegation of the petitioner failing to make a disclosure in respect of a movable property belonging to the petitioner or her family member. He further argues that in the form which was required to be filled, it was specifically stated that the statement need not include the transactions which have been entered into by the spouse or any other member of the family of the officer employee out of his own funds including stridhan, gifts, inheritance etc. as distinct from the funds of the officer employee. He argues that that the notes appended to the form which are required to be filled itself made it mandatory that all the transactions both purchase and sales of Rs. 5,000/- or more are required to be reported and in fact the investment above Rs. 25,000/-are required to be reported as per Annexure No.1. He argues that that the notes appended to the form which are required to be filled itself made it mandatory that all the transactions both purchase and sales of Rs. 5,000/- or more are required to be reported and in fact the investment above Rs. 25,000/-are required to be reported as per Annexure No.1. The notes as appended to the form which is required to be filled by the officer concerned which is being reproduced here-in-below:- "The officers are required to intimate only the changes during the year, wherever, a particular set has already been reported in any of the previous years. All columns are required to be filled in and the details, wherever required, may be given by way of separate Annexure. Reference to the sanctions obtained from the competent authority shall be made against the relative transaction. All the transactions, both purchases and sales, of 5000/-or more are required to be reported. So far as investment in shares, securities, debentures, mutual fund schemes etc. is concerned, even transactions of values of less than 5000/-are required to be reported. However, if the total transactions in such investments exceed 25000/-during the financial year, intimation is required to be given as per Annexure-I. The statement need not include transactions which have been entered into by the spouse or any other member of the family of the officer employee out of his/her own funds including stridhan, gifts, inheritance etc. as distinct from the funds of the officer employee. I hereby declare that I have read and understood the Regulation 14 to 20 of the PSB Officer Employees' Conduct Regulations-1981 and the particulars in the statement furnished here-in-above are in conformity with the said regulations and are complete and correct as of date and to the of my knowledge and belief." 14. In the light of said submission, he argues that the chargesheet never alleged that the petitioner did not make any true disclosures as are required to be made and in terms of Regulation 20 (4), transactions other than the one referred to in the said regulation are not required to be disclosed and as such the petitioner could not be held guilty on that account. He next argues that in any event, the petitioner never admitted the guilt and thus, it was incumbent upon the bank in terms of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations to establish the charges levelled based upon documentary or oral evidence. In the present case, it is argued that that the charge has been held to be proved against the petitioner solely based upon the statement of account and without there being any other evidence to establish the violation of Regulation 20 (4). He further argues that in the appeal, all the transactions in the statement of account of the petitioner were duly explained and it was the duty of the appellate authority to have recorded a finding in respect of the grounds taken in the appeal whereas the appellate order concludes the proceedings without recording any finding in respect of the grounds as raised by the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly draws my attention to the Discipline and Appeal Rules which provide for the manner in which the proceedings are to be concluded in the event of a major penalty being imposed which is contained in Regulation 6. He draws my attention to the Regulation 6 which prescribes that in the event the officer does not accept the guilt, it is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to record a finding of guilt in respect of each charge on the basis of the evidence. He also draws my attention to the Employees Conduct Regulations specifically Regulation 3 (1), 3 (3), 20 (4) and Regulation 24 which are quoted hereinabove to argue that, even if for the sake of arguments, all the allegations levelled are taken to be correct, there is no material to establish that there was violation of Regulation 20 (4) as the disclosure/ reporting relate only in respect of 'transactions of movable property' which exceed Rs. 25,000/-. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the revision and judgement of this Court in the case of Ramesh Mohan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB) in particular places reliance on paragraph 4 of the said judgement which holds that irrespective of the defense, the burden of proving the charge is on the Inquiry Officer. He further places reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB) in particular places reliance on paragraph 4 of the said judgement which holds that irrespective of the defense, the burden of proving the charge is on the Inquiry Officer. He further places reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011 (5) ADJ 177 which is also to the same effect that the burden of proving the charge is on the employer. He next places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 where he places reliance on paragraph 35 to argue that the statutory rules are to the followed strictly and the charges should be specific and no inquiry can be sustained on vague charges and that every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot constitute a misconduct, paragraph 35 is quoted here-in-below:- "In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct." 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner next places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein the manner of conducting the inquiry was laid down emphasis by the Supreme Court, paragraph 27 to 30 are quoted here-in-below:- "A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." 18. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank, on the other hand, defends the order by arguing that the petitioner never filed any objection to the chargesheet, the petitioner never gave any statement with regard to such huge financial transactions which are reflected in the statement of account and, thus, the petitioner failed to raise the objections at the time when they were required to be raised. It is argued that an officer who is drawing a salary of Rs. 4 lakhs and all, has incoming transactions in excess of 70 lakhs in her account and outgoing transactions of Rs. 40 lakhs in her account, itself demonstrates that the petitioner was receiving such huge amounts without making the necessary disclosures to the bank which according to the counsel for the respondent-bank is a clear violation of the Regulation of 1981. He further argues that in terms of the disclosures that were required to be made by all the officers, the details are required to be stated. He further argues that the emphasis of the petitioner that the details as are specified in the form pertaining to the gifts etc. are to be disclosed is worthy of rejection as the said heads are only examples and does not contain the exhaustive disclosures which are required to be made. He further argues that the Inquiry Officer after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner recorded the findings of guilt in respect of the charge as framed against the petitioner and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit over the said order as an appellate authority. He relies upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the Case of Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014 in re: State of Karnataka Vs. M Gangaraj, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this act of interference in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and after placing reliance on various judgements including the judgements of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. M Gangaraj, therein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this act of interference in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and after placing reliance on various judgements including the judgements of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, followed the same and recorded that judicial review is confined to decision making process. He lastly argues that the appellate authority in its findings had recorded that the petitioner was guilty out of own disclosure of the huge transactions and it was not required by the appellate authority to deal with each and every submission in respect of each and every transaction in the statement of account as has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the said submission, it is argued that the petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. He further argues that in terms of the mandates Regulation 20 (4), it was incumbent upon the officer to disclose all the financial transactions as reflected in the statement of account which the petitioner had not done and in any case, should have come out clean in respect of each transaction, while filing the reply to the chargesheet which the petitioner has failed to do and has not even disclosed the same during the course of the inquiry. 19. In rejoinder, the counsel for the petitioner argues that before issuance of chargesheet, a notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner, in reply to the said notice had specifically given the details in respect of the transactions in the statement of the account of the petitioner. 20. Considering the statement made at the bar and as recorded above, this Court is to consider as to whether the charge levelled against the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of Regulation 3(1), Regulation 3(3), Regulation 20(4) and Regulation 24 of the Employees Conduct Regulations 1981. The sole charge against the petitioner was of making huge transactions of funds regularly in and from her accounts much more than her salary income while working as an officer. In terms of the Regulation 20(4), every officer employee is bound to report to the competent authority for every transaction concerning to movable property owned or held by him/her either in his own name or in the name of members of his family if the value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. In terms of the Regulation 20(4), every officer employee is bound to report to the competent authority for every transaction concerning to movable property owned or held by him/her either in his own name or in the name of members of his family if the value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the Regulation 20(4) is confined to disclosure of transactions concerning movable property owned or held by him/her, if the value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-, the regulation does not prescribe for disclosure of all the financial transactions taking place in the account of the officer concerned. This is also fortified by the forms prescribed for filling, by each and every officer concerned, one such form requiring the disclosures to be made is annexed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, the same is qualified by the notes which do not provide for disclosure of the transactions entered into by the spouse or other members of the family by the officer employee out of his/her own funds. Thus to carry home the charge of violation of Regulation 20(4), it was incombent upon the petitioner to allege and substantiate that the transactions made and reflected in the statement of account of the value exceeding Rs. 25,000/-and were not in respect of transactions which have been entered into by the spouse or in the name of other member of the family of the officer employee out of his/her own funds. The charge levelled against the petitioner only alleged that huge transactions were made in the bank accounts which are much higher than the salary. On a plain reading, the said charge does not attract any infraction of Regulation 20(4) of the regulations. In the absence of any charge to the effect that the transactions reflected in the statement of account were in respect of movable property of the value exceeding Rs. 25,000/-and other than the transactions which are not bound to be disclosed, there was no occasion for the petitioner to give any reply to the said charge as on the face of it, the charge did not reflect any violation of Regulation 20(4). Thus, to that extent, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the charge should be specific and not vague is bound to be accepted. 21. Thus, to that extent, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the charge should be specific and not vague is bound to be accepted. 21. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has gone through all the transactions and did not record any finding that they were in respect of transaction 'concerning movable property' of value exceeding Rs. 25,000/- or that the said transactions were other than what is required to be disclosed in the annual returns filed by the officer concerned. The disciplinary authority has also failed to record any finding as to how the transactions reflected in the statement of account violated Regulation 20(4). The appellate order clearly does not deal with any of the submissions made by the petitioner, wherein, for the first time the petitioner has specifically explained each and every financial transactions that it happened in the bank account to demonstrate that the same did not relate to movable property held by the petitioner of a value exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. The appellate authority has passed the order in a casual manner without dealing with the said averments and, thus, is clearly unsustainable. 22. On the analysis of the proceedings, initiated and culminated, against the petitioner leading to the passing of the impugned orders of punishment, the same do not in any way demonstrate any violation of Regulation 20(4) or for that matter violation of Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 3(3) or Regulation 24 of the Employees Regulations. The proceedings are further bad in law in as much as nowhere did the petitioner ever admit the guilt and, thus, it was incombent upon the disciplinary authority to record its findings on each such charge in terms of Regulation 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 read with Regulation 8 of the 1981. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders punishing the petitioner with a major penalty, are clearly unsustainable and are liable to be quashed. The impugned orders dated 11.2.2022 and 8.8.2022 are quashed. I am not remanding the matter as the charges leveled against the petitioner are as vague as they can be and subjecting the petitioner to give a reply to such vague charges would be further embarrassing the petitioner. 23. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequential benefits shall follow in favour of petitioner.