JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The delinquent officer who is the appellant has suffered the penalty of removal from service in a domestic inquiry constituted under Regulation 6.3 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (in short, PNB Regulations). He approached the writ Court in WP(S) No. 3326 of 2020 after the statutory appeal filed by him under Regulation 17 of the PNB Regulations was dismissed vide order dated 25th June 2020 by the Appellate Authority who is the Managing Director and CEO, Human Resource Management Division, HO, New Delhi. 2. Before the writ Court, a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court was raised by the Punjab National Bank (in short, ‘PNB’) with reference to the judgment in “ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu” (1994) 4 SCC 711 and an order dated 26th February 2019 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 4078 of 2017. 3. The issue of maintainability of the writ petition has been elaborately dealt with by the writ Court with reference to the rival submissions and the judgments in “Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India” (2006) 6 SCC 207 and “Shanti Devi v. Union of India” (2020) 10 SCC 766 which has referred to “Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra” (2000) 7 SCC 640 and “Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao” AIR 1953 SC 210 . 4. The writ Court has held that the High Court of Jharkhand shall have jurisdiction in the matter as a part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand. 5. The aforesaid finding by the writ Court has been accepted by the Bank and no appeal in the nature of cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been taken out under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of 1916 constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the writ Court's this finding has submitted that in a similar fact-situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has over-ruled the objection to maintainability of the writ petition in “Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India” (2014) 9 SCC 329 . 7. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the writ Court's this finding has submitted that in a similar fact-situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has over-ruled the objection to maintainability of the writ petition in “Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India” (2014) 9 SCC 329 . 7. While dealing with the writ petition, the writ Court reminded itself the limitations of the power of judicial review in the matters of punishment imposed upon a delinquent government employee. The writ Court has referred to the judgments in “State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar” (2011) 10 SCC 249 , “State of U.P. v. Manmohan Nath Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 310 ” and “State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya” (2011) 4 SCC 584 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that normally the writ Court shall not interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the departmental authority, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. 8. With the aforesaid limitations in mind, the writ Court has declined to appreciate the evidence laid by the parties in course of the domestic inquiry. 9. The writ Court has held as under: “15. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record that there is violation of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that PNB Officer Employees' (D&A) Regulations, 1977 has been violated, but the Court is not at all inspire confidence with the submission of the learned senior counsel, as sufficient materials have been brought on record by the enquiry officer and the same has been agreed upon by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. Learned senior counsel has failed to establish that there was procedural laches on the part of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary as also the appellate authorities. Neither any fault has been pointed nor argued.” 10. The writ Court has also dealt with the Bank's loss of confidence in the delinquent officer while dealing with the quantum of punishment imposed upon him, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was not an issue put to the appellant. 11. Again the writ Court has cataloged the judgments in “Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. 11. Again the writ Court has cataloged the judgments in “Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd.” (2001) 9 SCC 609 : AIR 2001 SC 3645 , “Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane” (2005) 3 SCC 254 , “State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 , “Torrent Power Ltd. v. Chelabhai Nathanbai Luhar” 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3580 and “Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao” (2012) 1 SCC 442 , to fortify its opinion that once the employer has lost confidence in the employee the order of punishment must be considered immune from challenge. 12. Finally, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition observing as under: “23. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in which, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in relation to fraud committed by Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi (Geetanjali Group) and other related accounts, since the petitioner did not observe due diligence and did not follow RBI/FEMA/DGFT/Bank's guidelines and did not ensure proper monitoring and control of FEX business/transactions of Branch Office, MCB, Brady House, Mumbai and he did not discharge his duties diligently and honestly, due to which a fraud of huge magnitude was perpetrated to the Bank and accordingly, jeopardizing Bank's interest, it can conveniently be inferred that in view of Regulation 3(1) & 3 (3) read with Regulation 4(i) of the PNB Officer Employees' (D&A) Regulations, 1977, no lesser punishment than the removal from service is warranted in the instant case.” 13. The aforesaid findings recorded by the writ Court have been challenged by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant on the grounds that : (i) the issues germane to compliance/non-compliance of the Bank's Regulations has not been dealt with by the disciplinary authorities or the writ Court (ii) the findings of the departmental authority are not immune from interference by the writ Court and self-imposed restraint by the writ Court has caused grave injustice to the appellant (iii) the quantum of punishment imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the proved charges of misconduct and; (iv) the Bank has discriminated the appellant in parity of punishment. 14. Briefly stated, the appellant who joined the Bank's services as Management Trainee on 24th November 1986 received promotions in various ranks in course of his employment. 14. Briefly stated, the appellant who joined the Bank's services as Management Trainee on 24th November 1986 received promotions in various ranks in course of his employment. On 15th May 2016, the appellant was transferred to Brady House Branch of the PNB at Mumbai where he tendered his joining and took charge as a Branch Head on 15th May 2016 - he was there till 29th April 2017. According to the appellant, in appreciation of his exceptional work and devotion to duty he was promoted to the rank of Deputy General Manager and was given charge of Mumbai Circle on 29th April 2017 and remained posted there till 29th January 2018. He was put under suspension on 29th January 2018 and 1st show-cause notice was issued to him on 31st March 2018. A 2nd show-cause notice was also served upon him and both of which were duly replied by him whereupon his suspension was revoked on 5th July 2018. However, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding he was put under suspension again on 19th December 2018 and a charge-memo under Regulation (6) of the PNB Regulations was served upon him on 23rd January 2019. On conclusion of the domestic inquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 16th October 2019, a copy of which has been served upon him through letter dated 17th October 2019. In response to 2nd show-cause notice, the appellant has submitted his reply by raising various objections to the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer who held charges on 18 counts proved - charges on 28 counts were not proved. 15. However, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer in his report dated 16th October 2019 and imposed punishment of removal from service which “shall not be a disqualification for future employment” under Regulation 4(1) of the PNB Regulations. 16. As noticed above, the appellate authority did not accept the challenge laid by the appellant to the aforesaid penalty order dated 27th January 2020 and dismissed his statutory appeal by an order dated 25th June, 2020. 17. The appellate order dated 25th June 2020 reads as under: ORDER “Shri Sanjay Kumar Prasad,(PF 77937) Ex-Dy. General Manager, PS&FI Division, Head Office, New Delhi, previously Asstt. General Manager (Branch Head) at BO : MCB Brady House, Mumbai and Circle Head-DGM, CO : Mumbai City-Charge Sheet dated 23.01.2019-Appeal. 17. The appellate order dated 25th June 2020 reads as under: ORDER “Shri Sanjay Kumar Prasad,(PF 77937) Ex-Dy. General Manager, PS&FI Division, Head Office, New Delhi, previously Asstt. General Manager (Branch Head) at BO : MCB Brady House, Mumbai and Circle Head-DGM, CO : Mumbai City-Charge Sheet dated 23.01.2019-Appeal. Sh Sanjay Kumar Prasad was served with the Charge Sheet dated 23.01.2019 under Major penalty proceedings with the following article of charge allegedly committed by him while working as AGM (Branch Head) at BO : MCB, Brady House, Mumbai from 25.04.2016 to 29.04.2017 & as Circle Head-DGM, Mumbai City from 30.04.2017 to 29.01.2018: Article-I At the time of issuance of FLGs, LOUs & FLCs in firms/companies of Mr. Nirav Modi & Mehul Choksi (Gitanjali Group) & other related accounts, first being the Branch Head 25.04.2016 to 29.04.2017 and thereafter being Circle Head from 30.04.2017 to 29.01.2018, he did not observe due diligence, did not follow RBI/FEMA/DGFT/Bank's guidelines and did not ensure proper monitoring and control of FEX business/transactions of BO : MCB, Brady House, Mumbai. Thus, he did not observe due diligence in discharge of his duties, due to which a fraud of huge magnitude was perpetrated on bank, thereby jeopardizing Bank's interest. 2. After considering the statement of defence submitted by Sh Prasad, Departmental Enquiry was instituted to look into the truth of imputations of charge. The enquiry officer has submitted his report and held as under: Proved Partly Proved Not Proved Charges 1.1, 1.7, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.18, 1.20, 1.23, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 2.14, 2.15, 3.5, 3.6 3.2 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.19, 1.21, 1.22, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 A copy of Enquiry Report was sent to Sh Prasad for submission of his views. After going through the Enquiry Report, reply of Sh Prasad on enquiry report and other relevant records, the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon him a major penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”. Further, Sh Prasad was placed under suspension on 29.01.2018 in the captioned case and his suspension was revoked on 04.07.2018. After going through the Enquiry Report, reply of Sh Prasad on enquiry report and other relevant records, the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon him a major penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”. Further, Sh Prasad was placed under suspension on 29.01.2018 in the captioned case and his suspension was revoked on 04.07.2018. The period of his suspension will not be treated as period spent on duty for any purpose and he will not be entitled to any increment, pay & allowances except the amount of subsistence allowance paid/payable to him for the period of suspension. 3. Shri Prasad has preferred an appeal against the above orders of the Disciplinary Authority, raising the following main points : 3.1 DA did not revert to each and every imputation and summarized its finding in one para without specifications and no reasons for imputing liability on the appellant was given notwithstanding the fact that there was no reference to a majority of the imputations out of the 18 imputations. It was also not mentioned as to which provision of PNB Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1977 were violated. 3.2 The charges in the memo of charge are not distinct as contemplated under Regulation 6 (3) of the PNB Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations 1977. Further, no management witness was examined to prove ME-1 to ME-49 and accordingly the appellant got no opportunity to cross examine such witness in order to demonstrate that no circular/instructions were violated by him. Moreover, EO had violated Regulation 6 (17) of the referred Regulation as no questions were put to the appellant to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 3.3 Further, appellant has submitted that apart from raising the issues of system failure, he specifically adverted to each and every 18 imputations, however, Disciplinary Authority while passing the order preferred not to return any findings on a number of imputations. 3.4 Appellant had referred to different measures taken by the RBI and the PNB post detection of fraud which clearly indicates that it was a system failure for which he cannot be put to blame especially when no circulars/instructions were violated by him. Further, appellant has quoted IAD Cir no 24/2013 dated 29/10/2013 and stated that the fraud was committed due to no interface between CBS and SWIFT. Further, appellant has quoted IAD Cir no 24/2013 dated 29/10/2013 and stated that the fraud was committed due to no interface between CBS and SWIFT. 3.5 Primary integration of CBS and SWIFT was on GM (IT) and (IBD) and other officers at Corporate Office but action taken for one official only. Further, Mr. A.K Thamman Divisional Head of IBD along with Mr. S.S Mohapatra then DGM IAD HO and Mr. Avneesh Nepalia DGM, ZO Mumbai were part of investigation team who investigated fraud in Brady House, and reported the same to HO. 3.6 The fraud could have been averted had Mr. Gokul Nath Shetty been transferred as per transfer policy. Major punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Further, he was again put under suspension w.e.f 17.12.2018 by the Disciplinary Authority In case of accounts of M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. without any show cause of charge sheet given by Disciplinary Authority till this order which reflects biased and prejudiced views. 4. I have perused the documents along with the appeal and observe as under: – 4.1 The contention of the appellant that incidence alleged was a system failure and his role was that of Branch Head and not Incumbent Incharge is not tenable as being Branch Head, it was incumbent upon him to ensure through various monitoring mechanisms as may be considered by him, that necessary systems are in place in branch for smooth operations, proper housekeeping and compliance of procedures and terms of sanction. It is an admitted fact that he failed to develop necessary monitoring mechanism at the branch which could have averted the fraud. 4.2 The contention of the appellant that fraud was committed due to no interface between CBS and SWIFT is one aspect but this fact cannot be denied that being Branch Head, he failed to detect/inform that generic reference numbers were being used while sending the SWIFT messages to raise buyer's credit instead of system generated unique reference number and also that no FLGs were opened in CBS system against LOUs of parties such as M/s. Stellar Diamond, Solar Exports, Diamond RUS etc. 4.3 There were various other discrepancies observed such as : (1) No monthly trade credit statements were sent by branch to competent authorities for April 2016 to April 2017.(2) All LOUs issued for a period of 140 to 349 days against RBI/DGFT guidelines of 90 days to raise buyer's credit. (3) High value transactions were being credited through NEFT/RTGS from Axis Bank. (4) No confirmation certificate for checking of daily SWIFT log was submitted by branch for Jan-April 2017. (5) Income Head “Commission on FLG” has been credited various times by large amount without mentioning any related CBS generated bill reference. Had the appellant ensured regular checking of Incumbent long book, the suspicious transactions in Income Heads would have surfaced. 4.4 Further, contention of appellant that timely transfer of Sh. Gokul Shetty could have averted the fraud is also not acceptable as it is observed from enquiry records that Sh. Shetty was provided with passing powers of Manager with the work class ‘60’ against the prescribed work class ‘055’ for a Dy. Manager. Thus, Sh. Shetty was allowed to pass huge value transactions. 5. I observe that the penalty has been decided based on gravity of lapses and proven charges. The points raised by the appellant in his appeal do not bring any new cause to warrant a modification of the penalty. I, therefore, reject the appeal and confirm the punishment already imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. I order accordingly and Sh Sanjay Kumar Prasad be informed.” Sd/- MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY” 18. The powers of judicial review of the administrative decisions by the writ Court are no doubt very limited and such powers are exercised not to re-appreciate the evidence or to examine the merits of the matter rather the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised only to the limited extent of ascertaining whether the decision making process has suffered from any impropriety, arbitrariness or irrationality. The writ Court would certainly interfere in a matter where the order of punishment has been passed without following the rules of natural justice or where it has been passed contrary to the service Rules/Regulations. The sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence is not an issue which can be agitated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - for, the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of Appeal. The sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence is not an issue which can be agitated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - for, the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of Appeal. Therefore, wherever it is found that there was some material to support the order of punishment, the writ Court shall be slow in interfering with the penalty order. 19. In our opinion, these are the broad principles which are adopted by the writ Courts while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case also the writ Court has referred to too many judgments reminding itself the aforesaid general principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the Bank has also supported the writ Court's finding in paragraph No. 12 of the order dated 2nd February 2022 on the ground that the delinquent officer did not raise any objection to the proceedings in the domestic inquiry. In support of the writ Court's order dated 2nd February 2022, Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the Bank has referred to the judgment in “Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava” (2021) 2 SCC 612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed (paragraph Nos. 25 to 28) as under: “25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority: (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with: (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 20. However, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in a departmental proceeding where no witness has been examined on behalf of the Bank and thereby the delinquent officer has been denied an opportunity to cross-examine a witness to elicit facts which could have helped the departmental authority to arrive at the right conclusion. It is submitted that the writ Court's decision not to enter into the merits of the case on the ground that it is clearly impermissible, cannot be countenanced in law. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the delinquent officer himself has tendered as many as 62 documents and he never raised any objection to the documents, 47 in numbers, which were supplied to him by the Bank in course of the domestic enquiry. 21. There is no dispute rather it is an admitted fact that initially the Bank proposed to lead oral evidence but in the course of domestic inquiry no witness was produced on behalf of the Bank. The Enquiring Officer in his report dated 16th October 2019 has recorded that:“The regular hearing took place on various dates and concluded on 31st July 2019. The Enquiring Officer in his report dated 16th October 2019 has recorded that:“The regular hearing took place on various dates and concluded on 31st July 2019. During the inquiry proceedings, the presenting officer presented its documents but no management witness was presented in the said inquiry”. The delinquent officer has taken a specific ground in his reply to 2nd show-cause notice that in course of the domestic inquiry the PO had made statement on 7th June 2019 that Management's witnesses shall be produced for proving the charge but no witness was produced and the PO simply submitted his written notes. 22. According to the appellant, the aforesaid procedure was adopted in violation of Regulation 6 (13-17) of the PNB Regulations. 23. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgments in “Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen” AIR 1963 SC 1719 , “Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank” (2009) 2 SCC 570 and “Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen” (1971) 2 SCC 617 , to submit that the Enquiring Officer did not adhere to the well-settled procedure in conduct of the domestic inquiry and has recorded a finding of guilt merely on the basis of his own interpretation of the documents produced by the parties. 24. The charge-memo dated 23rd January 2019 refers to numerous acts of misdemeanor on the part of the delinquent officer and distinct charges on 47 counts have been framed. These charges broadly refer to the delinquent not observing due diligence, not following RBI/FEMA/DGFT/Bank's guidelines, not ensuring proper monitoring and control of FEX business/transactions of BO : MCB, Brady House, Mumbai. 25. The appellate authority has observed in its order dated 25th June 2020 that the delinquent officer did not observe due diligence in discharge of his duty on account of which a fraud of huge magnitude was perpetrated on the Bank, jeopardizing Bank's interest. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the framing of the charge on 47 counts speaks volumes about vagueness of the charges framed against the appellant. It is contended that Regulation 6.3 of the PNB Regulations, 1977 provides that the disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges and the charge-memo shall contain the list of witnesses, statement of witnesses and the list of documents relied on along with copy of such documents. It is contended that Regulation 6.3 of the PNB Regulations, 1977 provides that the disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges and the charge-memo shall contain the list of witnesses, statement of witnesses and the list of documents relied on along with copy of such documents. Whereas, in the present case, the aforesaid requirements under Regulation 6.3 are not followed and the number of charges so framed created considerable confusion in the minds of the delinquent officer. With reference to “Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar” (2009) 12 SCC 78 , it is contended that the charge-memo should contain specific, definite and detail charges wherever any allegation of fraud and financial irregularities has been made against the delinquent employee. 27. The next issue debated before us is improper consideration of the statutory appeal filed by the delinquent officer. On behalf of the appellant, it is further contended that the plea of discrimination on the ground that parity in award of punishment by the disciplinary authority was not maintained has been rejected by the writ Court assigning reasons contrary to the pleadings. It is submitted that the appellate authority did not advert to this aspect of the matter and has rejected the appellant's statutory appeal simply observing that the punishment has been decided on the basis of gravity of the lapses and proved charges against the delinquent officer. 28. In the writ petition, a specific plea has been raised that parity in award of punishment was not observed by the disciplinary authority. The relevant pleadings in the writ petition are in the following words: 32. That it is stated that now the question of parity also another impugned issued to that in what manner the petitioner has been made scapegoat whereas against several persons either no proceeding was initiated or even if initiated they were imposed with a minor punishment. The issue regarding parity is being discussed here-in-below: – i). The fraud started somewhere in 2010-2011 and not during petitioner's period. It continued till the time of retirement of Gokul Nath Shetty. He was posted in the branch since 2010, and all the CHS who were responsible for his non transfer, have been given minor punishment of reduction in increments. ii). Even after petitioner's promotion and transfer, when Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, joined as AGM-BH, 6 LOUs were issued by Mr. Yashwant Joshi, without following the established guidelines. He was posted in the branch since 2010, and all the CHS who were responsible for his non transfer, have been given minor punishment of reduction in increments. ii). Even after petitioner's promotion and transfer, when Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, joined as AGM-BH, 6 LOUs were issued by Mr. Yashwant Joshi, without following the established guidelines. These were issued, on orders from Mr. Bhardwaj. However, Mr. Bhardwaj had ordered to open with 100% Fixed Deposit and following the rules. But non compliance could not be checked by him also, despite the fact that he had permitted opening of 6 LOUs, where as during petitioner's tenure at the Branch as Branch Head, GN Shetty, had opened all fraudulent LOUs without any approval from any one. Implementation of Fex Cir issued for reconciliation of SWIFT and CBS, in Dec.2016 and Jan. 2017, for which Mr. Tiwari had issued office orders, were not done even during Mr. Bhardwaj period. ii). Details of Punishments inflicted on predecessors and successor-Branch Head Name Tenure Punishment Rajesh Jindal AG Aprox 2009-2011 Removal from Service Shetty gave a statement before Investigating Agencies that Mr. Jindal was aware and actually he suggested the modus operandi Shrikant Sharma, AGM 2011-2012 On last day of his service, his scale were downgraded, without any impact on retirement dues PK Varun, AGM 2012-2015 Had already retired. No idea about this case. Virendra Singh, AGM 2015-2016 Reduction of three increments in salary Sanjay Kumar Prasad, AGM 2016-2017 Removal from Service Dinesh Bhardwaj, AGM 2018-2019 Reduction of increment iv). No idea about this case. Virendra Singh, AGM 2015-2016 Reduction of three increments in salary Sanjay Kumar Prasad, AGM 2016-2017 Removal from Service Dinesh Bhardwaj, AGM 2018-2019 Reduction of increment iv). Details of Punishments inflicted on predecessors and successor Circle Head Name Period/Main Charges Punishment Vinod Joshi, DGM, retd as GM 2013-2015 Non transfer of Shetty after three years Control Aspect Minor Punishment-reduction of one or two increments T. Latha, DGM, retd as GM 2015-2016 (6-7) months Non transfer of Shetty after three years Control Aspect Minor Punishment - reduction of one or two increments Anil Bansal, DGM, presently GM 2015-2016 (6 months) He transferred Shetty on branch request, but later on withdrew the orders Control Aspect Reduction in two increments Vimlesh Kumar, DG M presently CGM 2016-2017 Non transfer of Shetty after three years Control Aspect Wrong Confirmation given to Zonal Office by AGM/CM regarding reconciliation of Swift Log and CBS at branches Reduction in one increment and also Promoted to CGM Sanjay Kumar Prasad, DGM April 2017-Jan 2018 Control Aspect Wrong Confirmation given to Zonal Office by AGM/CM regarding reconciliation of Swift Log and CBS at branches Removal from Service GMM Babu Feb 2018-2019 No charge sheet However wrong confirmation was given during his period also Not charge sheeted v) Apart from Branch and Circle Office, the offices who were responsible for System Failure, were either given minor Punishment or they went scot free. A complete chart was given with petitioner's Appeal to MD & CEO, as an annexure and the points were raised, in course of his reply to Disciplinary Authority also, at relevant places. v.1) Few Examples 1. DGM Zonal Audit Office, Mumbai was responsible for implementation of Bank's guidelines and systems and procedures, at all the branches within that zone. None were chargesheeted for this fraud and lapses of non implementation of Bank guidelines. 2. At branch level the Concurrent Auditors are responsible for day to day audit, and they send reports to Zonal Audit Office. The Concurrent Auditors were punished, but none were removed from service. 3. Treasury Division was responsible for reconciliation of LOUs issued by the bank with the branches and report to HO authorities, as per L&A 35/2014 circular, quoted by the Banks to prove the charges specially 1.1, but this was not done. Some punishments were given to lower rung officials but not to DGMs or GMs. 4. 3. Treasury Division was responsible for reconciliation of LOUs issued by the bank with the branches and report to HO authorities, as per L&A 35/2014 circular, quoted by the Banks to prove the charges specially 1.1, but this was not done. Some punishments were given to lower rung officials but not to DGMs or GMs. 4. Similar fraud happened in Dubai where PNB Dubai office was also a party, in 2015/2016. The Head posted there was not punished rather promoted. On this RBI asked banks to integrate CBS and Swift systems. People responsible for integration, were not punished by the bank. 5. Investigating Team of PNB which became the basis of charge sheet were formed by the then DGM Zonal Office, Mr. Avaneesh Nepalia, who was heading Zonal Audit Office, Mumbai during my period as BH and CH; similarly one DGM, Mr. Thamman, who was Divisional Head of International Banking Division, Head Office, when RBI directions came and he was the person responsible for it's non implementation, was also member of the Investigation Team, set up by HO. 29. The Bank has specifically adverted to the aforesaid plea by taking a stand in paragraph no. 27 of the counter-affidavit that quantum of punishment has been decided on the basis of the role, complexity, involvement or supervisory lapses on the part of the delinquent employees. It is pleaded that the magnitude of the fraud perpetrated by Nirav Modi and Geetanjali Group of Companies was to the tune of Rs. 13580 crores in which 51 Bank officers including 7 retired employees were proceeded under the PNB Regulations. Not only that, criminal proceedings have been initiated against as many as 12 officers including the former Managing Director and Executive Directors of the Bank. The Bank has also indicated various punishments imposed upon the delinquent employees of the Bank. The details provided by the Bank in the counter-affidavit are so exhaustive that its reply on the issue of parity in punishment is spread over 9 pages. 30. However, the writ Court has refused to examine this issue only on the ground that it has not been brought out on record whether the other co-delinquent employees had also faced the domestic enquiry on similar charges. 31. On the issue of parity in punishment, the writ Court has held as under: “16. 30. However, the writ Court has refused to examine this issue only on the ground that it has not been brought out on record whether the other co-delinquent employees had also faced the domestic enquiry on similar charges. 31. On the issue of parity in punishment, the writ Court has held as under: “16. While referring to the issue of parity, it has been argued that the persons having similar charges were given different punishments, but whether the charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet were same and similar to that of other persons, like Vimlesh Kumar, Circle Head, Virendra Singh, immediate predecessor and Dinesh Bhardwaj, immediate successor, have not been brought on record. Without placing the material with respect to other codelinquents, who have been awarded the lesser penalty, the parity cannot be claimed and in absence of the same, that ground is also not available to the petitioner. The Bank is the competent authority to consider and decide the same. However, in a case where crores of rupees of the Bank has been misappropriated, the petitioner failed to discharge his duty to stop such fraud of huge magnitude.” 32. In our opinion, the aforesaid consideration by the writ Court on the issue of parity in punishment, which touches upon the rights of the delinquent officer and if found acceptable must be held against natural justice, cannot be countenanced in law. This issue of parity in punishment is required to be examined in the light of the fact that the disciplinary authority who has passed the penalty order dated 27th January 2020 against the delinquent officer was the disciplinary authority for at least 7 other Bank officers in the rank of General Manager and Dy. General Manager who were served charge-memo on 23rd January 2019, on the same day when the charge-memo was served upon the delinquent officer. The disciplinary authority has also dealt with cases of 22 other Bank employees in the rank of Assistant General Manager, Chief Manager, Senior Manager and Dy. General Manager who all were served charge-memo dated 23rd January 2019. Besides the aforesaid 29 Bank officers, there were at least 15 other officers of Bombay Zone who have also faced departmental enquiries for major penalty for their role in the aforementioned scam cases. 33. General Manager who all were served charge-memo dated 23rd January 2019. Besides the aforesaid 29 Bank officers, there were at least 15 other officers of Bombay Zone who have also faced departmental enquiries for major penalty for their role in the aforementioned scam cases. 33. Now the issue which falls for consideration before this Court is when majority of the delinquent officers of the Bank have been awarded penalty of reduction in pay-scales or reduction to a lower grade, whether the disciplinary authority is under a statutory obligation to disclose the reason why penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment should be imposed upon the appellant. 34. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority is required to disclose his mind particularly for the reason that 28 out of 47 charges have not been found proved and one charge has been found partly proved. In “Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the delinquent employee has a right to know what was bearing in the mind of the employer which has chosen to agree with the decision of the disciplinary authority. Now this is relevant that at the time when the penalty order dated 27th January 2020 was passed against the appellant by the disciplinary authority, he had already taken a decision to inflict lesser punishment to the other employees. But the appellate authority has dealt with the statutory appeal of delinquent officer in a casual manner unmindful of the statutory appeal being open both on facts and in law. 35. We have this in our mind that the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority should not be interfered by this Court and this exercise must be left with the discretion of the appellate authority which while dealing with parity in punishment and quantum of punishment may deal with the same. We may, however, indicate that this opinion of ours should not be misconstrued as a direction of the Court. 36. In summation, the writ Court's order dated 2nd February 2022 is set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the appellate order dated 25th June 2020 is quashed and the appeal preferred by the delinquent officer is restored to its original files. We may, however, indicate that this opinion of ours should not be misconstrued as a direction of the Court. 36. In summation, the writ Court's order dated 2nd February 2022 is set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the appellate order dated 25th June 2020 is quashed and the appeal preferred by the delinquent officer is restored to its original files. The appellate authority shall take a decision on the said appeal within a period of three months. 37. L.P.A No. 122 of 2022 stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.