ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. By preferring this intra court appeal, the Central Bank of India through its CMD and other officers have prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.12.2020 in W.P.(S) No. 7540 of 2012. The writ application was filed by one Rama Shankar Singh, who is a retired Government servant of the Central Bank of India. He prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order contained in letter No. ZO/DA/02-03/267 dated 27.11.2002 i.e. Annexure-16 to the writ application, whereby a punishment of compulsory retirement from Bank services in terms of Regulation 4 (H) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 has been passed. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the appellate authority and also for quashing the order dated 02.01.2004 containing letter no. ZO/PRS DD/03-04/1135 passed by the appellate authority in appeal proceedings. He has also made certain prayers for consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case, at this stage, are not disputed. The petitioner was posted as a Manager, Jamshedpur Branch of the Respondent-Bank. A memorandum of charge was issued on 19.07.1999 and delivered to him on 30.07.1999, whereby, it was proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him with regard to imputation of misconduct. Thereafter, in terms of the aforesaid charge-sheet i.e. Annexure-5 to the writ application, the departmental enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner filed a detailed written brief denying all the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated 18.02.2022, which was delivered to the petitioner on 28.02.2002. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed detailed reply against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. His reply is at Annexure-9 to the writ application. Finally, the order of removal from service has been passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-16. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate authority, which was also dismissed on contest on 02.01.2004 i.e. Annexure-19 to the writ application. His reply is at Annexure-9 to the writ application. Finally, the order of removal from service has been passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-16. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate authority, which was also dismissed on contest on 02.01.2004 i.e. Annexure-19 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ application to this Court and his application was disposed of on 01.03.2012 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application for review and reviewing authority of such review application was directed to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a review application, which was also dismissed. Such orders finding him guilty compulsory retirement has been confirmed by the reviewing authority, hence, the writ application was filed. 3. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that in gross violation of the statutory Rules guiding service conditions as well as the Statutory Regulations of the Bank the impugned order has been passed. It is not disputed at this stage that while issuing the charge-sheet, the disciplinary authority did not supply the copies of the documents relied upon by the Management against the petitioner. No list of witnesses was also supplied. Rule 6 especially sub rule 5 and 10 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, provides for supply of documents and list of witnesses. 4. We take note of the exact word used in the said Regulation, which is undisputedly a statutory regulation which was promulgated in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, thus the Rule has a statutory force and it is binding on the employees as well as the Central Bank of India. The relevant Rules are quoted below: “6(5) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority: (i) a copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior; (ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee; (iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (iv) a copy of statements of the witnesses, if any; (v) evidence proving the delivery of articles of charge under sub-regulation (3); (vi) a copy of the order appointing the ‘Presenting Officer’ in terms of sub-regulation (6). xxx xxx xxx (10) (a) The Inquiring Authority shall, where the Officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such Officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. (b) The Inquiring Authority shall also record an order that the Officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence:- (i) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiring Authority may allow, the documents listed; (ii) submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the enquiry; (iii) be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses, if any recorded earlier and the Inquiring Authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority; (iv) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery of production of the documents referred to in item (ii). A Note has been appended thereto, which provides that the relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in item (ii) shall be given by the Officer employee concerned. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that at the time of issuing a charge-sheet in a departmental proceeding, the Management is under an obligation to provide the list of documents, copies of the documents, unless those documents were voluminous and the list of witnesses along with their statements if recorded earlier. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that at the time of issuing a charge-sheet in a departmental proceeding, the Management is under an obligation to provide the list of documents, copies of the documents, unless those documents were voluminous and the list of witnesses along with their statements if recorded earlier. The Inquiring Officer had to make an order of inspection of documents by the delinquent employee. Admittedly, in this case, the said procedure prescribed has not been followed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is only a procedural defect and it cannot be held to be a substantive defect in the departmental proceeding and on the basis of such procedural irregularity, a departmental enquiry and the consequential order, passed thereon, cannot be quashed. He would also further submit that even non supply of list of witnesses or list of documents and copies of documents and also the order to the effect that the delinquent has a right to examine the records within five days as per clause No. 10(b)(i) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the entire enquiry and the punishment awarded to the employee cannot be quashed. 7. We are not impressed by such argument. In a departmental proceeding, at the very outset, the delinquent employee must be made aware of the evidences including documentary evidence that would be relied upon by the Management to prove the charge against the employee so that he would have an effective opportunity of showing cause. This is not a mere formality. It goes to the root of the case and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error on record by holding that there has been a violation of the statutory rules and having relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and G.V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India and others reported in (2004) 1 LLJ 36 and has come to a just and proper conclusion, hence, there appears to be no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and G.V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India and others reported in (2004) 1 LLJ 36 and has come to a just and proper conclusion, hence, there appears to be no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid to the private respondent within a month, failing which the same shall be realized by invoking the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 10. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.