ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The present appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Bench in a writ petition bearing WPS No.1075/2009 dated 06/08/2021, whereby the dismissal of the respondent from the service imposing a major penalty has been set aside. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeal is preferred by the Bank. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent was transferred on 07/05/2007 to Bhuj Region Gujrat while he was working at Rajnandgaon Branch under the Raipur Region and subsequently he was relieved on 15/05/2007. He would further submit that the respondent despite several reminders did not join at the transferred place of posting, as such he was reminded by the Telegram dated 21/05/2007 to join at the transferred place despite that having not joined, he was suspended by order dated 05/06/2007. On subsequent date i.e. on 12/10/2007 charge-sheet was issued to him. He would further submit that the respondent demanded six documents and the documents were supplied to the respondent with a specific direction that in case he did not co-operate with the enquiry, the enquiry would be held ex-parte. 3. He would further submit that since the respondent did not respond to the preliminary charge-sheet, the enquiry was proposed. The Inquiry Officer (I.O.) and the Presenting Officer were appointed. The respondent participated in the enquiry and the proceeding commenced. He would further submit that in the meanwhile respondent filed a petition before this Court challenging his transfer and requested not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, however, the enquiry was proceeded by the Bank and the date was fixed in the month of February, 2008. The date of enquiry was also informed and subsequently for the reason that no stay was operative in respect of the proceedings of enquiry, the enquiry commenced. 4. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2008 the respondent sought for time on medical grounds and on such request the date was adjourned. On the subsequent date again adjournment was sought on the ground that the respondent had to attend some case on 16/02/2008, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte. 4. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2008 the respondent sought for time on medical grounds and on such request the date was adjourned. On the subsequent date again adjournment was sought on the ground that the respondent had to attend some case on 16/02/2008, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte. The documents supplied by the Presenting Officer in the said proceeding on such date, were supplied to the respondent and again date was fixed, however, the respondent again sought for adjournment on the medical ground but the case was not adjourned and the evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the case was fixed for argument in the third week of February, 2008. 5. Subsequently, the finding was arrived at by the I.O., wherein it was found that unauthorized absence was not proved, however, with respect to disobeying the lawful instructions of superior was held to be proved. Further the acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank was not proved and lastly the acts unbecoming of an officer employee was proved. The said finding was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Over a disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority came to a separate finding and eventually on 02/06/2008 the respondent was dismissed from the service and interdepartmental appeal having been filed, the same too was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by such order, the writ petition was filed by the respondent and the learned Single Bench after detailed hearing came to a finding that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent and set aside the order of termination and further held that in the facts of this case, since the respondent was superannuated on 28/02/2019 the further departmental enquiry afresh was not ordered for. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the series of events would show that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent. He would further submit that despite giving frequent dates to allow the respondent to represent his case, he did not appear before the I.O., therefore, there was no option having been left, the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte. He would further submit that despite giving frequent dates to allow the respondent to represent his case, he did not appear before the I.O., therefore, there was no option having been left, the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte. He would further submit that it is a settled proposition that the Courts will not sit as a Court of appeal over the finding of the I.O. and in the instant case, the order of learned Single Bench has completely set aside the order of punishment whereby the principle laid down by the different Courts has not been followed. 8. He would next submit that the High Court at Chhattisgarh would not have any jurisdiction as the respondent was transferred at Bhuj. He placed his reliance in the matter of Regional Manager, UCO Bank and Another Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj { (2022) 5 SCC 695 } and Y.P. Sarabhai Versus Union Bank of India and Another { (2006) 5 SCC 377 }. He would further submit that in any case even if it was found that the enquiry was not proper at the threshold, opportunity to conduct the enquiry should have been in favour of the appellants and therefore, submits that the order of the learned Single Bench be set aside. 9. Respondent is present in person before this Court. He would submit that with all prejudice, in hand the departmental enquiry was carried out and the fact that on the earlier occasion certain minor imposition of penalty was imposed on him exonerating the actual culprits for which he raised voice of protest before the Bank. Therefore, for such resistance it resulted into impugned transfer. He would further submit that the Bank tried to create the fabricated documents to show that about certain communication of dates by telegram, which was never communicated, which shows the bias and prejudice of the Bank from the day one. He would further submit that he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case in the departmental enquiry and enquiry proceedings were drawn in a prejudicial manner with a predetermined object to dismiss. He would further submit that he has been superannuated in the month of February, 2019 and till date no terminal benefits have already not been granted to him. He would further submit that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate which is on the basis of faulty enquiry without giving proper opportunity to the respondent. He would further submit that he has been superannuated in the month of February, 2019 and till date no terminal benefits have already not been granted to him. He would further submit that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate which is on the basis of faulty enquiry without giving proper opportunity to the respondent. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is well merited which do not call for any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 11. It would be necessary to refer to the factual aspect in the case. The respondent was working as an Officer at Rajnandgaon Branch under the Raipur Region. He was transferred vide order dated 07/05/2007 from Raipur Region to Bhuj Region at Gujarat and pursuant thereto he was relieved on 15/05/2007 and was advised to report at Bhuj Region. Since he did not join his place of posting, a letter dated 19/05/2007 was issued to him asking him to join at Bhuj within 7 days, which was followed by telegram dated 21/05/2007 by the Bank. The respondent has seriously questioned such communication and it is stated that on the date one letter and telegram which was said to have been sent to the respondent have been fabricated, therefore, the Bank was harboring prejudice against the respondent. He has placed reliance on the law laid down in the case of Rafiq Ahmad alias Rafi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh { (2011) 8 SCC 300 } wherein at para 35 the principles have been laid down about the fair trial. Copy of the telegram filed along with the writ petition do not affirm the fact as to whether it was actually served & it was received by the respondent. However, without going into such fact, the respondent employee was suspended vide order dated 05/06/2007 by the Deputy Regional Manager, Regional Office, Bhuj (Kutch). The said act was further followed by issuance of charge-sheet in the month of October, 2007 on the ground that the respondent has not joined his place of posting despite he was relieved by order dated 15/05/2007. The charge-sheet was issued to him on 12/10/2007 by the Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Bhuj-Kutch in terms of Regulation 3 & 13 read with Regulation 24 of Dena Bank Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (henceforth ‘the Regulation, 1976’). The charge-sheet was issued to him on 12/10/2007 by the Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Bhuj-Kutch in terms of Regulation 3 & 13 read with Regulation 24 of Dena Bank Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (henceforth ‘the Regulation, 1976’). 12. The Respondent employee in reply to the charge-sheet asked for certain documents along with copy of the telegram asking proof of such delivery. Five documents were delivered to him by letter dated 01/11/2007 and the respondent was asked to submit his written statement, failing which the enquiry was contemplated to be held ex-parte. On 26/11/2007 since no reply was filed by the respondent, the I.O. was appointed and one Sujit Gupta, Officer of Mahasamund of Chhattisgarh was appointed as Presenting Officer. 13. Admittedly, communication to proceed with the enquiry was served to the respondent at Durg and subsequently, the place of enquiry was also at Durg. The submission of the appellant/Bank that the cause of action would be at Gujarat because the place of transfer was at Gujarat cannot be accepted for the reason the part of cause of action arose at Durg and the appellant Bank also followed the same. Therefore, once bank has participated and conducted the enquiry at Durg, they cannot turn around to say that the High Court of Chhattisgarh would not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis in respect of claim of employee. 14. Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India purports that it would be within the domain of power of High Court to issue writs and direction in relation to territories within which the cause of action apparently or any part arises. Therefore, the part of cause of action having been arose at Durg, the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh would exist. 15. The Bombay High Court in the matter of Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India and others {AIR 1967 Bombay 355} relying upon its earlier judgment in the matter of W.W. Joshi v. State of Bombay { AIR 1959 Bom 363 } & Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union ofIndia and others { (2014) 9 SCC 329 } has laid down the proposition that where part of cause of action arose will have territorial jurisdiction. In view of that following the principle laid down, in the instant case apart from the departmental enquiry, the termination order was also served to the respondent at Durg, therefore, the place where the consequence fell on the servant we hold that the Court at Chhattisgarh will also have the jurisdiction. As such the finding of the learned Single Bench is justified. Therefore, we hold that this Court will have jurisdiction. So, the High Court of Chhattisgarh would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 16. Now coming back to the departmental proceeding, initially on 09/02/2008 the enquiry was proposed, wherein adjournment was sought for by the respondent on the medical ground, which was opposed by the Presenting Officer, however, the proceeding was adjourned to 15/02/2008 at Durg. The respondent filed an application for adjournment that he has to leave for Nagpur to attend a hearing for a criminal case bearing No.19/2005, which was fixed on 16/02/2008. On that date for non-appearance ex-parte proceeding was drawn. The extracts of letter which formed the basis to draw ex-parte proceeding have been produced by the learned Single Bench in its order which records that since the CMD and HO has directed that the enquiry to be completed at the earliest as such and as per D.A.'s instructions, he proceeded ex-parte. The said recording at the behest of the appellant’s Inquiry Officer would show that no independent application of mind by the I.O. was done as admittedly he was acting under the direction of the Disciplinary Authority instructions and not impartially. 17. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha { (2010) 2 SCC 772 } in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the role of enquiry officer held that enquiry officer acts as quasi-judicial authority and is in the position of an independent adjudicator, he is not supposed to be a representative of department/disciplinary authority/Government, he must be wholly unbiased, he should not act as a prosecutor as well as a judge, and his function is to examine evidence presented by Department, even in absence of delinquent official to see as to whether unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that charges are proved. 18. 18. It is a settled proposition that the I.O. performs the act of quasi judicial officer, he is required to perform his job without any partiality, therefore, when he acted on the direction of the Disciplinary Authority to fast track the enquiry and that was recorded in the order sheet, it would show that the I.O. was under the influence of the Disciplinary Authority. The further order-sheet of the said enquiry would show that certain suggestions were given by the Presenting Officer to Inquiry Officer as leading questions. The extract of such proceeding would be relevant to asses the state of mind of the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, who was presenting, which are reproduced hereinbelow: “INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS OF DEPRTMENTAL INQUIRY INTO THE CHARGE SHEET MEMORANDUM NO.BHR:DISC:927:2007 DT.12.10.2007 ISSUED TO SHRI R.B. SHARMA, OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), DENA BANK, BHUJ (KUTCH) REGION Date : 15.02.2008 Time : 11.00 a.m. Venue : Lead Bank Office, Dena Bank, Durg Present : 1. Shri Gajender Mudliar Inquiry Authority Dena Bank, Somni Br. 2. Shri Sujeet Gupta, Presenting Officer, Dena Bank, Mahasamund. Absent : 1. Shri R.B. Sharma CSO. I.A. Proceeding is hereby ordered to be commenced today with the presence of the above. PO to IA Sir, it seems that Shri R.B. Sharma will not be present in the proceedings as he has not given his attendance till time. IA to PO Yes, CSO, Shri R.B. Sharma has expressed his inability to attend the proceedings scheduled for today and has sent a letter through a messenger, Shri Yogesh Sahare. In his letter he has stated that he will be leaving to Nagpur today to attend the hearing of Criminal Case No.19/2006 on 16.02.2008 in the Hon'ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. Since the Court hearing is on 16.02.2008 at Hon'ble Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, the CSO could have attended the proceedings and left for Nagpur in the later hours. “As the Inquiry has to be completed at the earliest as per C.M.D. & H.O. Directive letter and as per our D.A.'s instruction I order the Inquiry proceedings to be started Ex-parte.” 19. The reading of the aforesaid proceeding would show that the I.O. not only agreed with the suggestion of the P.O. but a separate added information was recorded which only shows the bias on the part of the I.O. at that stage of hearing. The reading of the aforesaid proceeding would show that the I.O. not only agreed with the suggestion of the P.O. but a separate added information was recorded which only shows the bias on the part of the I.O. at that stage of hearing. Subsequent to it, the documents were filed but on that date the documents were accepted and the respondent was communicated by letter dated 15/02/2008 that subsequent date would be on 19/02/2008 and the respondent was given liberty to raise an objection, if any. 20. Before 19/02/2008 adjournment was sought for on the medical ground by the respondent. The request letter and the medical certificates issued by the Senior Consultant, Department of Surgery (Unit-I), JLN Hospital & RC, Bhilai, BSP. However, the said request was not acceded to by the I.O. on 19/02/2008 and the documents produced by the Bank Management was accepted and the case was fixed for written argument on 22/02/2008. 21. The finding of the learned Single Bench on this issue that despite the illness, which was duly certified by the Senior Consultant, Department of Surgery (Unit-I), JLNHospital & RC, Bhilai, BSP that respondent is indisposed, it was not considered and the case was proceeded further for argument. The learned Single Bench has placed reliance on the law laid down in the matter of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji (Km.) { (2000) 8 SCC 532 } wherein in the issue of adjournment the Court has laid down that whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. It was further held that the mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. 22. Dena Bank Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 is framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 which has a statutory enforce. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. 22. Dena Bank Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 is framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 which has a statutory enforce. Regulation 6 of the Regulation, 1976 postulates that before imposing major penalty the Bank has to follow the guidelines, which has been framed under the Rules and it has to be in accordance with the Regulations. When the case in support of the charges is closed, there are certain regulations postulates certain procedure to be followed which are reproduced as Regulation 13, 15, 16 & 17:- (13) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the article of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer shall be examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined. but not on a new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. (15) When the case in support of the charges is closed, the officer employee may be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the officer employee shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any. Appointed. (16) The evidence on behalf of the officer employee shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the inquiring authority. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the inquiring authority. (17) The inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 23. The enquiry proceeds would show that after the request of the respondent for adjournment was refused, it was fixed for final arguments. Though the petitioners could not cross-examine the witness but Regulation 16 & 17 would show that the I.O. was obliged to give opportunity to produce defence witness to the respondent. The learned Single Bench has held that though the respondent was proceeded ex-parte, he should have been given the opportunity of adducing witness do not appear to be wrong. 24. It is a settled proposition laid down that when the Court has adjourned the hearing ex-parte, the party can appear in a subsequent proceeding to take part in that. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court long back in Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah and another { AIR 1955 SC 425 } & Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and others { AIR 1964 SC 993 } if a party appears on the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings simply because he did not appear on the first or some other hearing. Before the dismissal when the statutory right is created in the regulation, which allows an employee to adduce evidence, it becomes mandatory. Fixing the matter directly for final arguments without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondent only fortifies the fact that the I.O. was in a great hurry which is reflected in the earlier recording of the orders to conclude the D.E. as per directions of higher ups. Therefore, the enquiry which was conducted as against the Regulation of 1976 was ab initio illegal. Therefore, the enquiry which was conducted as against the Regulation of 1976 was ab initio illegal. The finding of the learned single judge further to the fact that the appellate authority was also bound to see such legal proposition is also correct and we do not find any infirmity to interfere with the same. The respondent since has superannuated from service on 28/02/2019 and the manner the departmental proceeding was carried out & considering the observation by the learned Single Bench which has observed, under the circumstances of the case, it would be inappropriate to direct the conduct of departmental enquiry afresh, we find justification in such finding, specially the way the departmental enquiry was conducted. 25. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.