JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition wherein he had sought the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing order dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-13). II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-11). III. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-9). IV. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing the charge-sheet Dt. 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) in toto and the subsequent departmental proceedings conducted in complete violation of law and further directing the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits alongwith promotional benefits w.e.f. December, 2008.” 2. The bare minimal facts as required for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant joined the service of the respondent-Bank in the month of September, 1979 as Clerk-cum-Assistant cashier. During the course of his service, a show cause notice dated 25.03.2018 was issued to him, on the allegations that during the course of his tenure as Manager of “Anti Branch” of the respondent-Bank w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to 15.03.2008, he had committed gross irregularities, as mentioned in the show cause notice. He was afforded 10 days time to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him. 3. The appellant denied the allegations by filing reply dated 05.04.2008, however, the authority was not satisfied with the explanation so offered and accordingly vide communication dated 12.08.2008, the appellant was informed that the bank intended to hold an enquiry against him under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with following Articles of Charges:- “ARTICLES OF CHARGE” Mr D. S. Verma, (PFM No. 25046) Manager, presently posted at Sambhalpur Main Branch while his posting as Manager of Anti Branch w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to 15.03.2008 unauthorisedly issued signed fake bank Guarantees and has thus not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but has exposed the Bank to possible litigation, revenue losses and potential losses in the even of invocation of these Bank guarantees. 1. 1. Mr D S Verma exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank Guarantees. Mr D.S. Verma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interests of the bank which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 2. Mr. D.S. Verma acted in a non-judicious manner, detrimental to Bank’s interests while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees without charging appropriate and applicable commission and other charges at the time of issue of these guarantees and when the matter came to light he recovered guarantee fee after the expiry of about one year, thus cause revenue loss to the bank. Mr. D S Verma has thus failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, devotion & honesty which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 3. Mr D S Verma while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but also exposed the bank to huge financial liabilities besides possible litigations by the respective beneficiaries. Mr D S Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.” 4. The defence statement in respect of the Articles of Charge was submitted by the appellant on 17.09.2008. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted in the matter wherein it was concluded that the allegations levelled against the appellant stood proved. 5. The findings and conclusion as contained in the enquiry report are as under:- “FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On perusal of the enquiry proceedings, submission of documentary evidence, oral submissions during the enquiry proceedings, written briefs of P.O. and Defence Assistant, my findings on charges are enumerated below:- CHARGES:- 1. Mr. D.S. Verma, exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out, in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank guarantees. Mr. Mr. D.S. Verma, exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out, in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank guarantees. Mr. D.S. Verma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interest of the bank which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 2. Mr. D.S. Verma acted in a non-judicious manner, detrimental to bank’s interests while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees without charging appropriate and applicable commission and other charges at the time of issue of these guarantees and when the matter came to light he recovered guarantee fee after the expiry of about one year thus cause revenue loss to the bank. Mr. D.S. Verma has thus failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, devotion & honesty which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 3. Mr. D.S. Verma while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees not only tarnished the image and reputation of the bank but also exposed the bank to huge financial liabilities besides possible litigations by the respective beneficiaries. Mr. D.S. Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. After having gone through all the records and applying my independent mind and in the best interest of justice and fairness, I feel that if a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, acts beyond his authority and beyond delegated powers, which constitutes integral part of a bank officer’s duty to be fully known to him before he takes the responsibility of such position constitute misconduct and malafide. Further Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and does nothing unbecoming of a bank officer. Further Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and does nothing unbecoming of a bank officer. In such situation, the CSO statement that Bank has not suffered any financial loss and there is no possibility of bank suffering any pecuniary loss in future as well due to issuance of above bank guarantees would make no ground for not proving the charges. CSO has acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank’s regulation. Therefore after finding the allegations as proved, all the charges against CSO stand proved and established.” 6. Copy of enquiry report was provided to the appellant to which he submitted his response. 7. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 13.10.2009 imposed the following penalties upon the appellant:- “It is evident from the record of the enquiry that the CSOE has issued bank guarantees unauthorisedly, beyond the powers vested with him and by misusing the powers, which are serious misconducts on his part. There is no application or request letter from the party for issuance of these guarantees. The margin/securities were also not obtained at the time of issuance of these guarantees. The processing charges/commission have also not been recovered at the time of issuance. No record was created at branch level. The CSOE’s contention that the guarantees were issued by him and margin /securities/commission recovered by him, have no base or standing as these were subsequently obtained after more than a year’s period when it came to the knowledge of the Controlling Office. Therefore, the allegations/charges leveled against the CSOE stand proved beyond doubt. The Bank has prescribed guidelines to deal with all sorts of matter in a fair and judicious manner through its various Manual of Instructions/Loan Policy Documents/Circulars and everyone is required to follow these guidelines scrupulously otherwise the Bank & also to some extant employees got exposed to various kinds of risks. But , if one willfully violates or ignores these instructions of the Bank, then it is a matter of serious concern and has to deal with firmly and appropriate in accordance with the gravity it deserves, so that there is no recurrence of such violation by him, as well as, by others in future. But , if one willfully violates or ignores these instructions of the Bank, then it is a matter of serious concern and has to deal with firmly and appropriate in accordance with the gravity it deserves, so that there is no recurrence of such violation by him, as well as, by others in future. Considering the above aspects, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me vide Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I hereby award the following penalties to Sh D S Verma: Charge No. 1 (Proved) – Be brought down from MMG Scale-II to JMG Scale-I. Charge No. 2 (Proved) – Compulsory Retirement Charge No. 3 (Proved)- Be brought down from MMG to Scale-II to JMG Scale-I. The above punishments are to take concurrent effect immediately.” 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which, however was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2010. Even the review petition preferred by the appellant was also rejected vide order dated 27.09.2010 and aggrieved thereby the appellant, thereafter, approached the writ Court. However, as observed above, the writ petition filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed constraining him to file the instant appeal. 9. It is vehemently argued by Shri C. N. Singh, learned Advocate, that the learned writ Court erred in concluding that the respondents had, in fact, conducted the enquiry proceedings strictly in consonance with UCO Bank Conduct Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976, whereas the same had been blatantly violated inasmuch as neither the list of witnesses nor the documents sought to be relied upon by the defence, which, in fact, formed the basis of the enquiry, were neither mentioned in the Articles of Charge nor the same made available during the course of enquiry or even thereafter. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned Advocate, would vehemently argue that the appellant during the course of enquiry himself had sought permission to inspect the documents, therefore, could not now turn around and complain at this stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned Advocate, would vehemently argue that the appellant during the course of enquiry himself had sought permission to inspect the documents, therefore, could not now turn around and complain at this stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the learned writ Court while dismissing the writ petition has recorded a specific finding that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted strictly in accordance with UCO Bank Conduct Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976, as is evident from paras 17 and 21 of the judgment, which read as under:- “17. It is apparent from the perusal of the records also, which were made available to the Court by the respondent-Bank, that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted strictly in consonance with 1976 Regulations. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed therein. Ample and adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forth his case and the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration the entire material which was placed before him during the course of the enquiry. 21. Records further demonstrate that the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned Regulations for imposition of major penalty has been duly followed by the authorities concerned. After the inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, he made the same available to the petitioner and called upon him to submit his response to the same. It is only thereafter that the disciplinary authority passed the order of imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is neither cryptic nor the same can be said to be un-reasonable or non-speaking. The disciplinary authority has mentioned the reasons as to why it has come to the conclusion that major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner.” 12. It is on the basis of the aforesaid findings that the learned writ Court has declined to interfere, given the limited scope of judicial review, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 . 13. It is on the basis of the aforesaid findings that the learned writ Court has declined to interfere, given the limited scope of judicial review, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 . 13. However, while going through the record of the case, we find that the appellant was only served with the Articles of Charge as have been quoted verbatim in para 3 (supra). There was no mention in Articles of Charge of any list of witnesses or list of documents, which were being relied upon by the respondent-Bank, to prove the charges against the appellant. Meaning thereby, that the respondents did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant by disclosing the material adverse to him at any stage of the enquiry, be at the stage of initiation, when Articles of Charge were served or thereafter. The opportunity of inspection of documents in the given case was clearly superfluous or illusionary as the respondents admittedly had not specified even remotely the documents they intended or would be relying on. 14. It is more than settled that reasonable opportunity includes the duty to disclose material adverse to the employee, even when there is no statutory rules to this effect. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kaveri Gramin Bank vs. Ningaiah (2005) 8 SLR 531. 15. It has been a long standing rule of a natural justice that if relevant evidential material is not disclosed, then the decision making process would be vitiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that non-disclosure of such documents would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. (Ref:- Tirlok Nath vs. Union of India (1967) SLR 759 SC, State of Punjab vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155 , of U.P. vs. Mohd. Sharif (1982) 2 SCC 376 and Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 229 ). 16. As a matter of fact, non-supply of document is directly linked to the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend. If any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, a copy thereof has to be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is being held. 17. 16. As a matter of fact, non-supply of document is directly linked to the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend. If any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, a copy thereof has to be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is being held. 17. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. vs. A. Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 , wherein in para 9, it was observed as under:- “9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these Orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the G.O which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that Charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessor. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged.” 18. The enquiry otherwise is violated for want of examination of any witness and by simply relying upon the documents, which, as observed, were not supplied to the appellant. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported and fortified by the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 , wherein in para 14, it was observed as under:- “14. 10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. 10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 19. Thus, we have no hesitation to conclude that the procedural fairness in the departmental enquiry required proper disclosure of material to be used against the delinquent appellant. Since reasonable opportunity of defence was denied to the appellant, therefore, action taken on the basis of the same and as affirmed by the appellate as well as reviewing authority and thereafter by the learned writ Court cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Since the appeal is being allowed on a technical defect, the enquiry against the appellant, despite of his being more than 70 years of age cannot be dropped at this stage and has to proceed from the stage that it stood vitiated i.e. at the stage of issuance of memorandum of charges. 20. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530 , wherein in para 16, it was observed as under:- “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 ; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264 ; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161 ).” 21. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the respondents-Bank is directed to proceed with the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated by issuing fresh memorandum of charges alongwith the list of witnesses and list of documents, which the respondents seek to rely upon. Taking into consideration that the appellant is more than 71 years of age, the respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 30.06.2024. The enquiry will be held at Shimla and the appellant would be bound to cooperate with the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.