JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. The petitioner, Ravi Shanker Dwivedi, was a Single Window Operator-A, a member of the clerical staff employed with the Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur. He was posted at the Urdu Bazar Branch of the Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur. He was suspended pending inquiry into the allegations of embezzlement of funds relating to two customers, to wit, Munni Devi, who was the holder of Account No. 0184000100257189 and Om Prakash Verma, holder of Account No. 0184000100200844. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, carrying a solitary charge, that reads to the following effect: CHARGE: 1-At BO : Urdu Bazar two customers Smt. Munni Devi A/c No. 0184000100257189 and Shri Om Prakash Verma A/c No. 0184000100200844 complained of unauthorised debts in their SF accounts it was revealed that you have committed unauthorised transactions/withdrawals in the SF accounts of these two customers on different dates and embezzlement amount of Rs. 3.65 lacs as under thereby jeopardizing the interest of the bank. Account No. 0184000100257189 of Smt. Munni Devi: S. No. Date Amount Transaction Id User Id 1. 15.01.2019 20000 M863401 301223RSD 2. 19.01.2019 20000 M627356 301223RSD 3. 21.01.2019 20000 M785502 301223RSD 4. 28.01.2019 20000 M848282 301223RSD 5. 02.02.2019 20000 M683629 301223RSD 6. 06.02.2019 10000 M652561 301223RSD 7. 12.02.2019 20000 M715059 301223RSD 8. 16.02.2019 20000 M447804 301223RSD Total 150000 Account No. 0184000100200844 of Shri Om Prakash Verma: S. No. Date Amount Transaction Id User Id 1. 02.02.2019 20000 M160010 301223RSD 2. 02.02.2019 20000 M680609 301223RSD 3. 04.02.2019 20000 M823578 301223RSD 4. 04.02.2019 20000 M1014365 301223RSD 5. 06.02.2019 20000 M617645 301223RSD 6. 11.02.2019 20000 M980932 301223RSD 7. 12.02.2019 20000 M321542 301223RSD 8. 12.02.2019 20000 M869709 301223RSD 9. 16.02.2019 20000 M116541 301223RSD 10. 16.02.2019 20000 M533862 301223RSD 11. 16.02.2019 15000 M689347 301223RSD Total 215000 The matter has been reported as Fraud to RBI. Due to your above acts, Bank’s interest & reputation has been jeopardised. The aforesaid acts of yours are prejudicial to the interest of bank and constiture Gross Misconduct as per clause (j) of Paragraph 5 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10/04/2002 as amended from time to time. 2. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 14.02.2021, denying the charge and pleading his detailed defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.05.2021, holding the charge proved. 2. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 14.02.2021, denying the charge and pleading his detailed defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.05.2021, holding the charge proved. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 01.06.2021 by the Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Gorakhpur, acting as the Disciplinary Authority. The show-cause notice is detailed and after referring to the solitary charge and the gist of findings, the Inquiry Officer proposed to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity, without disqualification from future employment. 3. In answer to the show-cause notice, the petitioner showed cause by his reply dated 09.06.2021. The Disciplinary Authority, by an order passed on the same day i.e. 09.06.2021, proceeded to punish the petitioner with compulsory retirement, granting superannuation benefits with no disqualification from future employment. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, the General Manager/Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow vide his appeal dated 06.07.2021. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 30.12.2021, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Disillusioned by the infliction of penalty, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Heard Mr. Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayesh Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjai Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. 7. The thrust of Mr. Khan’s submissions is that the impugned orders have been passed on the foot of an inquiry report, where the Establishment did not prove the charge against the petitioner in the manner imperative in a case involving the infliction of major penalty. Elaborating his submission, it is pointed by Mr. Khan that during the inquiry, though there was a Presenting Officer and a Defence Representative to represent the petitioner, the Establishment did not produce a single witness in support of the solitary charge. All that was produced was documentary evidence, with no witness to prove those documents on behalf of the Establishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the charge here was about embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the account of Munni Devi and a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 from the account of Om Prakash Verma. All that was produced was documentary evidence, with no witness to prove those documents on behalf of the Establishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the charge here was about embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the account of Munni Devi and a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 from the account of Om Prakash Verma. The charge was based on a complaint made by these customers that there were illegal withdrawals from their bank account. The respondent-Bank have held the charge proved by saying that the withdrawals were made through withdrawal forms, where the signatures on the withdrawal forms did not match with the specimen. It was, therefore, imperative for the Bank, in a case like the present one, to examine the two complainants as witnesses before the charge could be proved against the petitioner. 8. It is next submitted that there is some kind of a confession by the petitioner, going by the fact that the sum of money allegedly embezzled was got credited to the two aggrieved account holders’ account by the petitioner’s mother, paying it out of her own bank account. The submission is that while payment of the embezzled money to the complainant(s) made in certain circumstances may be understood as admission, it is equally true that considering the sum of money involved, a delinquent or a relative acting on his behalf might think that it would serve as a reprieve from the consequences of a wrong never done, which, otherwise, might bring severe punishment for no good reason. It is particularly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the remark in the Disciplinary Authority’s order to the effect that the petitioner, in the personal hearing before him, had accepted his guilt/charge, is absolutely incorrect and was specifically challenged by the petitioner through a ground raised in the memorandum of appeal to the Appellate Authority. It is pointed out that the Appellate Authority, in the order impugned, has not at all considered the said ground or other relevant grounds, including the one that no witness was examined on behalf of the Establishment before the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges. It is pointed out that the Appellate Authority, in the order impugned, has not at all considered the said ground or other relevant grounds, including the one that no witness was examined on behalf of the Establishment before the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges. It is urged that conclusions drawn by the Authorities are perverse, based on irrelevant evidence, apart from the fact that in proceedings before the Inquiry Officer, the charge has not been proved by examining witnesses, imperative in a case where a major penalty is likely to be imposed upon the delinquent. 9. Mr. Jayesh Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjai Singh, learned Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders. He has emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement, after considering the entire evidence on record and it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the Disciplinary Authority’s wisdom, or that of the Appellate Authority. It is particularly emphasized that what can be challenged before this Court is the decision-making process and not the correctness of the decision. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. Foods vs. S. Samuel and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 469 to submit that the petitioner, being a member of the award staff, this Court ought not to entertain his writ petition and relegate him instead, to his alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [‘the Act of 1947’ for short]. He has drawn the attention of this Court to an unreported decision of our Court in Ramesh Chandra vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, Writ (A) No. 9679 of 2017, decided on 03.03.2017 where the petitioner, who had challenged his order of dismissal from service after departmental proceedings, was relegated to the forum constituted under the Act of 1947, following the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. Foods (supra). 10. Further reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Bank upon the Bench decision of this Court in Jai Prakash vs. Gen. Manager, Zonal Office and Others, 2018 (11) ADJ 665 (DB) to submit that the scope of judicial review is very limited, and, as said earlier, confined to ensuring due provision of opportunity and procedural fairness; nothing more. Manager, Zonal Office and Others, 2018 (11) ADJ 665 (DB) to submit that the scope of judicial review is very limited, and, as said earlier, confined to ensuring due provision of opportunity and procedural fairness; nothing more. It is also urged on the foot of the Authority of the Bench decision last mentioned that discipline in an organisation, particularly, a Bank, is dependent upon all officers acting and operating within the ambit of their authority. 11. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of learned Counsel for the parties. So far as the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent-Bank is concerned that the petitioner, being a member of the award staff, should invoke his remedies under the Act of 1947, we do not find tenable for more than one reason. The foremost is that this petition was entertained by this Court on 16.05.2022, when no objection of this kind was raised. Now that the parties have exchanged affidavits and the matter ready for hearing on merits, a plea of alternative remedy, in our opinion, ought not to be entertained. The other is that primarily, the petitioner has raised a pure question of law whether the inquiry to find him guilty was procedurally fair in that, that no evidence was examined to prove the solitary charge against him, which ought to have been done, going by the salutary procedure governing an inquiry, where the result is likely to be the imposition of a major penalty. If the question primarily to be examined is purely legal, relegation to an alternative remedy under the Statute may not be tenable. After all, the principle of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience; not ouster. Where a pure question of law is involved, the Supreme Court has leaned in favour of entertaining a writ petition and deciding it on merits in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1056. In Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal (supra) it was observed: 10. Where a pure question of law is involved, the Supreme Court has leaned in favour of entertaining a writ petition and deciding it on merits in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1056. In Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal (supra) it was observed: 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act especially when the writ petition that was filed in 1988 had already been admitted and was pending in the High Court for the past more than five years. Since the question that is raised involves a pure question of law and even if the matter is referred to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act it is bound to be agitated in the court by the party aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor, we are of the view that this was not a case where the High Court should have non-suited the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. We, therefore, propose to go into the merits of the question regarding inter se seniority of the appellant and Respondents 4 and 5. We may, in this context, mention that Respondent 4 has already retired in January 1994. (Emphasis by Court) 12. A very recent exposition of the principle is to be found in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 95 where it has been held: 8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 724 and Union of India vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 10 SCC 482 . What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Emphasis by Court) 13. In view of the nature of controversy here, apart from the fact that parties have exchanged pleadings, this Court is not inclined to entertain the respondents’ objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner. We reject the objection. 14. This Court has looked into the inquiry report and finds that though the Presenting Officer has produced a number of documents, marked as ‘management exhibits’ in support of the charges, not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the Bank to prove the charge vis-a-vis either of the two complainant-account holders. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer read: Assessment of Evidence and Findings: (a) In both the cases, it is evidence that unauthorized transactions were made and upon receiving the complaint the embezzled amount got recovered and finally letter of satisfaction of obtained since the embezzled amount. (b) All the signatures which were told to be obtained by the customer itself are not on the specified place. (c) Though PO was not able to proof that any of the signature available on the record were forged but on three withdrawals difference of signatures is clearly visible. (d) In both the cases embezzled amounts were was settled through the account of charge sheeted employee's mother. In view of the above I hold charge “I” as PROVED. 15. There is no cavil between parties on the issue that the Management never endeavoured to prove their case by examining even a solitary witness in support of the charge. The charge is about unauthorized withdrawal of money from the account of the two customers. All that was led by way of tomes in evidence are documents endeavouring to show that on the particular withdrawal forms, the signatures of the customers, the two account holders, Munni Devi and Om Prakash Verma, did not tally. The charge is about unauthorized withdrawal of money from the account of the two customers. All that was led by way of tomes in evidence are documents endeavouring to show that on the particular withdrawal forms, the signatures of the customers, the two account holders, Munni Devi and Om Prakash Verma, did not tally. A charge of this kind has, in any case, to be proved by production of relevant witnesses, quite apart from the salutary principle that in every case, where there is a likelihood of imposition of a major penalty, witnesses must be examined by the Establishment to prove the charge(s). Here, it is all the more necessary, given the nature of the charge. It would be imperative for the Bank to examine the two account holders, who said that there was an unauthorized withdrawal from their account. If produced in evidence and shown the withdrawal forms, where unauthorized signatures were alleged, they would either affirm the fact of their signatures being not there, or deny it. If they deny it, it would be open to the petitioner to cross-examine them and then lead his own evidence. It is, perhaps, on account of absence of the two witnesses on behalf of the Establishment that the Inquiry Officer has recorded a finding, holding the charge proved, based on the complaint about the unauthorized transaction, followed by credit of the complainant’s accounts with unauthorized sums of money by the petitioner’s mother. The Inquiry Officer, however, returned a finding that the Establishment could not prove that the signatures on the withdrawal forms were forged. Still, he has said that it is visible that there was a difference in signatures on three of the withdrawal forms. This kind of a finding is open to be termed as perverse, looking to the way the Inquiry Officer has guessworked through idle papers, in the absence of the two customers in the witness box, whose signatures, the Management say, were forged on the withdrawal forms. This Court is constrained to hold that there is a fundamental procedural lapse in not examining the two complainants as witnesses at the inquiry vitiating the proceedings, oral evidence in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty being a salutary imperative. 16. This Court is constrained to hold that there is a fundamental procedural lapse in not examining the two complainants as witnesses at the inquiry vitiating the proceedings, oral evidence in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty being a salutary imperative. 16. The question whether the mere fact of the petitioner depositing through his mother in the account of the account holders (complainants) would amount to a confession, may be an issue best left open to be determined by the Bank, after an inquiry is undertaken in accordance with law, where oral evidence of the two witnesses and any other witness, whom the Bank wish to examine, is led. The principle that it is necessary to examine witnesses in an inquiry, where the likelihood is the imposition of a major penalty, in the event the charge is proved, is a principle too well settled to brook doubt. In this connection, reference may be made to the holding in State of U.P. and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 where it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court: 27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 17. Also of much relevance is the Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. Kishori Lal and Another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) where it has been held: 13. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 : “Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled 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.” 14. Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of domestic/oral inquiry, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge-sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .” 15. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .” 15. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P. 2012 (4) ADJ 4 (NOC), the Division Bench of this Court after survey of law on this issue observed as under: “It is well-settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .” 16. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667, held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under: “10.......Non-holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11.A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. 11.A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and Others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005.” 17. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar vs. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All). 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 2 ILR 570, had also occasion to deal with the same issue. It held: “At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex-parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect.” 19. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect.” 19. The principal of law which emanates from the above judgments are that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case of procedure adopted for inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence also. 20. From perusal of enquiry report it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents on the basis of which charges are levelled on the claimant in the proceedings. 21. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 22. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary. 18. I have subscribed to the same principle in Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 (12) ADJ 144. 19. This Court particularly noticed in this case that a plea was raised in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authority vide paragraph No. 9 of the memorandum of appeal, which reads: 9. Sir, no witness has been produced by the prosecution. Even the customers as mentioned under Para 3, were not called on before the enquiry. Sir, mere production of the document is not enough, contents of documentary evidence has to be proved. Sir, no witness has been produced by the prosecution. Even the customers as mentioned under Para 3, were not called on before the enquiry. Sir, mere production of the document is not enough, contents of documentary evidence has to be proved. Under the law of evidence it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence, and at the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents, but not its truth. Sir, by not producing witness this very important guideline has not been adhered to. Hon’ble Disciplinary Authority also did not consider this important aspect of the case. 20. This plea was not at all dealt with by the Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal. May be, the Appellate Authority was not at all trained to understand the significance of the principle that witnesses have to be examined in disciplinary proceedings involving the likelihood of a major penalty being awarded. This Court must also remark that the observation in the order of the Disciplinary Authority impugned to the effect that in the personal hearing, the petitioner accepted his guilt/charge, as contained in the charge-sheet dated 06.02.2021, appears to be absolutely without basis. This remark of the Disciplinary Authority was also challenged in appeal by raising a specific ground in paragraph No. 18, saying that it is against the facts on record. It is averred by the petitioner that to the best of his knowledge and belief, he never accepted any kind of wrongdoing. One could raise the presumption of regularity in official actions and discard the petitioner's case on this ground alone, but this is a case where the Disciplinary Authority has purported to act on almost a confession by the petitioner. Therefore, fairness of procedure would require that the petitioner's statement in this regard, if he appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 09.06.2021, ought to have been recorded in writing and got duly signed by him, after explaining him the consequences thereof. Therefore, fairness of procedure would require that the petitioner's statement in this regard, if he appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 09.06.2021, ought to have been recorded in writing and got duly signed by him, after explaining him the consequences thereof. It would certainly not be open to the Disciplinary Authority to act on any kind of an admission or confession said to be made by the petitioner in a case where he has all along denied the charges right from the stage of his reply to the charge-sheet, proceedings of the inquiry and his reply to the show-cause notice, all of which disclose his stand in writing. The appellate order hardly deals with these very material contentions raised by the petitioner, and on that ground alone, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. All these material contentions, that have not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority, have been indicated hereinabove. 21. It goes without saying that the respondents would have liberty to proceed from the stage of the charge-sheet afresh and pass fresh orders, holding inquiry, if they so elect, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. It is also clarified that upon the matter being remanded, in adherence to another salutary principle, it would not be open to the respondents to impose, if they so find and hold, a punishment higher than the one now inflicted and proposed to be quashed by this Court. 22. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur and the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Zonal Manager, Human Resource Development, Zonal Office, Punjab National Bank, Lucknow are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and paid his current salary regularly, month by month. It will be open to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. If the respondents elect to proceed afresh, the petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period that he has remained out of employment, and the question of arrears shall then abide by the result of fresh proceedings. If, however, no proceedings are taken, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the arrears of his salary and all other emoluments. If, however, no proceedings are taken, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the arrears of his salary and all other emoluments. In either case, if no fresh proceedings are pursued, or these are pursued and the petitioner reinstated, without a terminal punishment, he would be entitled to all other benefits of continuity and seniority. The respondents, in the event of taking fresh proceedings, if they find the petitioner guilty again, shall not impose a punishment higher than that imposed by the orders impugned and quashed by this Court. 23. There shall be no order as to costs