JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Bank for the following reliefs:- “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Award passed by Sri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference No.12 of 2006 dated 19.01.2012 whereby and wherein the punishment of degradation of 10 lower stage in incremental scale from 15.10.2001 passed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority to Respondent No.1 Sri Awinash Kumar Sinha Staff/Clerk-Cashier was held to be unjustified and directed the Management of the Bank to upgrade the aforesaid 10 lower stages in incremental scale with all consequential benefits. (ii) For the issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the notification of Award by Govt. of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi dated 09.02.2012 whereby and wherein the Award of Reference No.12 of 2006 of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen was published and also for other ancillary reliefs.” 2. The case of the petitioner-Bank, in brief, is that the Respondent No.1 was employed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at Jamua Branch of the erstwhile Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 08.03.1995 to 07.06.1996. The Respondent No.1 is alleged to have committed lapses irregularities and misconduct during the said period. He was issued a Charge sheet No.HO: IR:0073/97-98 dated 09.05.1997 served to the Respondent No.1 by the erstwhile Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Thereafter charge sheet were served upon him on 16.05.1997 for conducting irregularity on 10.08.1995 for sanctioning a loan of Rs.7500/- in the name of fictitious person Gokul Rana from then Manager of the Bank for committing misconduct on 20.11.1995 for posting two Debit Vouchers of Rs.5600/- cash and Rs.211.95 in his Account No.680 and causing loss of Rs.30/- for receiving payment of Rs.70/- on 22.11.1995 against withdrawal form dated 22.11.1995 and for not attending the duties on several dates in the year 1995. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. It is submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. It is submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted against the Respondent-Workman and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the Enquiry Report and also considering the charges stand proved against the petitioner, had imposed the penalty of degradation of ten (10) incremental stage by taking lenient view instead of terminating the Respondent-Workman from the services. It is submitted that the scope of Domestic Enquiry is limited and the Tribunal cannot examine evidence led during Domestic Enquiry and cannot arrive at its own conclusion by merely stating that the enquiry was not bona fide and there was basic error of fact. The learned Tribunal was in error in passing the Award in favour of the Respondent-Workman because the Domestic Enquiry was not conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has wrongly found the Domestic Enquiry to be unfair and impartial and not in accordance with principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order is unwarranted, uncalled for and beyond jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that the Award of Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has stepped out of its jurisdiction and acted as a Court of Appeal and showed undue leniency and favoritism to the Respondent No.1 in waiving the adequate punishment given to him by the competent authority. It is submitted that the punishment imposed on Respondent No.1 by the competent authority is not disproportionate to the misconduct that has been proved against him. It is submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal while modifying the punishment of removal from service has been passed against the Respondent No.1, although the serious charges of misconduct were proved against him by cogent and reliable evidence. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has arbitrarily and wrongfully exonerated him of all punishment in case of well proved charges and illegally reduced the punishment to no punishment and illegally granted him the monetary benefits. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 was found negligent and inefficient in his work. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has arbitrarily and wrongfully exonerated him of all punishment in case of well proved charges and illegally reduced the punishment to no punishment and illegally granted him the monetary benefits. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 was found negligent and inefficient in his work. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 has knowingly and deliberately sponsored the cause of fictitious person in obtaining a loan of Rs.75,00/- and procuring withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs.2500/- was deposited as margin money. The Respondent No.1 could not produce the alleged fictitious person or documents to show that he was a genuine person. It is submitted that so far as Charge No.1 is concerned, the Respondent No.1-Workman has not produced the person concerned (Loanee Gokul Rana) nor produced any document in support of the genuineness of the said person, as such mere deposit cannot waive the act of imposters taking loan and the workman sponsoring imposters. It is submitted that the charges have been fully proved during the course of departmental enquiry and the punishment awarded to the Respondent No.1 is lenient, reasonable and in accordance with the regulation of the Bank, as such the Award is fit to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (2022) 7 SCC 475 (Para-15,16 and 17) (ii) (2003) 4 SCC 364 (Para 14) (iii) Civil Appeal No.4394 of 2010 (Para-8) (iv) (2021) 2 SCC 612 (Para-25 and 42) (v) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164 (Para-11) (vi) Order dated 22.04.2015 passed in LPA No.333 of 2013 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Workman submitted that the impugned Award dated passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad is proper and no interference is required from this Court. 8. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1-Workman was the Secretary/Member of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employee Association and was very active in raising the question of irregularities and also raising the questions for welfare of the employees. 8. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1-Workman was the Secretary/Member of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employee Association and was very active in raising the question of irregularities and also raising the questions for welfare of the employees. He raised the question regarding irregularity in Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employee Housing Scheme and on the action of the petitioner the Management become biased and thereafter Audit Officer without having jurisdiction has passed order dated 06.06.1996 and transferred the Respondent from Jamua Branch to Dantu Branch, the cash activity had been seized and had issued direction to care and guiding about the activity of the present respondent and the photo copy of the transfer letter dated 06.06.1996 of the Audit Officer has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that after transfer the petitioner, the authority had made allegation of irregularity and misconduct in terms of Regulation 19 of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank Service Regulation 1985 read with Regulation 30(1) of said Regulation and issued show cause letter dated 09.05.1997 and asked explanation regarding the irregularities as contained in show cause notice. It is submitted that the Respondent has denied the charges of irregularity and misconduct and of financial risk as alleged in the charge sheet. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated against this Respondent and the respondent was served with the charge sheet and show cause notice. The photo copy of the show cause notice along with alleged charges has been annexed herewith as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner/Bank authorities have not conducted departmental proceeding fairly and not considered the show cause reply given by this respondent and even though the sufficient material available to them to prove that this respondent has not committed or indulge in any irregularity of serious nature and passed order to punish the present respondent by deducting his ten increment. The photo copy of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Enquiry Committee has been enclosed herewith as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the present respondent preferred Appeal against the order dated 15.04.2002 passed by the Enquiry Officer, but the Appellate Authority had also not considered and appreciated the grounds of this respondent and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that the present respondent preferred Appeal against the order dated 15.04.2002 passed by the Enquiry Officer, but the Appellate Authority had also not considered and appreciated the grounds of this respondent and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that the present respondent again filed the petition for review the Appellate order of the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority rejected the review petition by wrong findings without explaining any cogent reason. It is submitted that on dismissal of appeal and review application this respondent approached to the Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad who referred the matter to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour-cum-Shram Mantralaya who after thorough enquiry referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad. 9. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1-Workman is legally selected and appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 22.07.1985 and thereafter he continued in his service till today. 10. It is submitted that the grounds taken by the petitioner are not maintainable because the same were not proved and the petitioner authority nowhere analytically discussed the reasons on which basis they passed erroneous award of punishment. The Tribunal examined all the aspects, considered and appreciated all evidences, analytically perused and discussed on evidences and findings of Disciplinary Authority and thereafter gave reasoned findings and come on conclusion that the Award of punishment was not justified. 11. It is submitted that after hearing both the parties and considering the pleadings and materials available on records the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned Award and exonerated the respondent from the punishment. 12. It is submitted that there is no pecuniary loss to the Bank, it merely adjustment of Rs.30/- in personal account of the petitioner which was duly adjusted in account, so irregularity at all which was adjusted in the year 21.11.1995 could not be re-agitated. 13. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal vested the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of Industrial Dispute Act, who rightly exercised its jurisdiction and had scrutinized the matter on the basis of gravity of charges and given detail findings and reasoned order and set aside the order of degradation of the Workman-Respondent No.2 passed by Management Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. 14. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal vested the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of Industrial Dispute Act, who rightly exercised its jurisdiction and had scrutinized the matter on the basis of gravity of charges and given detail findings and reasoned order and set aside the order of degradation of the Workman-Respondent No.2 passed by Management Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. 14. It is further submitted that no financial loss has been caused to the Bank and no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Bank and hence the punishment order against the Workman-Respondent is illegal. 15. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Workman has relied upon the judgment/order dated 06.02.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.1389 of 2021(Ajay Kumar Binha vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) at Paragraph Nos. 9 to 14 as follows:- “ Para-9 :- So far as the present charge is concerned, the petitioner was found absent in the headquarter on 11.05.2020 i.e., for one day. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 would suggest that the aforesaid defence taken by the petitioner during the departmental proceeding was not at all dealt with by the disciplinary authority while imposing major punishment. Undoubtedly, the disciplinary authority has the power to impose punishment upon the delinquent so as to maintain discipline in the office, however, the said punishment should not be shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Para-10 :- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Government of India & Anr. Vs. George Philip” reported in (2006) 13 SCC 1, has held as under: - 11. It is trite that the Tribunal or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are not hearing an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the delinquent employee. The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal or the High Court is a limited one and while exercising the power of judicial review, they cannot set aside the punishment altogether or impose some other penalty unless they find that there has been a substantial non-compliance with the rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the employee and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravamen of the charge. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to disciplinary action against employees has been settled by a catena of decisions of this Court and reference to only some of them will suffice. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] it was observed as under in para 18 of the Report: (SCC p. 762) “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion 6 to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” Para-11 :- In the case of “S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & Anr.” reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 24. The question of interference on the quantum of punishment has been considered by this Court in a catena of judgments and it was held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary, and thus, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 ], this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 620-21, paras 25 & 27) “25. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. 620-21, paras 25 & 27) “25. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. *** 27. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review.” (emphasis supplied) (See also Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [ (1997) 7 SCC 463 ] , State of U.P. v. J.P. Saraswat [ (2011) 4 SCC 545 ] , Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India [ (2012) 6 SCC 369 ] and High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad [ (2012) 6 SCC 357 ] .) 25. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ], this Court after examining its various earlier decisions observed that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the court cannot “normally” substitute its own conclusion or penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority “shocks the conscience” of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, the court can also consider the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. In a given case, the prevailing circumstances might have forced the accused to act in a certain manner though he had not intended to do so. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the 7 quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority. 26. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the 7 quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority. 26. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [ (2005) 7 SCC 338 ], this Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be “shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.” In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. 27. In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak [ (2008) 7 SCC 580 ] this Court observed that : (SCC p.584, paras 13-14) “13. … A court or a tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. 14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. … The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.” (See also A.P. SRTC v. P. Jayaram Reddy [ (2009) 2 SCC 681 ].) 28. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. (Vide Union of India v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami [ (2011) 13 SCC 553 ] and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India [ (2011) 14 SCC 692 ].) 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [ (2001) 9 SCC 592 ], this Court explained the observations made in [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 ] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 ] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. Para-12 :- Thus, it is well settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may interfere with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority if the punishment awarded to any delinquent is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Para-13 :- In the case in hand, just for one day of absence from the headquarter that too on medical ground during the period of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner has been awarded major punishment which appears to be shockingly disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner coupled with non-payment of salary except subsistence allowance during the suspension period does not commensurate with the charge levelled against him. Para-14 :- Hence, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide memo no. 305(ii) dated 22.10.2020 is set- aside. Para-14 :- Hence, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide memo no. 305(ii) dated 22.10.2020 is set- aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti (the disciplinary authority) to pass a fresh order against the petitioner on the quantum of punishment keeping in view that he allegedly remained absent from the headquarter for only one day i.e., 11.05.2020. Accordingly, the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (i.e., the appellate authority) is also set-aside.” 16. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 was transferred time and again several times and he has been victimized by the Bank. It is submitted that for the charges of different period of minor financial amounts have been clubbed together and show cause notice has been issued on 14.09.2001 (i.e. Annexure-7) by the Management of the Bank. It is submitted that the Charge No.1 relates to an amount of Rs.3400/ for the period 10.08.1995, Charge No.2 relates to an amount of Rs.30/ for the period 21.11.1995, Charge No.3 relates to an amount of Rs.70/ dated 22.11.1995 and the Charge No.5 relates to an amount of Rs.7,000/ for the period 05.01.2001 whereas Charge No.4 relates to tempering of records in attendance . It is submitted that even the learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. No.2, Dhanbad has noticed this fact while passing the impugned Award dated 19.01.2012. 17. It is further submitted that the departmental proceeding was not properly initiated and proper opportunity was not given to the Respondent no.1 to defend his case and a major punishment has been passed reducing to ten scale lower by order dated 15.10.2001 which has been set aside by the impugned Award dated 19.01.2012. It has been submitted that the Respondent No.1 has now retired in the year 2014 itself. 18. The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority had passed the punishment order dated 15.10.2001 against the Respondent- Workman by awarding consolidated punishment of ‘degradation to ten (10) lower stages in incremental scales from the date of this order.’ The Respondent-Workman had filed appeal before the Appellate Authority on 06.11.2001. Thereafter the Chairman i.e. the Appellate Authority had passed the Appellate Order by rejecting the appeal by a non-speaking order. 19. Thereafter the Chairman i.e. the Appellate Authority had passed the Appellate Order by rejecting the appeal by a non-speaking order. 19. It transpires that the Enquiry Officer had submitted Enquiry Report dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure-5) and had held that Charge No.1, 2 and 5 stand proved against the delinquent workman whereas Charge No.3 partially proved whereas Charge No.4 is not proved. 20. It transpires that second show cause notice of proposed punishment for removal from the service was given to the Respondent-Workman on 01.09.2001 vide Annexure-6. 21. Thereafter the Respondent-Workman had filed reply and he was personally heard on 14.09.2001 before the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority. The Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank recorded his finding, as follows:- “Charge No.1- :Shri Sinha submitted that the Borrower - Shri Gokul Rana is not fictitious, -Rs.3400/- recovered in the A/C as recorded in the enquiry proceedings. -Referring to the Branch Post-card dated 26.08.96 to the Borrower, evidence (M) 88(i) & 88 (ii) which was returned to the Bank undelivered, Shri Sinha told that there was plot to malign him. Charge No.2- : Shri Sinha accepted the mistake of posting credit entry of Rs.30/- in his S/B A/c No.680 on 21.11.95 during routine work but told that there is checking initial in the ledger and pleaded that he had no ulterior motive. Charge No.3- :Shri Sinha admitted the mistake of not posting Rs.70/- against the payment received by him from his S/B A/c No.680 on 22.11.1995. He however mentioned that it was posted in the receipt/payment Book which was checked subsequently by the Manager. Charge No.5- : Shri Sinha submitted that payment of Rs.7000 and Rs.1000/- made to Shri Daya Nand Prasad Sahu and Shri B.N. Verma on 23.11.95 and 2.3.96 respectively without posting the same in the respective S/B A/cs escaped his attention as he worked alone on these days and the a/cs relate to the brother of the landlord and another reputed customer of the Bank. He also submitted that it was unintentional and for quick services to such customers." 22. It transpires that thereafter the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman had passed the punishment order dated 15.10.2001(Annexure-8) and had awarded the following punishments, as follows:- (i) Charge No.1 is related to the Respondent employee for causing loss of Rs.7500/- with regard to disbursal of loan of fictitious borrower. It transpires that thereafter the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman had passed the punishment order dated 15.10.2001(Annexure-8) and had awarded the following punishments, as follows:- (i) Charge No.1 is related to the Respondent employee for causing loss of Rs.7500/- with regard to disbursal of loan of fictitious borrower. The petitioner had replied that said borrower Gokul Rana had appeared before the Bank and had deposited Rs.2500/- on 143.08.1995 in his Account and had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the said Account and which was in the notice of then Branch Manager and the said borrower had himself withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the Bank including the lower amount and withdrawal form was duly cancelled by the then Branch Manager. Thus, there were no loss to the Bank. Even the learned Presiding Officer of C.G.I.T had observed by passing the Award that Charge No.1 is not proved against the delinquent employee i.e. Respondent Workman. (ii) Charge No.2 relates to posting two Debit Voucher for Rs.5600 (cash) and Rs.211.95 in his own Bank Account by the Respondent Workman resulting into debit balance of Rs.19.35 in the Account. The Respondent-Workman replied that he was compelled to deposit said voucher for the pay for the strike period and he admitted his mistake by writing in Blue ink as a clerical error and he also admitted for overwriting the debit balance in Red ink and there was no intention in doing so except the clerical error. He also stated to have made credit entry of Rs.30 in his S/B Account No.680 on 21.11.1995 and relevant voucher was sent to Branch Manager for his initial but said credit voucher of Rs.30 was misplaced anywhere in his transit to the Manager table. He admitted that he is prepared to pay any damage that may be calculated by the Bank. Even the learned Tribunal in his Award concluded that the Workman had admitted his mistake and it was unintentional. (iii) Charge No.3 is related to Respondent-Workman for receiving a payment of Rs.70/- against withdrawal dated 22.11.1995 in his S/B Account NO.680 without posting as also cancelling the same by the Manager of the Branch. The Respondent-Workman replied that since the withdrawal form dated 22.11.1995 related to withdrawal from his own S/B Account no.680, the same was sent to Branch Manager for cancellation as well as posting. The Respondent-Workman replied that since the withdrawal form dated 22.11.1995 related to withdrawal from his own S/B Account no.680, the same was sent to Branch Manager for cancellation as well as posting. Ordinarily it was the practice in the Branch that posting of debit voucher used to be done by the staff near whom the ledger was kept. It is possible that the Branch Manager could not cancel the voucher and make ledger posting being busy in the customer’s service. (iv) Charge No.4 is related to Respondent-Workman for not attending the duties on 21.04.1995, 22.04.1995, 24.04.1995, 25.04.1995, 26.04.1995, 27.04.1995, 28.04.1995, 29.04.1995, 02.05.1995, 12.05.1995, 13.05.1995, 22.05.1995, 05.06.1995, 28.06.1995, 29.06.1995, 30.06.1995, 20.09.1995, 27.09.1995, 25.10.1995 and 13.02.1996 at the Branch. However, his initials in the Attendance Register show present at the Branch on duty and thus he has tampered the Bank’s records for personal gain. The Respondent-Workman replied that charge has been framed without proper scrutiny. In fact, he was on leave from 18.04.1995 to 20.04.1995 and had joined duty on 21.04.1995 and had taken over charge of the cash from the Branch Manager vide signature on the D.C.B. Register as well as Volt In and Out Register. Further his signature will be found on the In and Out Volt Book Register on the dates mentioned in the charges except on 05.06.1995 and 20.09.1995. However, his signatures on two dates i.e. 05.06.1995 and 20.09.1995 on the Volt In and Out Register appears to be wanting probably because he might have been busy in other routine works entrusted to him by the Branch Manager. (v) Charge No.5 is related to payment of Rs.7000/- and Rs.1000/- to Shri Dayanand Prasad Sahu and Shri B.N. Verma against their withdrawal forms dated 23.11.1995 and 02.03.1996 drawn on their S/B Account No.501 and S/B Account No.700 respectively without posting the said withdrawal forms in their respective accounts. The withdrawal form dated 23.11.1995 for Rs.7,000/- not actually posted in the account but marked by the Respondent-Workman as posted and was cancelled by him while the payment of Rs.1000/- from S/B Account No.700 was made by him without getting the withdrawal form cancelled. The Respondent-Workman replied that on 23.11.1995 and02.03.1996 the Branch Manager was on leave and he had to carry on the entire Banking business single handed and, therefore the omission as pointed out might have occurred. The Respondent-Workman replied that on 23.11.1995 and02.03.1996 the Branch Manager was on leave and he had to carry on the entire Banking business single handed and, therefore the omission as pointed out might have occurred. Sri Dayanand Prasad Sahu is the landlord of our Jamua Branch premises and also a valuable and reputed person of the society. His works had to be attended on top priority basis. The other customer, namely, Sri B.N. Verma is also a person of good repute and regular customer who could not be ignored or made to sit for long in waiting. 23. The Respondent-Workman after receiving the order of punishment had filed departmental appeal. However, then Chairman i.e. the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.04.2002 had dismissed the appeal. 24. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Charge No.1 could not be proved against the Respondent-Workman and could not be proceeded against the Respondent as it was not existing on the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 09.05.1997. This Court also find that the Tribunal has rightly held that the Charge No.1 was not existing on the date of issuance of charge sheet dated 09.05.1997. 25. So far as Charge No.2, 3 and 5, the Tribunal held to be a mistake but unintentional and it was stated by the Workman that in course of domestic enquiry proceeding the allegation of intercepting Rs.19.35 debit balance by posting credit entry of Rs.30/- in his Account likewise not factually posting but marking as posted without cancellation of the withdrawal of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.1,000/- by Sri Dayanand Prasad Sahu and Sri B.N Verma against their withdrawal forms at the relevant different time in their respective Accounts and lastly the payment of Rs.70/- to have been received on 22.11.1995 against his withdrawal form in his S.B A/c No.680 without posting it followed by its cancellation in respect of the aforesaid three charges respectively which are related to the alleged misconducts under Regulation 19 read with Regulation 30 (i) of the aforesaid Regulation 1985. It will not be less remarkable to note the aforesaid latter 3 alleged misconduct of the workman are related to mistake of un-posting and non-cancellation of withdrawal forms of the customer concerned which may be expected of a man like the workman in the natural course of banking services towards the customer concerned and such mistakes were not intentional. 26. It will not be less remarkable to note the aforesaid latter 3 alleged misconduct of the workman are related to mistake of un-posting and non-cancellation of withdrawal forms of the customer concerned which may be expected of a man like the workman in the natural course of banking services towards the customer concerned and such mistakes were not intentional. 26. The Tribunal further held that the punishment order dated 15.10.2001 awarded to the Workman with degradation to Ten (10) lower stages in incremental scale under Regulation 30 (c) of the aforesaid Regulation 1985 for Charges Nos.1 and 2, stoppage of one increment under Regulation 30 (b) and reprimand under Regulation 30 (a) of the said regulation for Charges No.3 (partly proved) and Charge No.5 respectively with effect from the date of the said order which were highly shocking and disproportionate to the aforesaid allegation and the punishment order is based not on reasoning. 27. The Tribunal further held that the Respondent-Workman is entitled to up-gradation of the aforesaid ten lower stages in incremental scale with all consequential benefits with effect from 15.10.2001. 28. This Court fully concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 29. It transpires that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is non-speaking and no reason has been assigned. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braiithwaite and Co. Ltd and Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 290 , Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan vs. Ram Charan reported in (2006) 5 SCC 272 and Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar reported in (2008) 2 SCC 479 has deprecated the Appellate Authority for passing the non-speaking order. 31. It further transpires that the Chairman of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank, who had passed the punishment order on 15.10.2001 is the one and same person who had passed the appellate order dated 15.04.2002 as Appellate Authority of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. 32. Although the name of Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank is the one and same person and his name is not fully mentioned but the stroke of his signature in both the order i.e. dated 15.10.2001 (punishment order) and the Appellate Order dated 15.04.2002 reveals that the same person has passed both the order. 33. 32. Although the name of Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank is the one and same person and his name is not fully mentioned but the stroke of his signature in both the order i.e. dated 15.10.2001 (punishment order) and the Appellate Order dated 15.04.2002 reveals that the same person has passed both the order. 33. It is well settled from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the person who had passed the order in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority cannot pass the order in the capacity of Appellate Authority. 34. It has been held in the case of Mohapatra and Co. and Anr. vs. State of Orissa and Anr. reported in (1984) 4 SCCF 103 and in the case of A.U Kureshi Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 84 that no man can be a Judge in his own cause. 35. So far as judgment reported in ( 2022) 7 SCC 475 (Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Duraisamy) is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. In the said case the allegation against the Workman was for doing fraudulent withdrawal for 85 R.D Accounts and by way of non-credit of depositions in 75 R.D Accounts and had demanded a sum of Rs.16,59,065/- and thus the Workman was dismissed from service and for which the Workman had deposited a sum of Rs.18,09,041/- after having deducted the fraud but the same is not the case here because the workman has not committed any fraud from any Bank Account by non-deposit of any huge amount rather this is a case of non-deposit of even petty amount. 36. So far as judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164 (United Bank of India vs. Bachan Prasad Lall) is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case because the Workman was dismissed on the ground of misappropriation of funds and for preparing nine (09) fraudulent credit transfer vouchers of Rs.53,465/- and for opening the F.D Account in the name of Asha Devi which could not traced. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable. 37. So far as judgment report in (2021) 2 SCC 612 (Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. vs. Ajai Kumr Srivastava) is concerned, the same relates to judicial review. 38. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable. 37. So far as judgment report in (2021) 2 SCC 612 (Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. vs. Ajai Kumr Srivastava) is concerned, the same relates to judicial review. 38. So far as order dated 22.04.2015 passed in L.P.A No.333 of 2013 by the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court is concerned, the same is also not applicable because in the said case employee had committed misappropriation of Bank loans and subsidy in 23 cases of Milch Cattle and Rs.1000/- each in 23 Borrower Accounts on 12.08.1996 by releasing second instalment of Rs.1,32,448/- and no thumb impression of borrower was taken. In the above background, the employee was dismissed from service. The Hon’ble Division Bench also held it to be case of temporary misappropriation committed by the delinquent employee but is different from the present case. 39. So far as Civil Appeal No.4394 of 2010 (Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors.) is concerned, the same is also not applicable as in the above case, the delinquent was retired compulsorily. Apart from this, the employee was the Bank Manager in question and had shown willingness by deposit of loan of huge amount, but this is not in the present case as the delinquent employee is Workman. Hence, the above judgment is not applicable 40. So far as judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 (Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors.) is concerned, the same is no applicable because the employee was the Assistant Manager of the Bank who was initially suspended and later on dismissed by the Bank on finding guilty. Thus, this judgment is not applicable. 41. The Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this Court had set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in W.P. (S) No.1389 of 2021 vide order dated 06.02.2024 by holding that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere with the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, if the punishment awarded to any delinquent is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the punishment levelled against him. 42. 42. This is a case of punishment of degradation of 10 lower stages in incremental scale from the date of this order in terms of Regulation 30(C) and Regulation 30(a) of Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Regulation only for the charges of non- deposit amount of Rs.3400/ on 26.08.1996 said to be in the name of fictitious person but later on the said amount was deposited by the concerned borrower Gokul Rana and which was not existing as on the date of issuance of charge sheet and also, mistake of Rs.30/- from his S/B Account No.680 not posting of grade of entry on 21.11.1996 and also not posting Rs.70/- against the payment received from his S/B Account No.680 on 22.11.1995 and making payment of Rs.7000/- and Rs.1000/- to Sri Daya Nand Prasad Sahu and Sri B. N. Verma respectively without posting the same in their respective Saving Bank Account which had escaped the attention of the Workman and said one Account was related to the brother of the landlord and the second Account was related to another reputed customer of the Bank. 43. Even for the Charge No.1, the then Branch Manager who had sanctioned loan of Rs.7500/- to the alleged fictitious person had not been examined by the Management-Bank. The Workman-Respondent No.1 had pointed out that the said loan was sanctioned by the then Branch Manager on 10.08.1995 and the occupation of said Borrower-Gokul Rana was Kirana Shop which was confirmed by the pre-inspection report by the then Branch Manager and even the Workman was acquainted with him and as such he had introduced him. Even the said Borrower had actually deposited an amount of Rs.2500/ in the said Account by the borrower on 14.08.1995 who had withdrawn a total amount of Rs.7500/- including the loan amount. Even the concerned person had withdrawn a total sum of Rs.10,000/- including the loan amount against the withdrawal form duly cancelled by the then Branch Manager. Even the said borrower had however paid a sum of Rs.3400/- against his loan in the 1 st week of August, 1996 to the present Branch Manager and the borrower had also assured him to make further deposit against the loan amount as soon as possible. Thus, Gokul Rana was not a fictitious person. 44. Even the said borrower had however paid a sum of Rs.3400/- against his loan in the 1 st week of August, 1996 to the present Branch Manager and the borrower had also assured him to make further deposit against the loan amount as soon as possible. Thus, Gokul Rana was not a fictitious person. 44. Thus, the learned Tribunal committed no error by holding that Charge No.1 was not existing on the date of issuance of the charge sheet. 45. So far as Charge No.5 is concerned, the Workman had pointed out that payment of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.1000/- made to Sri Daya Nand Prasad Sahu and Shri B.N. Verma on 23.11.1995 and 02.03.1996 respectively without posting the same in the respective S/B Accounts escaped his attention as he worked along on these days and the Accounts related to the brother of the landlord and another reputed customer of the Bank. He also submitted that it was unintentional and for quick services to such customers. 46. So far as Charge No.4 is concerned, even the Enquiry Officer has found the same as baseless which is related to several debts whereas Charge No.2 and 3 relates to mistake of posting credit entry of Rs.30/- on 21.11.1995 and Rs.70/- on 22.11.1995 in his own Bank Account but later on it was rectified. 47. Therefore, it is evident that the Workman-Respondent has been given disproportionate punishment which is not commensurate to the gravity of charges committed by him. 48. It is further evident that the Chairman while acting as Disciplinary Authority has passed the punishment order dated 15.10.2001 which is evident from Annexure-8 and thereafter the Chairman in the capacity of Chairman has again passed the Appellate Order dated 15.04.2002 which is Annexure-9 of this writ petition. 49. Thus, it is evident that the charges against the Workman was baseless. However, the Chairman while acting as Disciplinary Authority had passed the harsh punishment which is disproportionate and not commensurate to the gravity of charges against the Workman by degradation of 10 lower stages in his incremental scale. 50. It is evident from Annexure-4 that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority while acting as Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 15.10.2001 which is annexed as Annexure-8 to this writ petition. Thereafter the Chairman i.e. the same person had passed the Appellate Order on 15.04.2002 which is enclosed as Annexure-9 to this writ petition. 50. It is evident from Annexure-4 that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority while acting as Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 15.10.2001 which is annexed as Annexure-8 to this writ petition. Thereafter the Chairman i.e. the same person had passed the Appellate Order on 15.04.2002 which is enclosed as Annexure-9 to this writ petition. 51. In the result, the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference No.12 of 2006 dated 19.01.2012 in favour of the workman is affirmed. 52. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P.(L) No.3018 of 2012 is hereby dismissed.