JUDGEMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Standing counsel for the respondents/Mizoram Rural Bank. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was serving as a Manager at the Mizoram Rural Bank when respondent issued the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 against her, which is a major penalty of “reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay for two years”, imposed upon her after the departmental enquiry conducted against her. The said impugned order dated 18.12.2021 arose from the decision of the disciplinary authority/respondent No. 3,which was also confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.03.2022. 3. The allegation against the appellant was that while the petitioner was serving as the Manager at Mizoram Rural Bank, Chandmari Branch, she was alleged to have committed gross negligence and dereliction of duty with mala fide intention on 14.01.2019, when she made a transfer of Rs. 12,12,23,041.61/- from H.O. Provision-Others A/c No. 93712000013 to 25 different IBD Account of branches/HO as reversal of funds for reconciliation which were transferred to the Provision-Other a/c on 31.03.2018. Out of the said amount of Rs. 63,63,778.41/- was transferred to Mr. Inter Bank Deposit Siaha, Account No. 970000268322 of Tuipang Branch, though the amount was not transferred to Provision-Others Account No. 93712000013 earlier on 31.03.2018 and thus, the petitioner was alleged for the subsequent misappropriation of the amount in different accounts, which she was asked to explain within 7(seven) days, as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her vide letter dated 23.12.2020. 4. On receiving the letter dated 23.12.2020, the petitioner had justified her action by pointing out that from the month of September, 2018 onwards, there was a big push to eliminate all reconciled entries in transactions, especially Branch Clearing General Accounts and Intra Bank Deposit (IBD) Accounts. An Office Order No. 12 dated 07.09.2018 was issued where Mr. Zosangpuia was put in-charge of resolving the unreconciled transactions under the supervision of the Senior Manager (Accounts) and the General Manager. As the petitioner was one of the incumbent officers in the Head Office at that time, she had read and acknowledged the said office order by putting her initial on it. Zosangpuia was put in-charge of resolving the unreconciled transactions under the supervision of the Senior Manager (Accounts) and the General Manager. As the petitioner was one of the incumbent officers in the Head Office at that time, she had read and acknowledged the said office order by putting her initial on it. However, on 14.04.2019, around 4 PM in the afternoon, even though the petitioner was an officer-in- charge of Fixed Assets etc., she was requested by the superior officer Mr. Zosangpuia, to authorize a trickle totaling feed transaction of Rs. 12,12,23,041.60 for reconciliation of several accounts with Head Office BGL since the petitioner was the only officer available at that particular time. The petitioner had asked Mr. Zosangpuia if everything was in order and he replied affirmatively. After taking a quick glance at the transactions and finding that the credit and debit transactions tallied,the petitioner had authorized the transaction for the sake of smooth functioning of the reconciliation works. Since Management had put its implicit faith in his ability to perform reconciliation duties, the petitioner had no inkling of the sinister intent of her colleague, hiding a fraudulent transaction amidst authentic entries. So unknowingly, because of the trust placed on Mr. Zosangpuia by the petitioner, as well as him being given responsibility for the reconciliation exercise and as her Senior Manager (Accounts) was out of station on that day, the petitioner ended up authorizing the transaction which contained a fraudulent entry, cleverly hidden amongst authentic ones. 5. However, in spite of the Petitioner's explanation letter dated 23.12.2020, Chargesheet No. CHM/PER/DPD-VIG/GEN-39/23 dated 29.05.2021 was served to her by the Competent Authority and Chairman, MRB wherein the Article of Charges levelled against the Petitioner and the statement of imputations thereto was also enclosed to the chargesheet. The charges leveled against the Petitioner which were elaborated in the 'statement of imputations' are the same with the allegations which were made against the petitioner vide the chargesheet dated 29.05.2021.The petitioner was directed to submit, within 15 days of receipt of the Chargesheet, her Written Statement of defense. The charges leveled against the Petitioner which were elaborated in the 'statement of imputations' are the same with the allegations which were made against the petitioner vide the chargesheet dated 29.05.2021.The petitioner was directed to submit, within 15 days of receipt of the Chargesheet, her Written Statement of defense. In the Chargesheet, it was clearly directed that the enquiry will be held in respect of the Articles of Charge that are not admitted by the petitioner and the petitioner shall be allowed to produce relevant documentary evidence and/or witness, if any, in support of her defense and the petitioner shall also be allowed to cross- examine the witnesses produced by the Bank in support of the charge. The petitioner was charged for discharging her duty with gross negligence and dereliction of duty and had committed gross misconduct in terms of Regulation N0s. 18 and 20 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation 2010. 6. In response to the Chargesheet dated 29.05.2021, the petitioner submitted her written statement of defense dated 17.06.2021 wherein, the explanation which the petitioner made in her written statement of defense was also as what the petitioner had stated and explained in her explanation letter dated 23.12.2020, whereby, the charges leveled against the Petitioner were not admitted by her. 7. That in spite of submission of her Written Statement of Defense, the petitioner was served with another Ref No.RO-13/RM-Gen/06 dated 31.08.2020 by which she was directed to appear at 'Regional Manager's Office Chamber, MRB, Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl' at 11:00 AM on 06.09.2021 for a preliminary hearing. It was further stated therein that the Petitioner has to attend the preliminary hearing without fail and bring any documentary evidence she has in triplicate for submission to the Enquiry Officer during the meeting. Accordingly, the Petitioner had personally appeared before the Enquiry Officer, Shri V.L Zahawma, Regional Manager, MRB and Presenting Officer Shri Arjun Jaishi, Manager, Head Office on the date and place fixed. The petitioner was heard and she did not admit to the charges levelled against her and a final hearing was conducted at 'Regional Manager's Office Chamber, MRB, Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl' on 21.10.2021, at 3:00 PM. 8. The petitioner was heard and she did not admit to the charges levelled against her and a final hearing was conducted at 'Regional Manager's Office Chamber, MRB, Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl' on 21.10.2021, at 3:00 PM. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner was served with a letter No. CHM/DPD-VIG/GEN- 39/72 dated 28.10.2021, by which she was furnished with the impugned 'Enquiry Report-cum-Findings and Disciplinary Authority's Comments' wherein it was written by the Disciplinary Authority (the Respondent No.3) that although the findings of the Enquiry Officer did not prove the allegations/charges against the Petitioner, it was not admitted by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority treated the allegations as proved. In the said letter dated 28.10.2021, the Petitioner was asked to submit her Written Statement of Defense within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the said letter. Then, the Petitioner submitted her Statement of Defence on 11.11.2021 within the prescribed period against the Disciplinary Authority's letter dated 28.10.2021 wherein she gave the same explanation given to her earlier by stating that the petitioner had authorized the transaction, for the sake of smooth functioning of the reconciliation works and without any ulterior motive. 9. The petitioner was however issued with a Show Cause Notice vide letter No. CHM/PER/DPD- VIG/39/91 dated 29.11.2021 by the Respondent No. 3, wherein it was stated that a major penalty of 'Reduction to two stages lower in time scale of pay for a period of two years and the officer shall not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction shall have the effect of postponing the future increments of her pay' was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner and for which, she was called upon to show cause, within 15 days of receipt of the letter, as to why the proposed penalty should not be given to her. 10. That in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2021, the Petitioner submitted a letter of explanation dated 16.12.2021 wherein she stated and explained that the allegation made against her are false. The Petitioner had been wrongly accused of committing misconduct in terms of Regulation Nos. 18 and 20 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. The Petitioner had not contravened the aforementioned Regulation Nos. The Petitioner had been wrongly accused of committing misconduct in terms of Regulation Nos. 18 and 20 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. The Petitioner had not contravened the aforementioned Regulation Nos. 18 and 20 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 and she had not violated the extant instructions of the Bank and she also had no intention of violating the Bank's interest in the charges levelled against her for and that she had authorized the transaction, for the sake of smooth functioning of the reconciliation works and without any ulterior motive or in connivance with Mr. Zosangpuia. That Mr. Zosanpuia had also executed an affidavit certifying that she was not involved in any fraudulent transaction with him and she had only acted on his request for reconciliation and therefore not responsible for any misappropriation. Moreover, the fraud had already been committed long before this transaction, for which charges leveled against her was made. However, the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 was issued against her imposing the major penalty as already mentioned. 11. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an Statutory Appeal dated 27.01.2022 before the Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Board of Directors, Mizoram Rural Bank, Head Office, Aizawl, Mizoram, which was subsequently disposed of by the Respondent No. 2 in its 219th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 18.02.2022 wherein the Appeal of the Petitioner was rejected. The decision of the Respondent No. 2 was conveyed to the Petitioner by the Chief Manager (P&OA) vide the impugned letter Ref. No. CM(Per)/Gen-39/2027 dated 22.03.2022, wherein only the extract of the relevant portion of the impugned decision was informed to the Petitioner. In the said impugned letter dated 22.03.2022, it is stated that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected thereby upholding the impugned Order No. CHM/DPD- VIG/GEN-39/104 dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3. The operative portion of the impugned decision of the Respondent No.2 is highlighted and conveyed to the Petitioner, which is as quoted below – "The Board, being the Appellate Authority, have carefully gone through the imputations of misconduct, findings of Enquiry Authority along with the comments of Disciplinary Authority, CSO's submission and other related papers/documents, resolved to uphold the decision of the Disciplinary Authority". 12. Mr. 12. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the explanation given by the petitioner that she has never admitted to the allegations made against her and that she had no intention to misappropriate the funds as alleged and that she had given her signature and passed the bills without any intention to commit any fraud or misappropriation. Mr. Zosangpuia had also executed an affidavit dated 21.12.2020 wherein he stated that the petitioner was not involved in the transaction made by him in the misappropriation of money and submitted that the petitioner had no intention to misappropriate the money for which she has authorized the transaction. He submitted that the respondents have failed to prove that the petitioner had violated regulation 18 and 20 of the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 and the petitioner had been serving the Bank faithfully and honestly and had always worked to promote the Bank’s interest with utmost endeavor. He submitted that it is not alleged that she has not shown courtesy to the government servants or the customers of the bank. That she has never involved herself in any unscrupulous activity in connection with the bank or derived any personal gain for herself. That no malefide intention has been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no monetary loss suffered by the Bank since the money of said amount of Rs. 63,63,778.41/, said to be misappropriated was transferred to another branch of the same Bank in order to reconcile the figures at the end of the year. He also submitted that the article of charge has not mentioned the amount of pecuniary loss suffered or how the pecuniary loss transpired. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that the Inquiry officer found the articles of charge against her was not proved, however without giving any cogent reasons it was rejected by the disciplinary authority and major penalty was imposed upon her without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He also submitted no personal appearance of the petitioner was called for by the disciplinary authority to explain herself while the delinquent officer has a right of personal hearing. He submitted that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary authority but was not heard personally. He also submitted no personal appearance of the petitioner was called for by the disciplinary authority to explain herself while the delinquent officer has a right of personal hearing. He submitted that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary authority but was not heard personally. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the disciplinary authority is required as observed by the High Court of Karnataka in Centre for Wildlife Studies (R) Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors in Writ Petition No. 27301 of 2023 decided on 25.06.2024 and the decision of the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 wherein it held that the appellate authority should record his reasons for coming to its findings and in the case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari , reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 para 7 wherein the Apex court held that the delinquent officer must be given an opportunity of being heard when the Disciplinary authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer. 14. The learned counsel also submitted that while the respondent No. 2 disposed of the petitioner’s statutory appeal in the impugned decision dated 18.02.2022, it is clear that the appellant authority did not exercise its judicious manner and had merely upheld the order of the disciplinary authority dated 18.12.2021. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the court that the disciplinary authority is the Chief Manager and the Chairman of the appellate authority is also the Chief Manager. Thus, the same Officer is the disciplinary authority and also the Chairman of the appellate authority for which reason, it is clear that the appellate authority would be bias while considering the appeal against his own findings. The learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority imposed penalty against the petitioner against which she filed the departmental authority and the appeal was considered by the Board wherein the Chairman of the board and the disciplinary authority was also the same person. He submitted that the disciplinary authority is also the chairman of the appellate authority i.e., Board of Directors and thus the principles of natural justice is violated. 15. Mr. He submitted that the disciplinary authority is also the chairman of the appellate authority i.e., Board of Directors and thus the principles of natural justice is violated. 15. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that there is an actual loss of Rs. 63,63,778.48/- which after being transferred to Mr. Inter Bank Deposit Siaha, Account No. 970000268322 of Tuipang Branch, was subsequently misappropriate into different accounts as stated by the petitioner herself at para 3 of the writ petition. He submitted that Mr. Zosangpuia was not a superior officer to the petitioner but both were officers with different charge. Mr. Zosangpuia was in-charge with accounts section and the petitioner was in charge with fixed assets wherein the petitioner has admitted of doing the work which was not allotted to her. He further submitted that the affidavit of Mr. Zosangpuia is not reliable and that the said Mr. Zosangpuia has been terminated from his office due to the said misappropriation and also has cases of misappropriation of other sum of money in other cases during his service. He submitted that the petitioner had acted incollusion with Mr. Zosangpuiaand the petitioner was also involved in the present scam. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that because of the sensitive nature of the work which was entrusted to Mr. Zosangpuia, he was under the supervision of a more senior officer and it was not the duty of the petitioner to pass the transaction only on the request of Mr. Zosangpuia without informing or getting the permission from his Supervisor. He submitted that the petitioner has herself admitted that she has done something for which she has not been put in charge. Her only plea is that she has not done it with an evil mind, but the fact remains that she had done the function works which was not allotted to her but allotted to Mr. Zosangpuia, which is an act against the bank instructions and the result is that it had caused the Bank a loss of Rs.63,63,778.48/- . 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner was given a chance of personal hearing before the enquiry officer and that all the procedure has been followed since show cause notice was issued and she had the chance to reply to the show cause notice. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner was given a chance of personal hearing before the enquiry officer and that all the procedure has been followed since show cause notice was issued and she had the chance to reply to the show cause notice. She was also issued a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority and she submitted her reply/response accordingly. She had admitted of the action of which she has been charged with, for which reason the bank had suffered a huge loss of money. On appeal before the appellant authority,she did not prayer for personal hearing and the Appellant Board had gone through the findings of the disciplinary authority and affirmed the findings. He submitted that the degree of proof required is only preponderance of probability and not a prove beyond reasonable doubt wherein she has admitted of doing the act for which she was accused of doing, which she had done on the request of her colleague. 17. The learned counsel submitted that the correctness of the findings cannot be question by the writ court but can only look into whether the principles of natural justice have been violated. 18. The learned Standing counsel submitted that as per the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, under Section 9 of the said Act, the Board of Directors which is the appellate authority consists of the Chairman along with the following members:- “9. Board of directors .-(1) The Board of directors shall consist of the Chairman appointed under sub-section (1) of section 11, and the following other members, namely:— 3[(a) two directors, who are not officers of the Central Government, State Government, Reserve Bank, National Bank, Sponsor Bank or any other bank, to be nominated by the Central Government; [Provided that no person shall be nominated as a director, if he is already a director on the Board of any other Regional Rural Bank;] b) one director, who is an officer of the Reserve Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; (c) one director, who is an officer of the National Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; (d) two directors, who are officers of the Sponsor Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; and (e) two directors, who are officers of the concerned State Government, to be nominated by that Government:]” 19. The learned Standing counsel, therefore submitted that even though the disciplinary authority is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors by virtue of his position/post as a senior, the decision of the appellate authority is not a decision of an individual but all the members of the Board of Directors and therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the appellate authority in upholding the decision of the disciplinary authority is bias or unfair. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan reported in (2022) 1 SCC 373 , wherein it was held that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority in appeal is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee and keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed it was not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. That the scope for the writ court to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority is very limited. 20. This court has given its conscious considered to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record. This court finds that the writ court has a limited scope to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as observed by the Apex court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (supra) wherein the Apex court had held as follows; “16. The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well- settled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141 HL] observed: “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” 21. The Apex court also held in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. In the case of Lalit Popli Vs. The Apex court also held in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. In the case of Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Others , reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 , the Apex Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction of Article 226, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. 22. Keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council (supra), B.C. Chaturvedi (Supra) and Lalit Popli (Supra) , this Court finds it appropriate to examine whether there are any procedural lapse or irregularities which would vitiate the process in which the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority arrived at its findings. 23. In the instant case it is seen that the disciplinary authority had chosen not to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. 24. It is also seen that the petitioner has taken the plea that she was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the disciplinary authority which had disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. On a perusal of the findings of the disciplinary authority this court finds that there is no infirmity with its finding in not agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the Articles of charge framed against the petitioner, especially when the petitioner herself has admitted that she had authorized the transaction leading to pecuniary loss to the Bank. It is also the considered view of this Court that there were no procedural errors while conducting the Departmental Proceedings by the disciplinary authority, wherein show cause notice was given to the appellant when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer on 28.10.2021 and she had filed her written statement in response. Thereafter, she was again given a show cause notice on 29.11.2021 regarding the proposed penalty to which she had also given her reply. It is seen that she has not made any application for personal hearing. This court finds that the facts and the situation in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. Thereafter, she was again given a show cause notice on 29.11.2021 regarding the proposed penalty to which she had also given her reply. It is seen that she has not made any application for personal hearing. This court finds that the facts and the situation in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supra) is different from the instant case wherein in the cited case it appeared that there was already a pre-decision to impose major penalty by the disciplinary authority. 25. This court however, finds that in the instant case, when the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the findings of the disciplinary authority dated 18.12.2021, which is the Board of Directors constituted under Section 9 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, under the said Act the appellate authority consists of the Chairman along with members as follows :- [(a) two directors, who are not officers of the Central Government, State Government, Reserve Bank, National Bank, Sponsor Bank or any other bank, to be nominated by the Central Government; [Provided that no person shall be nominated as a director, if he is already a director on the Board of any other Regional Rural Bank;] b) one director, who is an officer of the Reserve Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; (c) one director, who is an officer of the National Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; (d) two directors, who are officers of the Sponsor Bank, to be nominated by that Bank; and (e) two directors, who are officers of the concerned State Government, to be nominated by that Government:]” 26. It is however seen that the board of directors is chaired by the disciplinary authority against which the appeal is preferred, under such circumstances this court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that the principles of equity and fair play appear to have been followed when the matter was considered by the appellate authority. Even though the decision is to be taken by all the members of the Board of Directors and not the Chairman alone, however when the matter is regarding the findings of the disciplinary authority who is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the appropriateness and the impartiality of the Board of Directors is left open for questioning/scrutiny. 27 . 27 . In view of the above, this court finds that the principles of equity and fair play would be served if the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal filed by the petitioner under regulation 49 read with regulation 50 (1) of the Mizoram Rural Bank (officers and Employees) Service Regulations,2010 against the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the disciplinary authority wherein in the interest of justice and fair play the disciplinary authority should recluse himself from being a member, while considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner may also be given the chance of being heard in person, if so requested, and the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously considering that the appeal was filed th on 27 January, 2022, with a speaking order by giving out clear reasons of its findings and subsequent decision. 28. Accordingly, Writ petition (C) No. 110 of 2022 stands disposed of as above.