JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order, dated 24.06.2013, issued by the Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service on conclusion of the departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also assailed the orders passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority upholding the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: Basing on the allegations emerging against the petitioner of having committed a misconduct in discharge of his duties as a Development Officer while posted at Nalbari branch of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the petitioner was vide order, dated 09.09.2010, placed under suspension. The said order of suspension was, however, revoked by the competent authority on 13.01.2012. Thereafter, the authorities of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd, issued to the petitioner a charge-sheet, dated 11.01.2012, levelling against him therein, 9(nine) allegations. The petitioner replied to the said charge-sheet so issued to him, vide his written statement, received by the authority of New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 20.07.2012. Being not satisfied with the contentions so raised by the petitioner in his said written statement, the disciplinary authority proceeded to direct for holding of an inquiry into the allegations so levelled against him vide the charge-sheet, dated 11.01.2012. On conclusion of the inquiry in the matter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 14.01.2013. The said Inquiry Report was communicated to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner, on perusal of the same, proceeded vide his communication, dated 05.03.2013, to submit a representation in the matter. It is to be noted that in the said representation, the petitioner had raised an objection as regards the absence of any reasoning recorded by the Inquiry Officer for the conclusions reached by him with regard to the charges so framed against the petitioner, in the matter. The said Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer along with the representation so submitted by the petitioner, was taken up for consideration by the Chief Regional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority, New India Assurance Co. The said Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer along with the representation so submitted by the petitioner, was taken up for consideration by the Chief Regional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, and on such consideration, by agreeing with the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer, proceeded vide order, dated 24.06.2013, to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service from New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. The petitioner, thereafter, vide his appeal, dated 27.08.2013, approached the appellate authority, praying for interference of the penalty so imposed upon him. The appellate authority, vide order, dated 10.03.2014, proceeded to reject the appeal so preferred by the petitioner in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a memorial in the matter before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, on 06.08.2014, in accordance with the provisions of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003. The said memorial was also rejected by the competent authority vide order, dated 21.07.2015. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Inquiry Report available on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Inquiry Officer had not drawn any finding basing on the evidence coming on record in the inquiry so held in the matter. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Inquiry Officer had only noticed the statements of various prosecution witnesses as well as the statements so made in the inquiry by the petitioner and thereafter, without a further discussion on the evidences so coming on record, proceeded to hold the charges as proved and/or partially proved. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, has also submitted that the Inquiry Officer insofar as the charges No. 4 & 5 was concerned, had held the same to be partially proved. However, the evidence so coming on record even in regard to the charges No. 4 & 5, were not discussed. Insofar as charges No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, that the same were held to be proved without any finding being recorded by the disciplinary authority. 7. Mr. Insofar as charges No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, that the same were held to be proved without any finding being recorded by the disciplinary authority. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, has further submitted that the disciplinary authority had not considered the evidences coming on record and by agreeing with the Inquiry Report so submitted in the matter, had proceeded to impose the penalty upon the petitioner, herein. Mr. Choudhury, has submitted that the reason existing for holding the charges so levelled against the petitioner, to be, either, proved, and/or, partially proved, not being disclosed, the inquiry so held against the petitioner must be held to have been vitiated. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the reviewing authority being so based on the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the same have also been contended to be not sustainable. 8. In view of the above position, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order, dated 24.06.2013, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service, would call for an interference from this Court. 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, at this stage, has submitted that the st petitioner, herein, would attain the age of superannuation on 31 of March, 2025. 10. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd, has submitted that the materials coming on record in the inquiry, had clearly established the misconduct committed by the petitioner, herein, in the matter. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Inquiry Officer had noted the relevant depositions made by the prosecution witnesses and after noticing the depositions so made by the petitioner in the matter, had proceeded to conclude the charges so framed against the petitioner, to be proved, and/or, to be partially proved. The learned counsel has also submitted that a mere perusal of the Inquiry Report so submitted by the Inquiry Officer, would go to reveal that the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer in the matter with regard to the charges so framed against the petitioner, is clearly based on materials coming on record. 11. Mr. The learned counsel has also submitted that a mere perusal of the Inquiry Report so submitted by the Inquiry Officer, would go to reveal that the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer in the matter with regard to the charges so framed against the petitioner, is clearly based on materials coming on record. 11. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances involved, the non-recording of findings with regard to each of the charges so levelled against the petitioner, by the Inquiry Officer, would not vitiate the conclusions with regard to the conclusions so arrived at in the matter. In view of the above circumstances, the charges having been held to be proved and/or partially proved against the petitioner, herein, based on the evidences coming on record; the interference with the Inquiry Report would not be called for. 12. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel, has submitted that the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the matter in its proper perspective, had come to the conclusion that the misconduct so alleged against the petitioner, to be proved warranting imposition of a major penalty and accordingly, the penalty of removal from service so imposed upon the petitioner, would not call for any interference by this Court. 13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 14. At the outset, this Court considering the submissions made by the petitioner that the Inquiry Report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the absence of any finding being so recorded with regard to the charges so levelled against him, the conclusions drawn thereon by the Inquiry Officer, would not be sustainable; is being considered. 15. The provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, governing the manner and method for conduct of Disciplinary Proceeding against the employees of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, provides under Rule 25 of the said Rules of 1975, the procedure for imposing major penalties. 16. Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, mandates the manner, in which, on conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Report is to be prepared. The said provisions of Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1975, further mandates as to what the Inquiry Report is to contain. 17. 16. Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, mandates the manner, in which, on conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Report is to be prepared. The said provisions of Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1975, further mandates as to what the Inquiry Report is to contain. 17. The provisions of Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, being relevant, to the issue arising in the present proceeding, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 25. Procedure for imposing major penalties. *************************************************************************************************** *************************************************************************************************** (19) (i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, report shall be prepared and it shall contain:- (a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, (b) a gist of the defence of the employee in respect of each article of charge, (c) an assessment of the evidene in respect of each article of charge, (d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. Explanation: If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may record its findings on such articles of charge. Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.” 18. A perusal of the requirement under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, pertaining to the Inquiry Report, would go to reveal that the same in addition to having a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, so levelled against a delinquent, must also contain a gist of the defence of the employee in respect of each the article of charge. Thereafter, the said report is required to contain an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge along with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on each article of charge and the reasons thereof. 19. Thereafter, the said report is required to contain an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge along with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on each article of charge and the reasons thereof. 19. The provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, having mandated the manner in which an Inquiry Report is to be prepared, it is now to be seen as to whether the Inquiry Report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the present proceeding, satisfies the requirement of Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the said Rules of 1975. 20. A perusal of the Inquiry Report goes to reveal that the Inquiry Officer, had therein, given a gist of the articles of charge as levelled against the petitioner along with a gist of defence as raised by the petitioner, herein, in the inquiry. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer under the Heading “Analysis and Assessment of Evidences/Witnesses”, proceeded to record the depositions so made by the witnesses appearing in the matter as well as that of the petitioner in connection with each of the charges so levelled against him. It is seen that after recording of such evidence coming on record with regard to the charges so levelled against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer, thereafter, under the Heading “Findings”, proceeded to record the following conclusions: “ (F) Findings: - In the light to Management proceedings, Defense Proceedings, Deposition of witnesses, Listed documents (LD's), Defense Documents (DD's) and analysis cum assessment, the findings are as under:- Charge No One: Proved Charge No Two: Proved Charge No Three: Proved towards insurance of Accidented Vehicle without inspection being done in Break in Insurance Case. Charge No Four:- Partially proved towards issuance of two Policies on same Vehicle on 8/6/10 against collection of cash premium of 11,633/ each from the insured and cancellation of the Policies on 9/6/10 by Mr. Nabajyoti Sarma without depositing the Premium. Policy No. 31/1521 for the Vehicle was reissued in the code of Mr. Samsul Haque, Development Officer after depositing cash Premium by Branch & recovering same from Mr Nabajyoti Sarma. Charge No Five:- Partially proved since staff members, Development Officers and Agents were using passwords and ID's of Three authorized Officials in the Branch. PW-4, Mr. Aswini Sarma confirmed misuse of his ID in this particular charge by Mr. Nabajyoti Sarma though Policy signed by PW-4 only and also Mr. Charge No Five:- Partially proved since staff members, Development Officers and Agents were using passwords and ID's of Three authorized Officials in the Branch. PW-4, Mr. Aswini Sarma confirmed misuse of his ID in this particular charge by Mr. Nabajyoti Sarma though Policy signed by PW-4 only and also Mr. N. Sarma permitted to use ID of PW-4 in few occasions. Charge No Six: Proved Charge No Seven: Proved Charge No Eight: Proved Charge No Nine: Proved” 21. A careful perusal of the Inquiry Report, would go to reveal that the Inquiry Officer has not recorded any reason for the purpose of arriving at the conclusions so drawn by him with regard to the charges so levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has only, in his Inquiry Report, extracted the relevant depositions of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses. However, the Inquiry Officer has not, thereafter, proceeded to record findings as to how basing on the said evidences coming on record, the charges levelled against the petitioner, could be held to be proved and/or partially proved. 22. It is a settled position of law that a Disciplinary Proceeding has been held to be a quasi judicial proceeding. It is a characteristic of such proceeding that conclusion should not only be based on reasons, but the reasons should be made known. Disclosure of reasons guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons minimizes arbitrariness. It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the report is made and it also helps the disciplinary authority to remove any imbalance while considering the same for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, in the event, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report, does not give any reasons for the conclusions so reached by him, it is to be held that the elementary requirement of a quasi judicial process, is not satisfied. 23. In view of the above position and also taking into consideration the provisions of Sub-rule(19) of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report, not having disclosed any reasons for arriving at the conclusions with regard to the charges so framed against the petitioner, herein; this Court is of the considered view that the said report stands vitiated and could not have been acted upon by the disciplinary authority. 24. 24. At this stage, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd, that the disciplinary authority had independently considered the materials coming on record in the inquiry for the purpose of determining the penalty to be so imposed upon the petitioner, herein, is to be considered. 25. A perusal of the order, dated 24.06.2013, issued by the disciplinary authority in the matter, would go to reveal that the disciplinary authority had accepted the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report and had not independently examined the materials coming on record in the inquiry pertaining to the charges so levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Report in the absence of any reasons being recorded for arriving at the conclusions so recorded therein by the Inquiry Officer, having already been held to be vitiated; the order, dated 24.06.2013, being based on such vitiated Inquiry Report, cannot be sustained. 26. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority in the matter having only upheld the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer and approved by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of rejecting the appeal as well as the memorial submitted by the petitioner, herein; the orders passed in the appeal so filed by the petitioner as well as in the memorial preferred by him in the matter, would also call for any interference from this Court. 27. In view of the above conclusions, the order, dated 24.06.2013, issued by the disciplinary authority, stands set aside. Consequently, the order, dated 10.03.2014, and the order, dated 21.07.2015, passed by the appellate authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, respectively, also stand interfered with. The petitioner, herein, is directed to be reinstated in service. 28. The interference in the present proceeding being on the ground that the Inquiry Officer had not recorded any findings and therein, disclosed the reasons for the conclusions so arrived at with regard to the charges so levelled against the petitioner; the allegations so levelled against him being serious in nature and the same being required to be considered in a proper proceeding; this Court hereby grants liberty to the respondents to initiate a denovo departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein. 29. 29. In the event, a decision is arrived at to conduct a denovo departmental proceeding against the petitioner in the matter; the same shall be concluded within a period of 6(six) months from the date of initiation of the same and appropriate orders as would be so called for, shall be so issued on conclusion of such proceedings and the petitioner is also directed to extend due cooperation in the matter for an early resolution of the issues. 30. Given the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the matter, it is hereby provided that the manner in which the period from the date of his removal from service till the date of passing of the present order, is to be regularized, would be determined by the Bank authorities upon conclusion of the denovo proceedings now directed to be conducted against the petitioner. Specific orders in this connection shall be passed by the authorities along with the final orders that would be so passed on conclusion of the said proceedings against the petitioner. 31. With the above directions and observations; this writ petition stands disposed of.