ORDER : Anand Singh Bahrawat, J. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, the order impugned dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure - P/1) issued by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to quash the consequential order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure - P/2) with a further direction to reinstate to the petitioner in services and pay arrears of salary for intervening period with all consequential benefits alongwith interest. (ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners including the costs throughout may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Branch Manager, Scale-I, on 16th November, 1987. Thereafter, he was posted at the Indergarh Branch on 19th January, 2009, where he continued to serve in the said capacity until 3rd February, 2011. It is submitted that during the aforesaid period of posting, the respondent-Bank had introduced a policy/scheme pertaining to grant and sanction of loans against the security of receipts issued by government-approved warehouses. 3. It is submitted that pursuant to the said Scheme while discharging his official duties, proceeded to sanction certain loans in accordance with the prescribed norms and, upon completion of all procedural formalities, disbursed the said loans. The relevant documentation and details concerning the sanctioned loans were duly forwarded to the competent higher authorities of the Bank, who thereafter granted requisite approval and accorded formal sanction in respect of the said transactions. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent-Bank, at a later stage, levelled allegations against the petitioner, asserting that there had been irregularities in the process of loan sanctioning. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 20th July, 2011. Subsequent thereto, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Upon conclusion of the said proceedings and completion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent-Bank, by way of final order dated 16th May, 2013 (Annexure P-1), imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Upon conclusion of the said proceedings and completion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent-Bank, by way of final order dated 16th May, 2013 (Annexure P-1), imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The relevant extract from the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced hereinbelow: **tk¡p dk;Zokgh esa çLrqr fooj.k leLr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk çLrqr fu"d"kZ çfrosnu dk v/;;u djus ds mijkar eSa tkap vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls lger gw¡A vr% lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fu.kZ; ysrs gq, vuq'kklukRed çkf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r ls vkaf'kd fl) ik;s x;s vkjksi Øekad 10 ds fy, eSa Jh dqyJs"B dks lsUVªy e/;çns'k xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2012 ¼iwoZorhZ lriqM+k ueZnk {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2010½ dh /kkjk 18 ,oa 20 dk nks"kh ekurs gq, lsUVªy e/;çns'k xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2012 ¼iwoZorhZ lriqM+k ueZnk {ks=h; xzkehu cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2010½ dh /kkjk 39&1 ¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;qfr tks lkekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjr djrk gw¡A ftls eSa vkjksi dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, mfpr ;qfälaxr ,oa vkuqikfrd (Commensurate to the gravity of charge) ikrk gwaA mijksäkuqlkj vkjksiokj ikfjr n.M fuEukuqlkj gS%& Ø- vkjks-Ø- fu"d"kZ ikfjr n.M 1 1 vkjksi vkaf'kd fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 2 2 vkjksi fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 3 3 vkjksi fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 4 4 vkjksi fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 5 5 vkjksi fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 6 6 vkjksi vkaf'kd fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½&1 ds rgr orZeku le;osrueku esa lap;h i zHkko ds lkFk 05 osruo`f) dh deh djus ,oa deh mDr vof/k ds nkSjku mUgsa ns; fu;fer okf"kZd osruo`f);ka mikftZr gksus dk n.M ikfjrA 7 7 vkjksi vkaf'kd fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½&1 ds rgr orZeku le;osrueku esa lap;h i zHkko ds lkFk 05 osruo`f) dh deh djus ,oa deh mDr vof/k ds nkSjku mUgsa ns; fu;fer okf"kZd osruo`f);ka mikftZr gksus dk n.M ikfjrA 8 8 vkjksi fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA 9 9 vkjksi vkaf'kd fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½&1 ds rgr orZeku le;osrueku esa lap;h izHkko ds lkFk 05 osruo`f) dh deh djus ,oa deh mDr vof/k ds nkSjku mUgsa ns; fu;fer okf"kZd osruo`f);ka mikftZr gksus dk n.M ikfjrA 10 10 vkjksi vkaf'kd fl) /kkjk 39&1¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjrA lesfdr ikfjr n.M Jh jkds'kdqekj dqyJs"B fuyfEcr vf/kdkjh lanxZ 1 ij cSad }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy, ikfjr n.M dks esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ cSad ds vuq'kklukRed çkf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r ls fofHkUu vkjksiksa ds fy, çnÙk vyx vyx] n.Mksa dks lesfdr djrs gq, lcls cM+k n.M lsUVªy e/;çns'k xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2012 ¼iwoZorhZ lriqMk ueZnk {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh½ V lsok fofu;e 2010½ dh /kkjk 39&1 ¼[k½ (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lkekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjr djrk gw¡A ftls eSa vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, mfpr] ;qfälaxr ,oa vkuqikfrd (Commensurate to the gravity of charge) ikrk gwa A ;g Hkh ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh jkds'kdqekj dqyJs"B dh iwoZ dh fuyEcu vcf/k dks MîwVh ij O;rhr ugha dh xbZ vof/k (Period not spent on Duty) ekuk tk;sxk rFkk Jh dqyJs"B dks iw.kZ osru ,oa mä fuyEcu vof/k ds fuokZg HkÙks ds vUrj dh jkf'k dh ik=rk ugha gksxh ;k mä fuyEcu vof/k ds fy;s dksbZ vU; vkfFkZd ykHk ns; ugha gksxs rFkk mUgsa fuyEcu vof/k dh osruo`f);ksa ;k vU; dksbZ lsok lEca/kh ykHk ugha çkIr gksxsaA 5. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which has been dismissed in the following manner: vihy dk fujkdj.k funs'kd e.My }kjk Jh jkds'k dqekj dqyJs"B dh vihy] tkap vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ çfrosnu e; vuqyXud nLrkost] ml ij Jh dqyJs"B }kjk çLrqr vfHker ,oa vfUre n.Mkns'k ftlesa vkjksiksa dk fooj.k Hkh fufgr gS dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;k A Jh dqyJs"B }kjk viuh vihy esa bl ckr ij fo'ks"k tksj fn;k x;k tk¡p dk;Zokgh] ds nkSjku tk¡p esa dksbZ xokg çLrqr ugha fd, x, ,oa flQZ çLrqr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij gh tk¡p vf/kdkjh us mUgsa lR; ekurs gq, viuk fu"d"kZ çfrosnu rS;kj fd;k gSA bl ij funs'kd e.My }kjk tk¡p izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k fd nLrkost Jh dqyJs"B }kjk lR;kfir fd, x, Fks ,oa pwafd Jh dqyJs"B foHkkxh; tk¡p esa mifLFkr jgrs gh Fks vc mu nLrkostksa ij vfo'okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha lkeus vkrkA blds lkFk gh Jh dqyJs"B }kjk viuh vksj ls xokgksa dh lwph çLrqr dh xbZ Fkh ftlesa fyf[kr xokgksa dks çLrqr djus dh vuqefr tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk rRdky ns nh xbZ Fkh vr% tk¡p dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj ikbZ xbZ gSA Jh dqyJs"B }kjk ,slh dksbZ lk{; çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls mudh vihy esa fy[ks rF; fd muij foHkkxh; tk¡p dk;Zokgh ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lkft'k ds dkj.k dh xbZ gS dh iqf"V gks ldsA ;g lR; gS fd Jh dqyJs"B ds lkFk lkFk vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh vkjksi i= tkjh fd, x, gSa ,oa muds f[kykQ Hkh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh xbZ@dh tk jgh gS ijUrq Jh dqyJs"B ds vkjksi i= esa fn, x, foLr`r fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd muds }kjk 'kk[kk çca/kd bUnjx<+ ds :i esa bl çdj.k esa dh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa dk vkjksi i= mUgsa fn;k x;k gSA tcfd vU;ksa dks bl çdj.k ls lacaf/kr fHkUu vfu;ferrkvksa dk vkjksi i= fn;k x;k gS vr% ^^la;qä t‚p dk çko/kku ;gk¡ ykxw ugha gksrk gSA ;fn 'kk[kk esa gh jgdj nks ;k vf/kd laok;qäksa }kjk Jh dqyJs"B ds lkFk feydj bl çdj.k esa vfu;ferrk dh xbZ gksrh rHkh la;qä tk¡p dh vko';drk gksrh A Jh dqyJs"B ds vkjksiksa dk fooj.k tks fd vfUre n.Mkns'k esa fufgr gS dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa mlds laxr tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ çfrosnu dk Hkh voyksdu fd, tkus ij funs'kd e.My }kjk ik;k x;k fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk çR;sd vkjksi dks fl) djus ds iwoZ i;kZIr :i ls fo'ys"k.k ,oa mu dkj.kksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ftlds dkj.k os vkjksiksa dks ^fl) ugha^ ikus ds urhts ij igqaps gSA vr ;gk¡ vyx ls fo'ys"k.k dh vko';drk ugha gSA mijksä dkj.kkso'k funs'kd e.My }kjk ,der ls fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd Jh dqyJs"B dks vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk fn, x, fuEu n.M /kkjk 39&1 ¼[k½& (V) ds rgr inP;wfr tks lkekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fujgZrk gksxh dk n.M esa fdlh ifjorZu@f'kfFkyhdj.k dh vko';drk eglwl ugha gksrh gSA cSad dks gqbZ {kfr ,oa Jh dqyJs"B ij yxs vkjksiksa dks ns[krs gq, vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k n.M loZFkk mfpr ,oa- ;qfälaxÙk gSA vr% vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk Jh dqyJs"B dks çnÙk n.M dks *;Fkkor* j[krs gq, vihy dk fujkdj.k fd;k tkrk gSA vihy dk fujkdj.k lacaf/kr vihykFkhZ dks lwfpr djus gsrq ekuuh; funs'kd e.My }kjk v/kksgLrk{kjh dks vf/k—r fd;k x;k gSA var% v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk rnuqlkj lwpuk vkidks çsf"kr dh tk jgh mijksäkuqlkj uksV djsa A ¼vkj0 ds0 :axVk½ egkizca/kd** 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, is ex facie unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is urged that the said order was passed without due consideration of the material facts, grounds, and explanations as set forth by the petitioner in his detailed response to the show cause notice. 7. It is further submitted that in response to the show cause notice and the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted a detailed and comprehensive reply dated 09.03.2013, wherein he specifically dealt with each of the charges levelled against him. In the said reply, the petitioner not only refuted the allegations but also brought on record various factual aspects and other grounds in his defence. 8. Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal dated 01.07.2013 before the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the said appeal comprised a point-wise and exhaustive rebuttal to each of the charges framed against the petitioner, spanning across 23 separate paragraphs. 9. It is further submitted that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has made any endeavour to objectively consider or adjudicate upon the detailed submissions, explanations, and grounds so raised by the petitioner in his reply and in appeal. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner had been discharging his duties as Branch Manager, Scale-I, since the year 1987, and that the order of dismissal from service entails serious civil consequences, including deprivation of livelihood and loss of service benefits. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supported the dismissal order as well as appeal rejection order and submitted that the sufficient opportunity of being heard has been granted to petitioner and necessary documents have been supplied to him. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 , State Bank of India and others Vs. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 , State Bank of India and others Vs. Bela Bagchi and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 435 and by the co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. United Commercial Bank and others passed on 31.08.2023 in WP. No.1235/2012 Thus, learned counsel for respondents prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is evident from the record that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to address or take into consideration the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the findings recorded in the enquiry report. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed without dealing with or adjudicating upon each of the specific factual aspects and other grounds raised by the petitioner in his defence. There is no indication in the said order that the Disciplinary Authority has applied its mind to the explanation offered by the petitioner or the material placed on record. 15. Similarly, the appellate order also reveals a lack of due application of mind. The Appellate Authority has not examined or adverted to the multiple grounds and contentions raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal, which comprised a detailed rebuttal of the charges spread across 23 paragraphs. In the absence of any reasoned discussion or consideration of the grounds raised, the appellate order too is rendered non-speaking and unreasoned. 16. Such a mechanical and perfunctory approach on the part of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, particularly in a matter involving civil consequences, is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also falls short of the standards of fairness, transparency, and accountability required in quasi-judicial decision-making. 17. In Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. 17. In Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” 18. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while imposing a major penalty such as dismissal from service, and likewise, at the stage of consideration of an appeal against such punishment, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority to consider each and every factual aspect and other ground raised by the delinquent employee in his reply and appeal. The requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order is not a mere procedural formality, but an essential facet of the principles of natural justice, particularly in cases where the order in question entails serious civil consequences, such as loss of livelihood and forfeiture of service benefits. 19. In the present case, this Court finds that both the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of dismissal dated 16.05.2013, and the Appellate Authority, while rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, have failed to consider the detailed submissions, factual clarifications, and legal contentions raised by the petitioner. As such, the impugned orders are vitiated for want of due application of mind and for being non-speaking and unreasoned. 20. As such, the impugned orders are vitiated for want of due application of mind and for being non-speaking and unreasoned. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently emphasized that every judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative or executive order, which entails adverse civil consequences for an individual, must necessarily be supported by adequate, cogent, and discernible reasons. The recording of reasons is not a mere formality but a fundamental requirement of fair decision-making. It ensures transparency, facilitates accountability, and enables effective judicial review. The absence of reasons in an order affecting the rights, interests, or livelihood of a person renders such an order vulnerable to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice. 21. In light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (supra) , which emphasizes the necessity of recording reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders, this Court is of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, strictly in accordance with law and after due application of mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner. 22. Consequent upon the above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Authority being non-speaking, cannot sustain the judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, has to be sacrificed at the alter of judicial review. 23. Conclusively, this Writ Petition stands allowed to the following extent:- (a) The impugned order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quashed; (b) The order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Authority, is also quashed; (c) The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to re-consider the enquiry report in conjunction with the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner dated 09.03.2013, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with each and every factual aspect and other grounds raised by the petitioner therein in his reply; (d) Before passing the fresh order, the Disciplinary Authority shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing; (e) The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (f) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 24. With aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of.