Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court held that Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 does not mandate that an employee be granted an opportunity to file written briefs after the Presenting Officer has filed theirs; both parties may file their briefs within 15 days of the completion of evidence production if they so desire. (!)
• The expression "respectively" in the regulation is interpreted as a word of severance, meaning the written briefs belong to the respective cases of the parties involved and there is no requirement for one party to wait for the other's submission. (!)
• Since the employee had the opportunity to meet the Bank's stand and was granted a personal hearing during the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice regarding the failure to file written briefs sequentially. (!)
• The Court clarified that the principles of natural justice are not codified canons but are principles ingrained in the conscience of man, focusing on substance rather than narrow technicalities. (!)
• The first and foremost principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which requires precise notice and adequate time for representation. (!)
• The Court discussed the "useless formality theory," noting that while courts have discretion to refuse relief if following natural justice would not change the outcome, they should not mechanically set aside orders without assessing prejudice. (!)
• In cases where a report is not furnished to a delinquent employee, the Court must determine if the non-supply would have made a difference to the ultimate findings before setting aside the punishment order. (!)
• The appeal was allowed to the extent that the High Court's finding of violation of natural justice was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the High Court to examine the disputed documents by a government expert to determine their authenticity. (!)
• If the expert report deems the documents produced by the employee as forged or not authentic, the order of dismissal shall stand; if deemed genuine, the order of dismissal must be vacated. (!)