ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ petition on the only ground that copy of the Enquiry Officers report was not supplied to the respondent-delinquent officer before imposing the punishment. A few facts need be stated.

3. The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the appellant-Bank (State Bank of Hyderabad). On 16-10-1976, he was promoted to the post of Officer Grade II. In the year 1981, he was working as Grade I Officer at Sangareddy Branch. With respect to his work at the said branch certain complaints were received and after obtaining his explanation, three charges were framed against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into those charges. After holding the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 and 2 are not proved but charge 3 is proved.

4. The matter was placed before the disciplinary authority as required by sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 68 of State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and since he was not competent to impose major penalty, which in his opinion was called for in the case, he placed the entire record along with his recommendations before the appointing authority as required by sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 68. The appointing authority, however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charges 1 and 2 (which were concurred in by the disciplinary authority). The appointing authority found charges 1 and 2 also proved. Accordingly, he imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.

5. The respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition against the said order of punishment. It was heard by a learned Single Judge in the first instance who referred the matter to a Division Bench on the question whether it is necessary to give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to show cause where the disciplinary authority/appointing authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on some or all the charges. The Division Bench considered the said question at length and held that there is no such requirement in the rules nor such a requirement can be deduced from the principles of natural justice. Having so expressed itself, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that the copy of the Enquiry Officers report was not supplied to the respondent before imposing the punishment. This it did purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan { (1991) 1 SCC 588: 1991 SCC (L&S) 612: (1991) 16 ATC 505} .

6. The question whether the non-supply of Enquiry Officers report vitiates the order of punishment and, if so, in what manner, has been fully considered by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar {(1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184: (1993) 25 ATC 704: JT (1993) 6 SC 1}. It is pursuant to the said judgment that this matter is placed before us. Since the order of punishment in this case is earlier to the date of judgment in Ramzan Khan case { (1991) 1 SCC 588: 1991 SCC (L&S) 612: (1991) 16 ATC 505}, it must be held that the non-supply of Enquiry Officers report does not vitiate the order of punishment.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, raised another contention based upon the language of sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 68 aforesaid. Regulation 68 describes the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary inquiry. It is a very lengthy regulation and need not be reproduced in full. It is enough if we notice sub-clause (b) of clause (xxi) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 68 and sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 68. They read as follows:

"Regulation 68(2)(xxi)(b): The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include -

(1) the report of the inquiry pre