The charge-sheet should specifically set out all charges and state all relevant particulars and details without which the delinquent cannot defend himself. Failure to furnish necessary documents to the delinquent in a domestic enquiry causes prejudice and violates principles of natural justice. Orders passed in exercise of quasi-judicial functions must be reasoned and reflect application of mind.

( 1 ) A learned single Judge of this Court has refused to interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the Management of the Central Bank of India against the appellant in imposing the penalty of "reduction in pay by 5 (five) stages in the present time scale with cumulative effect". Hence the delinquent officer is before us by way of this Writ Appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are the appellant while working as a Branch Manager at Jangamakote Branch, Central Bank of India was served with a charge memo dated August 7/9, 1992 alleging that the appellant misused his official position by sanctioning totalling to rs. 1,05,000 to 21 persons contrary to the prescribed procedure, thereby committing gross misconduct within the meaning of regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of central Bank of India Officer, Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976, (for short, the "conduct Regulation") attracting penalty specified under Regulation 4, of Conduct regulations. The appellant was asked to furnish his explanation, if any, to the charge memo within 15 days of the receipt of the charge memo. According to the appellant officer certain documents sought by him were not furnished to him and, therefore he could not file his effective written statement of defence.

( 3 ) THE Chief Manager and disciplinary authority, Divisional Officer Bangalore, vide his order No. Personnel Do. PRS: 83:805 dated march 16, 1983 appointed Sri R. Laxman Rao, chief Officer (RD) as Enquiry Officer and u. S. Hegde, Inspector of Police, Central bureau of Investigation, Bangalore as the presenting Officer to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer on completion of the enquiry proceedings submitted his report dated september 9, 1982 together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer held that imputations 1 and 2 are partly proved, imputations 3 and 4 are not proved and imputation 5 is fully proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and records of the enquiry proceeding and after concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an order dated November 8, 1994 in terms of Regulation 4 of the Conduct Regulations imposing the penalty of "reduction in pay by 5 (five) stages in the present time scale with cumulative effect". The appellant being aggrieved by the said disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary authority preferred an appeal to the appellate-authority as provided under the conduct Regulations. The appellate authority by its order dated July 25, 1985 dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority preferred Writ Petition No. 2575 of 1987 in this Court. Before the learned single Judge, on behalf of the appellant, it was contended (i) that the charges are vague which prevented the delinquent officer to effectively reply to the allegations made in the charge memo; (ii) that relevant documents though sought for, not furnished to the delinquent which prevented the delinquent to file his written statement of defence; (iii) that assistance of legal practitioner to defend in the enquiry proceedings though asked for was refused; (iv) that evidence in support of the delinquent was ignored by the inquiry officer and, therefore, the findings are perverse and (v) that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply their mind before passing the impugned orders and the orders passed by them are not speaking orders. The learned single Judge without finding merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant dismissed the Writ Petition by a judgment and order dated December 19, 1997 impugned in this writ appeal.

( 5 ) THE appellant joined services of the bank after the disciplinary authority passed the order on November 8, 1994. The appellant, however, could work only for a period of about five mo