P. B. Bajanthri, J.—In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):—

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions in the nature of Certiorari or Writs, Order or Orders for quashing the Order dated 31.01.2014 by which the services of the petitioner have been removed and also quashing of consequential order vide letter no.- PAD/HO/DAC/19876 dated 29.08.14 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 31.01.2014 has been rejected on the ground that both the orders have been passed by overlooking the procedural infirmity committed by the enquiry officer, being ex facie illegal and arbitrary and same being wholly disproportionate to the alleged acts of omission and commission done by the petitioner.

(ii) For further kind indulgence of this Hon'ble court to look into the matter and the concerned respondents may be directed to produce all connected records for perusal for passing an appropriate order.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble court may grant in general interest checking these kinds of harassment to the officials that may be deemed appropriate and necessary in this case."

2. On 11.10.2022, the following order was passed:—

"Heard the matter for sometime.

Prima facie, there is violation of Sub-Regulation 5 of Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1977 in not providing list of documents and list of witnesses as is evident from statement made by the presenting officer. Charge-memo is stated to have been issued on 06.12.2013. Inquiring officer and presenting officer were appointed prior to 23.12.2013 whereas the documents were furnished on 23.12.2013. Therefore, prima facie one has to draw inference that as on the date of framing of charges on 06.12.2013, document/ material information were not readily available. On this issue, learned counsel for Respondent- Bank is hereby directed to get instruction. He is also hereby directed to secure original records relating to disciplinary proceedings on the next date of hearing.

Re-list this matter on 09.11.2022."

3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submitted that there is a violation of sub-regulation 5 of Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer and Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1977 (for short 'Regulation, 1977) in not providing the list of documents and list of witnesses as is evident form the statement made by the Presenting Officer. In order to overcome this violation, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that gist of the charge itself reveals which are the documents. Therefore, the disciplinary authority need not comply sub-regulation 5 of Regulation 6 of Regulation, 1977. If it is the stand of the respondent-Bank in that event there was no occasion to serve list of documents subsequent to appointment of Presenting Officer on 20.03.2013, therefore, the aforementioned contention of the respondent-Bank is not tenable.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case, the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-5) is set aside reserving liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed afresh from the defective stage in the event of any financial loss caused to the Bank or if the allegations are relating to alleged fraud committed by the petitioner since this Court is quashing the impugned penalty order and consequential order only on technicality in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142. Paragraphs 46 to 50 reads as under:—

“46. In the last, the delinquent has submitted that this Court must issue directions for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of salary till date. Shri Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently opposed the relief sought by the delinquent cont