Manjula Chellur, J.

In brief the facts of the present appeal are narrated as under:-

The respondent was Manager-in-Charge of Branch Office of Bhagalpur and Kharagpur of the appellant bank. While performing his official duties, according to appellant, he committed misconduct under the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations of 1981 particularly under Regulation 3(1) and 3(2) read with Regulation 24 of the Regulations. The gist of the charges in the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent is, through a middleman named Sukumar Singh, during the year 1983-84, the respondent Manager disbursed 99 loans sponsored by SC/ST Development and Finance Corporation, Midnapore in a fraudulent manner by grabbing large chunk of loan amount which is evident from numerous documents wherein interpolations are made. Even the names of the sponsored persons sent by the aforesaid Corporation were challenged.

The charges came to be denied by the respondent. By order dated 05.12.1998, the disciplinary authority rejected the report of Enquiry Officer and ordered to conduct a de novo enquiry in the above charges. This came to be challenged by the respondent Manager. This came to be confirmed by order dated 16.01.1999. The second Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report on 28.9.1999 to the disciplinary authority. Delinquent employee was permitted to submit his representation. Ultimately, disciplinary authority imposed punishment against the writ petitioner awarding penalty of compulsory retirement from service of the bank.

The statutory appeal came to be filed questioning the order of punishment and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.12.2008. Before learned Single Judge it was contended that the charge-sheet was not sustainable in view of the stale charges in respect of charge sheet dated 01.6.1994 pertaining to allegation of 1983-84 as there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. It was also contended that de novo enquiry on the basis of selfsame charge sheet was not permissible. It was contended by the delinquent employee before the learned Single Judge that both Enquiry Officers opined in the reports that the charges were not proved against the delinquent. Over and above this, when the bank was unable to summon any witness of their case, the charges cannot be held as proved.

In the light of above factual situation, the disciplinary authority ought not to have arrived at a decision on the basis of certain documents without giving any opportunity to the delinquent is the stand of the delinquent.

So far as statutory appellate authority order, it was contended by the writ petitioner that the same suffers from non-application of mind as no reasons whatsoever are assigned for such conclusion. In the writ petition, the learned Judge ultimately opined that the charge-sheet dated 01.6.1994 issued by Assistant General Manager Zonal Head Office need not be interfered with, but the order dated 05.12.1998 by the disciplinary authority to conduct de novo enquiry proceedings and the impugned order of punishment dated 19.10.2000 and order of the Appellate Authority came to be quashed and set aside.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

According to the appellant, learned Single Judge was not justified in opining that principles of natural justice were violated. According to appellant bank, application of principles of natural justice cannot be in the vacuum, and have to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, if any, alleged to have suffered by the persons claiming such violation. If the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Punjab & Sind Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (for short referred to as Regulations) was read in its proper perspective so far as the question of conducting a fresh enquiry, the end result of the writ petition would have been otherwise is the stand of the appellant Bank. According to appellant Bank, there is no violation of natura