JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Balram Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 25.06.2009, passed by the Managing Director of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. imposing the punishments of stoppage of two annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect and recovery of 20% of the amount of loss in case the loan irregularly disbursed by the petitioner is not recovered. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal. The Chief General Manager, Administration U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow has written a letter dated 12.08.2011 stating that the petitioner's appeal has been found to be not maintainable and has been disposed off by means of an order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative. However, a copy of any order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative has not been provided to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as an Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank, Branch Kuwayan, District Shahjahanpur, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on 15.05.2008 on the allegations that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of a farmer under a dairy scheme, a cheque for Rs.75,000/- was handed over to him on 09.01.2007 towards the first installment and the second installment of Rs.75,000/- was released on 11.01.2007 in violation of the guidelines issued by the Bank. 4. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2008 containing two charges - (i) that he had not followed the time limit between disbursal of two installments of loan as per the directions of the head office and (ii) during local inspection by Senior Manager, buffaloes were not found as per the standards. 5. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 08/09.09.2008 stating that he had prepared and handed over the cheques as per the instructions of the Branch Manager. After disbursal of the first installment of loan, the Field Officer of the Bank had conducted an inquiry and had submitted a report that the farmer had purchased the buffaloes from the first installment and he had recommended disbursal of the second installment. After disbursal of the first installment of loan, the Field Officer of the Bank had conducted an inquiry and had submitted a report that the farmer had purchased the buffaloes from the first installment and he had recommended disbursal of the second installment. This recommendation was approved by the Branch Manager and the petitioner was directed to prepare a cheque for Rs.75,000/- on 11.01.2007. The petitioner categorically stated that it was his duty to comply with the orders of the Branch Manager and he had prepared the cheques in compliance of this duty. Regarding second charge the petitioner submitted that the Senior Manager had made a verification and found the buffaloes to be not of the requisite standards but the petitioner is not guilty for it it because the project had been verified by the Field Officer and the Branch Manager. In the verification report submitted by the Field Officer it was not mentioned that the amount of loan had been misappropriated. The inquiry was to be done by the Field Officer and the Branch Manager and not by the petitioner who was working as an Accountant. 6. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 06.11.2008, specifically stating that the petitioner does not appear to be guilty directly, but as the loan was given in an irregular manner, the petitioner cannot escape his responsibilities. Regarding the second charge also the inquiry officer held that the Field Officer and Branch Manager were responsible for local inspection because it is their duty to furnish a verification report. The Field Officer has conducted a local inspection in the present case and had submitted a utilization certificate. However, the inquiry officer stated that when the loan has been given in an irregular manner the Accountant could not escape his responsibility. 7. A show cause notice dated 18.02.2009 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why two annual increments be not stopped with cumulative effect and why 20% of the amount of loan be not recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.03.2009 reiterating the version given by him during inquiry. The petitioner further stated that he had not misappropriated any money of the bank because neither he had prepared the loan file nor had he given the utilization certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.03.2009 reiterating the version given by him during inquiry. The petitioner further stated that he had not misappropriated any money of the bank because neither he had prepared the loan file nor had he given the utilization certificate. He stated that he is a subordinate employee and he had merely complied with the directions of his officer and he was duty bound to do so. 8. On 25.06.2009 the Managing Director has passed the impugned order inflicting punishment of stoppage of two annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect and also providing that in case the loan irregularly disbursed by the appellant is not recovered 20% of the amount involved will be recovered from salary/dues of the petitioner. The appellate authority has merely affirmed the order and a copy of the reasoned order passed by the appellate authority has not yet been provided to the petitioner and it has not been annexed even with the counter affidavit. 9. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is important to mention that the impugned order merely states that the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice had been taken into consideration by the competent authority, without disclosing as to who was the competent authority who had considered the petitioner's explanation. The authority which passes an order adverse to any person, has himself to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the affected person so that he may have a fair chance of defence. The consideration of the explanation by any other authority indicates that the authority who has passed the order adverse to the employee, has not applied his mind to the explanation given by the employee. The aforesaid error vitiates the decision making process adopted by the disciplinary authority and renders the impugned order violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned order could be quashed on this limited ground alone, but as detailed submissions have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the order, I proceed to examine deal with the same. 10. The impugned order could be quashed on this limited ground alone, but as detailed submissions have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the order, I proceed to examine deal with the same. 10. Assailing the validity of the punishment order and the appellate order the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that duties of various officers and employees of U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank have been provided in a Circular dated 18.02.1976/19.02.1976, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. The duties of an accountant are to work under control of the Branch Manager and to prepare the documents. His duties also include comply with audit reports and inspection reports. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sanctioning loans, making field inspections or submitting field reports, and disbursement of loans were not within the purview of the duties of the petitioner and he had not performed any of such duties. The alleged misconduct is of disbursal of two installments of a loan within a short period in violation of the guidelines and that the borrower had purchased buffaloes which were not as per the standards. The inquiry officer himself has recorded a categorical finding that the applicant is not involved in the aforesaid acts directly. When as per the circular the alleged irregular acts were not within the purview of duties of the petitioner and the inquiry officer himself has found that the petitioner is not guilty of the commission of the aforesaid acts directly, the petitioner cannot be punished for an act for which the inquiry officer has held him to be not guilty directly. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provision contained in Regulation 84 (i) of the Co-operative Societies Employee Service Regulations, 1975, which is as follows: - "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal ofence or an offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations, shall be liable to be punished by anyone of the following penalties : - (a) Censure (b) withholding of increment, (c) fine on employee of category IV (peon, chaukidar etc.) (d) recovery from pay of security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee's conduct, (e) reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the employee, (f) removal from service, or (g) dismissal from service." 12. He has submitted that although the regulations permit imposition of any one of the prescribed penalties, by means of the impugned order two penalties have been imposed upon the petitioner: recovery from pay and withholding of two increments with cumulative effects, which is not permissible in the regulations. 13. Opposing the writ petition, Shri Balram Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the duties of the accountant include compliance with audit and inspection reports and, therefore, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have verified whether the inspection report submitted by the field officer was correct or not. I am unable to accept this submission because compliance with audit and inspection report does not mean verification of inspection report. Being a subordinate employee the petitioner was bound to comply with the inspection report submitted by the field officer and the direction issued by the branch manager in furtherance thereof. 14. It is also relevant to note that the Circular dated 18/19.02.1976 issued by U. P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. lays down the duties of branch manager, which include examination of loan applications, examination of fulfillment of conditions for grant of loan, ensuring proper utilization of the loan and exercising control over all the employees of his branch and supervision of their work. The duties of field officers include making recommendations for sanction of loans, examining the loan documents, making inspection and ensuring proper utilization of the loan amount, collecting loan applications and reporting misutilization of loan amount or improper execution of the project. He is also responsible to exercise control over the working of the branch in absence of the branch manager. 15. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that recommending sanction of loan fell within the purview of duties of the field officer and sanctioning the loan was within the duty of the branch manager and the accountant has no role to play in it. Therefore, the petitioner can in no manner be held guilty for the first charge. 16. Moreover, making inspection and ensuring proper utilization of the loan amount and reporting misutilization of loan amount or improper execution of the project falls within the duties of the field officer and ensuring proper utilization of the loan falls within the duties of the branch manager. The petitioner, who was merely an accountant, had no role to play in these processes. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the second charge also. 17. Shri Balram Yadav has next submitted that the petitioner has not been inflicted with two penalties as the impugned order merely states that in case the amount is not recovered from the borrower, 20% amount will be recovered from the petitioner. This is a contingent order. The contingency has not yet arrived and 20% of the amount of loss has not been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, his submission is that only one penalty has been inflicted upon the petitioner. I find no force in this submission also, as imposing a penalty and execution of the punishment order are two different and distinct things. The impugned order clearly and categorically inflicts two penalties on the petitioner which is not permissible as per Regulation 84(i) quoted above. 18. In the aforesaid facts circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned punishment order dated 25.06.2009, passed by the Managing Director of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Is not sustainable in law and it deserves to be quashed. 19. The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the punishment order has been communicated by a letter dated 12.08.2011 sent by the Chief General Manager, Administration U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow. 19. The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the punishment order has been communicated by a letter dated 12.08.2011 sent by the Chief General Manager, Administration U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow. The appeal has purportedly been dismissed by the appellate authority - the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative. However, a copy of any order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative has not been provided to the petitioner and no such order has been annexed with the counter affidavit. From, the aforesaid facts, it appears that the appeal has been dismissed in a cursory manner without any application of mind by the appellate authority and without any reasoned order having passed by the appellate authority himself, which is also unsustainable in law. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The punishment orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive all consequential benefits. The opposite parties are directed to calculate the benefits payable to the petitioner and pay the same expeditiously in accordance with law say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. No order as to the costs.