B.M.Mitra, J. - (1.) LET the affidavit of service filed in court be kept on record. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 20 dated 18.11.96 at the instance of Bank of India in T.A. No. 314 of 1994 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that on the date fixed, an adjournment petition has been filed on the ground of the death of one of the near relation of respondent Nos.1 to 6 due to cancer for which they were alleged to be away at Bombay in the State of Maharashtra. The court has granted time and has also further given direction for exchange of affidavits and supplementary affidavits. In the body of the order the court has made a reference that the applicant-bank would have filed the supplementary affidavit of evidence at least seven days before the date of hearing which stood adjourned and the bona fides of the petitioner Bank has been subsequently, proved that on the date fixed for hearing the Bank has come prepared with the supplementary affidavit of evidence and has been allowed to file them on condition of an award of cost of Rs. 10,000. It has also been commented upon by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that in terms of the opinion of the concerned Judge, the Bank did not file the same with an ulterior motive an intention to delay the disposal of the case. It is not clear as to how the presiding officer could draw such drastic inference that marginal delay in filing supplementary affidavit of evidence is actuated by ulterior motive. It is not desirable that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority should make imputation in the orders impugned at random. Even there has been further mention of a direction of the copy of the said order to send to the Chairman of the Bank of India. This court has at the occasion to remind the President of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that it is required to tear through an adjudicating machinery created by the statute to seek the objective of the statute and it is required to administer justice and not thereby it is required to deliver punitive justice. This court has been rebutting some of its orders and the concerned officer is reminded of an epithet that justice finds its nobless fulfilment when it is tempered with consideration and not tinctured with its vindictiveness. In an adjudicating process, no part of the said process is supposed to have personal axe to grind and it is better and desirable that punitive zeal should not be exihibited in the order itself which may defeat the purpose of justice and cause delay and may frustrate the effectuation of the statute. This court also does not appreciate the move on the part of the adjudicating forum to intimate the concerned Chairman of the Bank because the said adjudicating forum is not the supervisory authority of the Banking machinery or of the hierarchical structure of the Bank. In a normal circumstances it is in the administrative domain where quasi-judicial authority would not necessarily include and make itself a subject-matter of criticism. Therefore, it is expected that the concerned authority will function within the trapping of the fetus of the statute and will not travel beyond the same. Accordingly, the portion of the order impugned so far as the awarding of a cost of Rs. 10.000 against the Bank and intimation to the Chairman of the Bank will be required to be set at naught and the same should not be given effect to. Subject to the said modification, the connected petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of of;