JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner who was serving at the relevant time in the Tulsi Gramin Bank at the Head Office Aliganj, Band a as a Probationary Officer, is aggrieved by the order dated 1-4-1985 passed by the Chairman of the Bank stating that the services of the petitioner are being terminated with effect from 13-3-1985. 2. The aforesaid Bank is a nationalised bank and the terms and conditions of the officers of the Bank are regulated by the Staff' Service Regulations framed under the Regulation Rural Banks Act, 1976 (Act No. 21 of 1976). The petitioner was appointed as an officer on 29-9-1983 Vice-Chairmans letter of that date putting the petitioner on probation for a period of the years in the pay scale of Rs. 690-1420. While the petitioner was on probation, certain complaints were received by the Bank from its borrowers in connection with the alleged misutilization of the funds placed at the disposal of the petitioner for being disbursed as loans. These complaints were investigated by the District Magistrate, who submitted his report that the complaints were well founded and the he petitioner in concent with some dealers had misutilised the funds of the Bank thereby causing financial loss. In addition, there was also the complaint that the petitioner had, without obtaining the leave of the concerned officer, absented himself from duty and was absconding since 18th March, 1985. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that the Bank gave opportunity to the petitioner to improve his work and conduct but to no avail. Consequently, the Chairman of the Bank decided to terminate the petitioners services with effect from 18th March, 1985. The order which was passed against the petitioner purporting to terminate his service is Annexure 2 to the writ petition and as the fate of the case turns substantially on what has been acted in this letters are extracting the contents of that letter in full "1. We have observed that your services were not satisfactory during the last more than one year i. e., during probation period. 2. You are unauthorisedly absconding from the service since 18-3-1985 without proper section of head office. 3. Most of the loans disbursed by you at Narkundi are misutilised. 4. You have declined to receive suspension letter dated 15-3-1985. We have observed that your services were not satisfactory during the last more than one year i. e., during probation period. 2. You are unauthorisedly absconding from the service since 18-3-1985 without proper section of head office. 3. Most of the loans disbursed by you at Narkundi are misutilised. 4. You have declined to receive suspension letter dated 15-3-1985. Under the circumstances it has been decided to take disciplinary action against you and your services have since been terminated by the Bank with effect from 13-3-1985". 3. Challenging the aforesaid order the petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the petition it was also stated that against the said order the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank which was at time pending. During the pendency of the petition, however, that appeal was dismissed by an order which was communicated to the petitioner through a letter of the Chairman dated 26-9-1986 informing him that his appeal had been dismissed. 4. Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order is ex-facie an order which has been passed against the petitioner as a measure of punishment though it is couched as an order of termination simpliciter. Learned counsel submitted that the order carries a stigma against the petitioner leaving no manner or doubt that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by way of punishment on charges of misconduct and inasmuch as the procedure prescribed for imposing penalties was admittedly not followed in the present case the order cannot be sustained. 5. The learned counsel is clearly right. The contents of the letter quoted above speak for themselves. It plainly says it has been decided to take disciplinary action against you The Chairman states in his order that as the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and further he has misutilised the loans and absconded unauthorisedly from service since 13-3-1985 his services were terminated with effect from 13-3-1985 the date from which he was alleged to be absconding. 6. The allegations clearly reflects on the character and conduct of the petitioner involving moral turpitude. 6. The allegations clearly reflects on the character and conduct of the petitioner involving moral turpitude. A charge of misutilisation of funds is undisputedly one of misconduct and covered by the grounds upon which penal action could be taken against the officer as set out in Regulation 30 of the Regulations framed under the aforesaid enactment. Regulation 30 lays down the penalties which can be imposed upon an officer on the various grounds one of which is that the officer has knowingly done some thing which is detrimental to the interests of the Bank. The other grounds are misconduct or breach of discipline and so forth. The allegations on the basis of which the petitioners services have been terminated clearly a tract the grounds on which penal action could be taken against him under Regulation 30. That is why the impugned order states that disciplinary action is being taken against the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit also it has been categorically stated that as a result of misutilisation of funds by the petitioner the Bank has suffered financial losses. 7. The case thus clearly falls within the ambit of Regulation 30(1). Clause (2) of Regulation 30 lays down the procedure for imposition of the penalties. It requires that before a penalty of the nature mentioned under clause (I) is imposed, the office shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to answer the charges in writing. It envisages that formal charges shall be formulated in writing and given to the officer so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them. Admittedly this procedure was not followed in the present case. To sum up, the petitioner has been removed from service on charges of misconduct though the order professes to be an order of termination simplicitor. 8. If there was any doubt as to whether the order casts a stigma, the same stands removed by the observations made by the Chairman in his order that the petitioners services are being terminated by way of disciplinary action. 9. For the Bank Sri R.K. Kakkar submitted that though there is a mention of misutilisation of the funds and other matter, the services of the petitioner who was a probationer have really been terminated on the ground that his work was found unsatisfactory during the period of probation. 10. We are unable to agree. 9. For the Bank Sri R.K. Kakkar submitted that though there is a mention of misutilisation of the funds and other matter, the services of the petitioner who was a probationer have really been terminated on the ground that his work was found unsatisfactory during the period of probation. 10. We are unable to agree. The order itself does not leave any room for doubt in view of what it explicitly states. The fact that in the order it is also stated that the work of the petitioner-was found unsatisfactory does not detract from the fact that in truth and substance the order is one of removal on grounds of misconduct. The grounds on which the petitioner's services were terminated made it obligatory on the respondent Bank to formulate charges in writing and adopt the procedure laid down for disciplinary proceedings. The Bank could not be allowed to circumvent that procedure by describing it as an order of termination simplicity. As mentioned above, read as whole it is an order of removal, pure and simple. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-4-1985 passed by the Chairman of the Bank (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) as well as the order passed in appeal -affirming that order arc quashed. It will, however, be open to the Bank to institute formal disciplinary proceedings on the charges mentioned in the order in accordance with law. 12. A certified copy of this order may given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week.