JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The petitioner, who has been working as a Branch Manager with the respondent No. 1, Bank, has filed this writ petition praying that the disciplinary enquiry proceedings pending against him vide charge-sheets dated 25.9.85 and 29.1.1991 be quashed. 3. The brief facts are as under : A charge sheet dated 25.9.85(Annexure 1) was issued by the General Manager of the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner alleging that he had advanced loans to certain persons, whose names and particulars had been shown in the documents attached as Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 therewith, in violation of the rules and had committed misconduct in advancing loans to them. The petitioner filed written statement to the charge sheet on 5.10.1985. The enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent No. 1 on 16.1.1990. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner moved an application stating that the charge sheet had not been issued by the competent authority. This objection was taken vide application dated 15.2.1990 (Annexure 3). Vide letter dated 6.4.1990 (Annexure 4), the enquiry officer informed the petitioner that the matter had been referred to the disciplinary authority, who in tern had referred the matter to the sponsored Bank and that till the reply was received from the sponsored, the enquiry proceedings stood stayed. Vide letter dated 29.1.1991 issued by the Chairman of the respondent No. 1, he informed the petitioner that originally he had not taken any objection in regard to the invalidity of the charge-sheet dated 25.9.85 but that on considering his objection and having examined it, it had been decided to issue a fresh charge sheet and consequently, the fresh charge-sheet dated 29.1.1991 (Annexure 6) was issued to the petitioner making same allegations against him. The petitioner filed written statement to the charge-sheet on 26.3.1991(Annexure 7). Vide letter dated 31.3.1993 (Annexure 8), the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that Shri D. R. Choudhary, Area Manager, Area Office, Nagaur had been appointed as enquiry officer and Shri A.K. Sharma, Senior Manager, Head Office, had been appointed as presenting officer to present the case on behalf of the respondent No. 1 before the enquiry officer. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition. 4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard for disposal of the writ petition on merits. 5. The facts mentioned above are not disputed at the Bar. It is a case where the disciplinary authority initially took four years for appointing enquiry officer and one year for deciding the objection in regard to the validity of the charge-sheet and again took about two years for appointing the enquiry officer. The charge sheet shows that the irregularities are stated to have committed between the period from 25.8.1980 to 1.8.1983 and there is no allegation that any loss has been caused to the respondent No. 1 on account of the advances having been granted by the petitioner to the persons concerned. The respondent No. I having not suffered any loss it will be against the interest of justice to allow it to continue with the proceedings in the manner that the case has been dealt by it against the petitioner in this respect of the charges for the period in question. 6. Considering the facts from all the angles, in my view, it is fit case where the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed and consequently, while allowing the writ petition, the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 29.1.1991 (Annexure 6) which was as a result of the charge sheet dated 25.9.1985 (Annexure 1) are quashed. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.Petition Disposed of. *******