Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein, an Officer of the State Bank of india has impugned the order dated 12-9-1992 passed by respondent No.2, chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as a measure of punishment, while agreeing with the opinion of the disciplinary authority and the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner has also impugned the appellate order rejecting his appeal, as communicated to him by letter of the General Manager (Operations) dated 14-4-1993. 2. Two main submissions have been urged by Counsel in support of the writ petition by the petitioner. He firstly contends that even on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, and accepted by the disciplinary authority and the appointing authority, no case of misconduct has been made out Secondly it is submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appointing authority, and also the appellate authority, have taken into account the punishments inflicated on the petitioner in the past without the same having formed part of the charges levelled against the petitioner. They have, therefore, acted on the basis of extraneous consideration in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years was granted extension of service till he attained the age of 55 years i. e. till 1st January, 1994. This was without prejudice to the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 4. In September 1981 the petitioner was posted at the Saharsa Branch of the respondent-Bank. On 12-9-1981 he introduced one Smt. Obi Kumari devi to the Bank for the grant of gold loan amounting to Rs.100,000/-. The said application was made at the Banks Katihar Branch which sanctioned the same. It appears that there wss later some difficulty in realising the amount from the said Smt. Obi Kumari Devi, and it transpised that she is the wife of the petitioner. Though the petitioner made promises to repay the debt, he failed to do so. However, it is not disputed that the debt was realised by auction of the gold ornaments which was provided as security to the Bank by the borrower. 5. Though the petitioner made promises to repay the debt, he failed to do so. However, it is not disputed that the debt was realised by auction of the gold ornaments which was provided as security to the Bank by the borrower. 5. On these facts three charges were levelled against the petitioner the charges read as follows : " (i) On 12-9-81, when you were posted at our Saharsa Branch, you introduced one Smt Obi Kumari Devi to the Bank to whom a gold loan of Rs.1000/- was sanctioned by our Katihar Branch it later came to light that Smt. Devi is your wife, whose other name is Smt Rita Rani Ghosh, and you had intentionally concealed your relationship with her, at the time of sanction of loan, in order to avoid the linkage of repayment of the loan with your monthly salery. (ii) Further, you did not care to liquidate the outstanding of the said gold loan even after your assurance, though your undated letter addressed to the Branch Manager of our Katihar Branch to deposit Rs 500/- p. m. out of your salary to liquidate the loan account. The outstandings were later transferred to the Branch protested Bills Account. (iii) You thus, failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank as required in terms of Rule 32 (4) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff)Service Rules. " 6. The case of the petitioner was that Smt. Obi. Kumari Devi his wife, had independent income from the land gifted to her by his father-in-law on account of successive failure of crops she required financial assistance and therefore, she applied to the Katihar Branch of the State Bank of India for sanction of gold loan amounting to Rs.1000/-,which was permissible according to the rules. The loanee was required to pledge the gold ornaments to secure the loan advanced to the loanee. His wife as onordinary applicant without claiming any benefit for being the wife of the petitioner, who was a bank employee, applied for grant of the loan. The petitioner introduced her to the Bank, and while filling up the form disclosed the fact that he was an employee of the State Bank of India. In the column meant for the address of the applicant also, one of the addresses disclosed was that of the petitioner there was, therefore, no effort to conceal any fact from the Bank. The petitioner introduced her to the Bank, and while filling up the form disclosed the fact that he was an employee of the State Bank of India. In the column meant for the address of the applicant also, one of the addresses disclosed was that of the petitioner there was, therefore, no effort to conceal any fact from the Bank. The form prescribed for the purpose does not provide any column where such particular could be furnished. The petitioner, therefore bona find filed up the form and introduced his wife to the Bank. His wife was entitled to the grant of loan subject to certain conditions which she fulfilled. It is further submitted that the allegation made against him that he has wilfully concealed the fact that the applicant is bis wife, in order to avoid the linkage of repayment of the loan with his monthly salary was merely imaginary. There is no rule nor is a Bank employee required to state this fact, when the person applying for the loan is entitled in his own right to secure a loan from the Bank on payment of usual rate of interest. In her case as well the rate of interest was charged as is usually charged by the Bank, and no concession Was made in her favour, on the ground that she was the wife of an employee. It is therefore, submitted that in the absence of any requirement that an employee of the Bank must declare that an applicant for the loan is related to him, and in the absence of any column in the form for provieing such particulars, a charge cannot be levelled against the concerned Bank employee for holding him guilty of intentional concealment of relationship with the applicant. 7. At the outset, it may be noticed that do rule, circular, order etc, has been shown to us to justify the accusation that the petitioner had intentionally concealed his relationship with the applicant, which, he was required to declare. From the report of the enquiry officer, the approval of the disciplinary authority, and the impugned orders passed by the appointing -authority and the appellate authority, it does not appear that the concerned authorities have referred to any such rule or direction which required the petitioner to disclose his relationship with, the applicant. From the report of the enquiry officer, the approval of the disciplinary authority, and the impugned orders passed by the appointing -authority and the appellate authority, it does not appear that the concerned authorities have referred to any such rule or direction which required the petitioner to disclose his relationship with, the applicant. It is not clear on what basis the authorities have come to the conclusion that he should have disclosed his relationship with the applicant. A photo copy of the application form has also been produced as Annexure-10. From the. application also it appears that there was no column for the applicant or the concerned employee of the Bank to declare that they are related. Tt appears from the application from that the applicant had described herself as a house-wife and one of the addresses disclosed C/o S. K. Ghose, JMGSI, Saharsa. This is the correct address and designation of the petitioner. In the column meant for introduction of the applicant, the petitioner has signed and given bis name as also his address, which is shown as "sbi. Saharsa". There is also a column to the following effect "how known to Bank" against which the word staff has been written, meaning thereby that the applicants known through a member of the staff of the Bank. It is, thereforet quite apparent that the applicant had filled up the from, as required, and the petitioner had also signed as introducer disclosing his employment in the Bank. There is no column meant for disclosing relationship of the applicant with a Bank employee. The liability to repay the debt is that of the borrower. 8. The finding of the enquiry officer on this point is as follows : i am fully convinced with the arguments and the documents produced by the Prosecution that the charged officer had intentionally concealed the relationship with Smt. Obi Kumari Devi at time of sanction of loan in order to avoid linkage of payment of the loan with monthly salary. The defence argument that snri Ghosh has stated in the introduction column reading "c/o shri S. K. Ghosh, does indicate that he has disclosed the fact, does not hold good. Mere writing the address as C/o Shri S. K. Ghosh, JMGS 1 does not indicate any clear relationship of the applicant with the introducer. The defence argument that snri Ghosh has stated in the introduction column reading "c/o shri S. K. Ghosh, does indicate that he has disclosed the fact, does not hold good. Mere writing the address as C/o Shri S. K. Ghosh, JMGS 1 does not indicate any clear relationship of the applicant with the introducer. If he had real intention to disclose the fact that Smt. Obi Kumari Devi is his wife, he should have categorically stated the relationship in the application from. Perhaps, in order to aviod obtaining prior permission from the controlling authority for sanction of loan, he had intentionally not disclosed the relationship. Since Shri S. K. Ghosh is a responsible officer and he is supposec to be aware of the banks rules, he should have disclosed his relationship in the application form and obtained prior permission from the controlling authority and the repayment could have been linked with deduction from his salary. It is also evident that from PEx.4 that Shri Ghosh disclosed the fact that Smt Obi Kumari Devi, is his wife only after the intimation was received by him for auctioning the ornaments by public auction. The charge is therefore proved beyond doubt from PEx.1 to 5. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, as would appear from the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed by the appointing authority. The disciplinary authority keeping in view the gravity of charges proved against the petitioner as also the under-noted penalties inflicted upon him in the past had recommended infliction of compulsory retirement under Rule 49 (f) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The appointing authority also agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, and accepted the recommendation of the disciplinary authority. He held that in view of the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner in the instant case and repetitive narure of serious irregularities committed by him, it was not in the interest of Bank to continue him in service Consequently, be inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement. He held that in view of the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner in the instant case and repetitive narure of serious irregularities committed by him, it was not in the interest of Bank to continue him in service Consequently, be inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement. The decision of the appellate authority has been communicated to the petitioner-vide Annexure-2 wherein the conclusion of the appellate authority has been recorded as follows : "the documentary evidence brought in the enquiry and the findings of the Inquiring Authority clearly established the fact that you intentionally concealed your relationship with the applicant when the latter obtained gold loan from Katihar branch. While there is no ground at present to go into the merits of the imposition of punishments referred by you relating to Saharsa, Dhamdaha and bihta branches it is amply clear rhat you are a habitual offender. Pour penalties imposed on you in the past have failed to reform you. The Appellate Authority is, therefore, of the opinion that the punishment meted out to you is reasonable and in the Banks interest, and, is, therefore not inclined to interfere with appeal and has ordered accordingly. " 9. As I have noticed earlier, no rule, circular or order has been shown to us to satisfy us that there was a requirement that the applicant must disclose his relationship with an employee of the Bank, if be was so related. In the application from as well, there is no column for disclosure of the fact that the applicant is related to a Bank employee. It is not disputed that the applicant in the instant case was entitled to the grant of gold loan, subject to the fulfilment of the necessary conditions. She had. accordingly, pledged gold arnaments to secure the loan advanced to her. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how an allegation of misconduct can be alleged against the petitioner for not informing the Bank that the applicant happened to be his wife, particularly when no beaefit was claimed on such ground, and his wife was entitled in her own right to get the loan. What has been suggested is that if the petitioner bad disclosed this fact in the matter of repayment of the loan, perhaps the amount could be realised from his salary in case of default. What has been suggested is that if the petitioner bad disclosed this fact in the matter of repayment of the loan, perhaps the amount could be realised from his salary in case of default. It is doubtful whether in a case of this nature, where an applicant in his own right secures a loan on gold ornaments, his or her spouse can be held responsible for repayment of the loan. In any event, since there was no such requirement of the rules, omission to disclose relationship would not amount to misconduct. It is not as if the petitioner had made any wrong statement in the application form, whereby he had introduced the applicant to the bank. What is alleged is that he should have disclosed something more, namely, his relationship with the applicant. I fail to understand on what basis this allegation is made against the petitioner, when no rules have been shown to us which require such disclosure, and the from does not provide any column for disclosure of relationahip. Moreover, the wife of the petitioner in her own right was entitled to the grant of loan on payment of the usual rate of interest, subject to her pleadging gold ornaments to secure the loan. Failure to make a disclosure amounting to misconduct can be alleged only if there is a requirement to make that disclosure. In the absence of such requirement, the fact that the petitioner could have disclosed more facts, is no ground to punish him for misconduct It may bear repetation to observe that none of the impugned orders, referred to any rule or circular which required the petitioner to make such disclosure. It is also not the case of the bank that if the disclosure was made, loan may not have been sanctioned to the wife of the petitioner. There is, therefore, no justification for holding that the petitioner was guilty of fraudulent conduct. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the. conclusion that having regard to the nature off transaction, and in the absence of any requirement obliging the petitioner to disclose his relationship with the applicant, even if the facts alleged against the petitioner are taken to be true, no case of misconduct has been made out. The other two charges are dependent upon the finding on the main charge. conclusion that having regard to the nature off transaction, and in the absence of any requirement obliging the petitioner to disclose his relationship with the applicant, even if the facts alleged against the petitioner are taken to be true, no case of misconduct has been made out. The other two charges are dependent upon the finding on the main charge. If the first charge fails, the other two charges must also fail, particularly because the liability was that of the wife of the petitioner, who in her own capacity bad taken a loan from the Bank after pledging her gold ornaments. In the absence of any undertaking by the petitioner to repay the debt, he could not be charged with the liability to repay the loan which bis wife owed to the Bank. In my view, therefore, the impugned orders must be quashed. 10. In view of my aforesaid conclusion, it is not necessary to examine the other contention urged on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the disciplinary authority as well as the appointing authority and the appellate authority had taken into account previous punishment inflicted upon the petition, though no such charge was framed against the petitioner. The point deserves consideration, but in view of the finding earlier recorded on the main question, it is not necessary to go into this question in the instant case. 11. Before parting with this judgment, we may notice that an objection was taken by counsel for the Bank that the appllate order could be reviewed suo motu by the Reviewing Committee. We had adjourned this matter for some time to enable the Reviewing Committee to take a decision, but since no order was passed by the Reviewing Committee, we had no option but to proceed with the matter on merit 12. In the result, the order dated 12-9-1992 passed by the Chief General manager, State Bank of India. Patna (respondent No, 2), compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 49 (f) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules is quashed. Consequently, the appellate order passed by the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel), as communicated to the petitioner by the General Manager (Ope.) by his letter dated 14th April, 1993 (Annexure-2) is also quashed. Patna (respondent No, 2), compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 49 (f) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules is quashed. Consequently, the appellate order passed by the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel), as communicated to the petitioner by the General Manager (Ope.) by his letter dated 14th April, 1993 (Annexure-2) is also quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till the date of his superannuation, and will be entitled to all consequential benefits. This writ petition is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed.