Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.1992 (Annexure-1) passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 21.1.1993 and 21.7.1993 passed by the appellate authority and the Chief Manager respectively rejecting the appeal and the mercy appeal, vide orders contained in Annexures 2, 2/1 and 3 respectively. 2. The petitioner was the Branch Manager in Banipur Branch of the Central Bank of India. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him on various charges in relation to his alleged unauthorised actions in the matter of disbursement of loans to borrowers and also to non-existent persons. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer who submitted his report finding all charges levelled against the petitioner proved and the disciplinary authority pursuant to the said order imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976, vide Annexure 1, The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal before the appellate authority, who also upheld the aforementioned punishment of dismissal from Banks service, vide order contained in Annexure-2, whereafter the petitioner filed mercy petition before the Managing Director of the Bank who also declined to interfere with the order of punishment, vide Annexure-3, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 3. It is contended by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffer from the view of non-observance of the rules of natural justice, besides the regulation of the Bank relating to the same. According to him, the enquiry officer relied on the documents which were neither mentioned in the charge nor supplied to the petitioner. It is further contended that some of the document, on which reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer, the makers of the same were not examined and as such, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of cross-examining them. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 on which reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer for holding the petitioner guilty were neither supplied to him (the petitioner) nor the makers of the same has been examined. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 on which reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer for holding the petitioner guilty were neither supplied to him (the petitioner) nor the makers of the same has been examined. He also contended that the said point was raised before the appellate authority specifically in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the memorandum of appeal hut the appellate authority has also not considered the same. As such, according to him, the impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the above grounds. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank has submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not correct in his submission that the appellate authority has not considered the said submissions raised in the appeal. In this regard he referred to paragraph 3 at the appellate authoritys order, contained in Annexure-2. It is submitted by him that the appellate authority has taken notice of the tract that apart from the said documents, there were enough other documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry to establish that the petitioner made a number of bogus loans in order to misappropriate the loan amount. 5. There appears to be substance in the submissions of Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank. In Annexure-2 the appellate authority has considered the said aspect and has taken into consideration that the presenting officer pointed out many irregularities in some loan accounts on pages 78-79 of the enquiry proceedings, for example, rate of bamboo-boring pipe and iron boring pipe and affidavit of borrower in record of a later date than the date of disbursement of loan (bill of goods). He has also taken notice of the fact that the loan applications and documents were for one person whereas BDO report and affidavit for that loan are for another person etc. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, it has rightly been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Bank that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner even if he was not supplied with the Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 which were just brought on the record and not mainly relied upon by the enquiry officer. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that the makers of the documents in all the cases are not necessarily required to be produced and examined. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that the makers of the documents in all the cases are not necessarily required to be produced and examined. In this regard he referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tara Chand Vyas V/s. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority reported in -- where under more or less similar circumstances the Supreme Court did not find any manifest error apparent on the face of record warranting interference as they were based upon the documentary evidence which had already been part of the record and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner were sufficient to prove the charge. 7. In the instant case also, as I have already noticed above that there were enough other documentary evidences adduced in the enquiry to establish the charge against the petitioner, in my opinion, non-examination of the makers of Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 would not vitiate the impugned order on that account. 8. It was then submitted by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer has not at all considered the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner except that he in his report has simply mentioned that the defence produced 13 exhibits. In reply, learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that the said question was not raised either in the appeal or in the mercy petition and as such this Court should refrain from entertaining the same for the first time in the writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that non-discussion of 13 exhibits which the petitioner claims to have produced before the disciplinary authority would not vitiate the impugned order of the face of the documentary evidences adduced by the Bank which goes to show beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of the aforementioned regulations. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that the finding is that preponderance of probabilities on the basis of the Banks records give sufficient ground to the enquiry authority to establish the charge. This finding is based on non-delivery of assets in absence of post-sanction inspection and in view of the dates appearing on 3-D certificates and related delivery orders and bills and petty cash disbursed through suppliers, etc. the correctness of which have net been assailed by the petitioner. 9. There appeals to be substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. This finding is based on non-delivery of assets in absence of post-sanction inspection and in view of the dates appearing on 3-D certificates and related delivery orders and bills and petty cash disbursed through suppliers, etc. the correctness of which have net been assailed by the petitioner. 9. There appeals to be substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. The disciplinary authority in the impugned order has noticed the fact about the documents produced by the charge-sheeted officer but they were with respect to some disbursement vouchers for perusal of enquiry to show that there is involvement of other staff members and held that the impartial scrutiny would clearly show that CSO cannot be absolved of his responsibilities. As such, he has mentioned in the order that the enquiry authority has given deep thought to the plea of defence and then arrived at his impartial conclusion, which was acceptable to him also. 10. I find from the order of the disciplinary authority that he has also considered that simply because relief has been claimed by the Bank under ARDR scheme does not in any way prove that the charge-sheeted officer was innocent. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner (charge-sheeted officer) committed misconduct in the matter of disbursement of loan involving substantial amount of the Bank. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. V/s. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in Accordingly. 1 do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed but without costs. 11. However, this order shall not cause any prejudice in considering the case of the petitioner afresh by the Bank authorities in case in the criminal case, which, I am informed is pending against him relating to the same charge, he is exonerated.