V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE prayer in this writ petition is to quash the impugned order at annexure-K dated 11-4-1991 by which penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for release of all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Officer in the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet dated 22-2-1989 as per Annexure-A alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner. The first three charges related to the same transaction relating to disbursement of loan to certain beneficiaries and the petitioner's failure in not taking proper care in the utilisation of the loan for the purpose. The fourth charge related to sanction and disbursement of certain loan amount to a person directly without mentioning the existing liability of the beneficiary. For all the c larges, commission of misconduct under Regulation 30 (1) of Tungabhadra gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 is alleged. The Charges were denied by the petitioner. Since the explanation submitted by him was not found to be satisfactory, enquiry was conducted and based on the findings, the impugned penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The same is challenged by the petitioner by raising several contentions. ( 3 ) A detailed statement of objections is filed on behalf of the respondent controverting all the contentions and justifying the impugned order. ( 4 ) WHILE the learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced several contentions in support of the case of the petitioner and vehemently contended that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is stated that the enquiry officer has proposed stoppage of 6 increments but the Disciplinary Authority, taking into consideration the service of the petitioner, has imposed penalty of stoppage of 4 increments by taking a lenient view and therefore the impugned order need not be disturbed. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to advert to all the contentions raised on either side. I am prima facie satisfied that there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to advert to all the contentions raised on either side. I am prima facie satisfied that there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. Charge-sheet was issued, explanation was received, evidence has been recorded and all the formalities have been complied with. There may be minor laches on the part of the enquiry officer, like not summoning certain documents etc. , but that by itself will not vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The consideration of the matter is confined only with regard to the quantum of penalty imposed on the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE enquiry report states that the fourth charge referred to above itself was a false charge. The first three charges, as observed above, relate to the same transaction and the misconduct alleged is negligence in not ensuring end use of the loan amounts by the beneficiaries and gave scope for mis-utilisation of the loan amounts. In brief, the charges were not serious as was sought to be made out by the learned Counsel for the respondent but they were all minor in nature. There is no allegation of misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. There is no allegation that on account of the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner there was any loss caused to the Bank. Under these circumstances, the imposition of penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. ( 7 ) SINCE the first three charges are held to be proved and since they are simple in nature and having regard to the length of service put in by the petitioner in the Bank, I am of the view that imposition of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect would be sufficient. This is being done taking into consideration the fact that even if there were omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner alone cannot be blamed for the same. There is no pecuniary loss alleged against the petitioner. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty as stated above will meet the ends of justice. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is partly allowed. There is no pecuniary loss alleged against the petitioner. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty as stated above will meet the ends of justice. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified by substituting stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect in place of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The respondent is directed to work-out the consequential benefits flowing to the petitioner by the modification of the impugned order and pay the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --- *** --- .