Judgment :- Ms. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. The writ-petitioner, who is the appellant has challenged the order of the termination, dated December 8, 1986, passed by the disciplinary authority, the third respondent herein and confirmed by the second respondent-appellate authority. The writ-petitioner, who is an officer of the Indian Overseas Bank, was functioning as Branch Manager of Narikudi Branch, when his services were terminated by the impugned order herein. The misconduct in respect of which, chargesheet was issued to the writ-petitioner pertained to irregular granting of loans to a number of persons, failure to observe precaution before sanctioning the loans and obtaining illegal monetary advantage. Enquiry was conducted by the enquiry authority into the various charges. The petitioner has stated that these loans were granted under the integrated rural development programme to women who were engaged in the palm leaf product manufacture and that the borrowers only wanted the financial subsidy amount and the loan amounts were retained by him to be adjusted at a later date, which he actually did. He also stated that he had conducted presanction inspection before granting loans, that the S.B. account of the borrowers were regularly debited and given credit to. He had released the amounts to the borrowers because he was satisfied that they would repay the loan amount promptly. Several witnesses were examined including the borrowers, who denied the petitioner's statement that they did not want the loan amount, on the contrary, they stated that though they had signed the loan documents, the amounts were not disbursed M.W. 13, the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., had stated in his enquiry that he had signed the FIR against the petitioner and obtained the statement, wherein the petitioner had admitted the charges.After careful consideration of the findings of the said authority, the third respondent herein, came to the following conclusion as seen from the order, dated December 8, 1986. The charges which stand establishment are serious in nature for the following reasons : (1) You had granted loans to a number of parties but after retaining the loan amount had disbursed only the subsidy under IRDP Programme. (2) You had remitted back the loan amount to the bank after considerable delay. (3) You had failed to ensure the genuineness of the loans granted by you by conducting inspection. (2) You had remitted back the loan amount to the bank after considerable delay. (3) You had failed to ensure the genuineness of the loans granted by you by conducting inspection. (4) You had failed to disburse the loans as per the procedures laid down and omitted to verify the post sanction utilisation thereof. (5) You had granted loans with a view to share the subsidy amount with the borrowers thus deriving illegal pecuniary advantage. (6) You had granted loans when prior loans were outstanding and they were adjusted out of the proceeds of the fresh loans granted by you, as the loans were not genuine that they have become sticky and difficult of recovery. The disciplinary authority concluded that the petitioner's conduct showed lack of devotion and integrity and terminated the petitioner from the services of the bank in terms of Regulation 4(g) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, wherein he reiterated the same contentions raised earlier and also admitted that he has not followed the procedure and that he is guilty of procedural irregularities. However, he would say that the extreme punishment of termination should not be given, since the lapses are not so serious. The appellate authority after considering the grounds of appeal and the facts of the case dismissed the appeal stating that the petitioner's conduct revealed not only lack of devotion to duty and integrity, but. also gross abuse of power. Against this order, the petitioner made a further appeal to the first respondent seeking mercy and a reduction of punishment, in vain. Thereupon he approached this Court seeking remedy.The learned single Judge held that since all the procedural formalities have been followed properly by the respondents in the conduct of the enquiry and since the proved charges related to financial irregularities, which the petitioner had also admitted the writ-petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. In the writ appeal, typed set of papers have been furnished by the respondents which show the complaint given by the villagers of Narikudi against the petitioner and the other documents relating to the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. In the writ appeal, typed set of papers have been furnished by the respondents which show the complaint given by the villagers of Narikudi against the petitioner and the other documents relating to the enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that there was no grave misconduct as to warrant termination and that the petitioner, working in a Rural Branch had granted these loans bona fide to the women borrowers, who wanted to take advantage of the subsidy scheme and that there was no actual financial loss caused to the bank. Therefore, he prayed that the order of termination be set aside and that some reduction in punishment may be ordered in the instant case, in the event, the Court finds that the charges are held to be proved. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand stated that an employee in bank ought to follow the prepost sanction procedure while granting any facility and that deliberate violation of such procedural formalities would amount to serious misconduct. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that a Branch Manager ought to have known his responsibility, while sanctioning the loan and the mere fact that no loss was caused to the bank was really not relevant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision reported in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996-II-LLJ-379. This case also relates to a Branch Manager of a bank, whose services were terminated on account of certain irregularities in sanctioning loans. While considering what amounts to misconduct and failure to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, the Supreme Court says, in 1996-II-LLJ-379 at 382 : "7. ...... In the case of a bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organisation - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If such officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largessee. If such officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largessee. No Organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too, a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases, but they may also lead to huge losses." He also relied on the decision reported in, where the Supreme Court holds in a case which involves misappropriation, whether small or large, sympathy is totally uncalled for. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the appellant is guilty of procedural irregularities in sanctioning loans, but what the appellant has actually done is to grant these loans to the poor people, who were more interested in availing the subsidy amount to which they are eligible under certain schemes. In order to protect the bank from financial loss, the appellant has in fact not disbursed the loan amount, since he has been fairly certain that these borrowers would not repay. That is why the appellant has reiterated in all his statements that he has not caused financial loss. These amounts which ought to have been given to the borrowers as loans, has been retained by him and then remitted to the bank. It is clear that the appellant has taken the example of the various loan "Melas" conducted by the banks.In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the punishment of termination appears to be very harsh and disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. The explanation of the appellant that the borrowers who were much below the poverty line were only interested in the subsidy amount and that is why to help them, he granted these loans, but at the same time, had safeguarded the bank's interest appears to be true and acceptable. The explanation of the appellant that the borrowers who were much below the poverty line were only interested in the subsidy amount and that is why to help them, he granted these loans, but at the same time, had safeguarded the bank's interest appears to be true and acceptable. The order of the learned single Judge is therefore, modified and the order of termination is converted to one of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of termination, i.e., December 8, 1986. In the result, the appeal is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.