ORDER:- Aggrieved by the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.10.1994, whereby the petitioner was reduced to a lower grade i.e., from Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management Grade Scale-I, as envisaged under Regulation 4( e) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The charges levelled against the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 10.5.1993, are as under: 1. You failed to ensure and use of the loan granted by you. 2. You granted loans for accommodation purposes. 3. You have shown undue favour to a few parties by granting loans under DIR category to borrowers who are not eligible for loans under the above scheme. 4. You demanded/obtained illegal gratification for grant of loans. 3. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, in his report dated 17.6.1994, held all the four charges as proved. While forwarding a copy of the enquiry report, along with its letter dated 18.7.1994, the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner to submit his representation or objections to findings of the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide letter dated 4.8.1994, submitted his representation. Based thereupon, the impugned order dated 22.10.1994 was passed, wherein the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and, taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner, imposed on him the punishment of reduction in rank. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23.11.1994 to the Executive Director, Canara Bank who, by order dated 3.4.1995, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed a review petition on 4.4.1996, which was also dismissed as not maintainable. 4. The only ground urged before this Court by Sri V.V. Prabakara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that since the loans granted by the petitioner had already been recovered, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges. 5. I must express my inability to agree. The charges held established against the petitioner includes showing undue favour to a few parties by granting loans under DIR category, even though they were not eligible for being granted the loans and to have demanded/obtained illegal gratification for grant of such loans. 5. I must express my inability to agree. The charges held established against the petitioner includes showing undue favour to a few parties by granting loans under DIR category, even though they were not eligible for being granted the loans and to have demanded/obtained illegal gratification for grant of such loans. Even assuming that the loans were subsequently recovered, the charges are of extending loans to persons who were not eligible and to have demanded and obtained illegal gratification for grant of such loans. The mere fact that such loans were recovered later would not absolve the petitioner of such grave and serious charges. The impugned order of punishment of reduction in rank, in the light of the charges held established, is undoubtedly lenient. Petitioner is indeed fortunate to have been let off with mere imposition of punishment of reduction in rank instead of imposing a harsher penalty. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.