Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1361 (MP)

S. C. MUKHERJEE v. CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA

2009-12-10

RAJENDRA MENON

body2009
Judgment Rajendra Menon, J. ( 1. ) Challenging the order of punishment - Annexure P/4 dated 15.6.1998, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, and the order - Annexure P/6 dated 21.9.98, passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this petition is filed. ( 2. ) From the facts that have come on record, it is seen that in the year 1995, petitioner was working as a Field Officer in State Bank of India, Sarkanda Branch, Bilaspur. As a Field Officer it was his duty to take action for processing and evaluating the claims and cases of various persons and establishments for grant of loan and also take steps for recovery of the same. ( 3. ) On the ground of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner in the matter of discharging his duties as a Field Officer and not taking proper steps in the matter of processing and granting loan facilities to various persons and establishment, a charge-sheet - Annexure P/1 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioners reply to the same being found unsatisfactory, enquiry was ordered. On the basis of evidence and material that came on record, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his finding, which was forwarded to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 2.1.98, asking him to give his say on the finding. Petitioner submitted his reply to the findings of the enquiry officer vide Annexure P/3 and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order - Annexure P/4 dated 15.6.98 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner in terms of the relevant rules applicable i.e.. The State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty, petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure P/5 dated 30.7.98, which is rejected vide Annexure P/6 dated 21.9.98 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court challenging the enquiry conducted, the finding recorded and the punishment imposed. ( 4. ) Before adverting to consider the contentions advanced, it would be appropriate at this stage to take note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature of imputations as contained in the charge-sheet Annexure P/1 dated 13.11.95. In all seven charges, imputation of misconduct, were alleged against the petitioner. The statement of allegations and the articles forming the charges are as under: "STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 1. Zonal Office sanctioned loans aggregating Rs.10.90 lacs to M/s. Shri Ram Metal corporation. Prop. In all seven charges, imputation of misconduct, were alleged against the petitioner. The statement of allegations and the articles forming the charges are as under: "STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 1. Zonal Office sanctioned loans aggregating Rs.10.90 lacs to M/s. Shri Ram Metal corporation. Prop. Shri Jai Kumar Saraf under nursing programme vide their letters Nos. R/RM/II/ADV/1712 dated 8.5.87 and R/RM/II/ADV/2306 dated 13.4.88. You have committed following irregularities while the loans were made available to the unit :- a) You have not obtained the documents in accordance with the sanction letter. b) The guarantee of Shri Babulal Soni and equitable mortgage of his house property as collateral security have been obtained. Shri Babulal Soni have been reportedly expired in 1966. You failed to notice this fact. This indicates that some fictitious person had executed the mortgage and guarantee agreements. c) Other guarantors are close relatives of the proprietor Shri Jai Kumar Saraf as such the very purpose of obtaining third party guarantee is defeated. d) You allowed over drawings in the units cash credit account. You also did not carry out periodical inspections of the unit. The outstandings of Rs.18,05,200=70 being doubtful of recovery were transferred to protested Bills Account. The DIandCGC have rejected the Banks claim. You have exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By not obtaining documents in accordance with the sanction letter, by getting the guarantee/mortgage agreements executed by fictitious person you have been grossly negligent and acted in a manner detrimental to the Banks interests and exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. Your acts are unbecoming of a Bank official. You have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION 2. Zonal Office sanctioned credit facilities aggregating Rs.14.00 lacs to M/s. Nilesh Rolling Mills, partners Smt. Hemlata Saraf W/o. Shri Jai Kumar Saraf and Smt. Anita Devi W/o. Shri Santosh Kumar under nursing programme. You have committed following irregularities while the loans were released to the unit: a) The equitable mortgage on the property of Shri Jai Ram Soni (guarantor) was initially created by Bilaspur Branch on 6.7.85 which was extended by you on 23.5.88 to cover the enhanced limit sanctioned under nursing programme. Shri Jai Ram Soni have been reportedly expired on 26.4.88. You failed to notice this fact. Shri Jai Ram Soni have been reportedly expired on 26.4.88. You failed to notice this fact. Thus, on 23.5.88 someone else had impersonated as Shri Jai Ram Soni and executed the documents. b) You allowed Shri Jai Kumar Saraf to operate the loan Accounts of the above unit without any authority vested in him by the firm. c) You have not obtained the loan documents in accordance with the sanction letter. d) You have not created charge on the Jeep financed by Bilaspur Branch as collateral security as per the Terms and Conditions stipulated by Zonal Office in their letter No.R/RM/II/ADV/ 2355 dated 12.4.88. e) The amount disbursed in Term Loan A/c was credited to cash credit account, thus you did not ensure end use of funds and allowed diversion of funds. The outstandings of Rs.20,82,654=91, are doubtful of recovery and have been transferred to protested Bills A/c. The Bank is likely to be saddled with loss of substantial amount. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By not obtaining documents in accordance with the sanction letter and allowing a third person to operate the loan accounts of the unit unauthorizedly and by not adhering to the terms and conditions regarding the collateral security stipulated by Zonal Office, you have disregarded Banks instructions and acted negligently. By getting charge on the house property of the guarantor extended for the enhanced limit by some fictitious person you were grossly negligent and acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Bank. Your acts are unbecoming of Bank Official. In the above, you have contravened Rule Nos.50(l) and 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 3. You processed/recommended a loan proposal for sanction of credit facilities aggregating Rs.1.77 lacs (Cash Credit Rs.1.00 lac and Term Loan Rs.0.77 lac) to M/s. Durgesh Metal Industries (partners Sarvashri Ajay Kumar Kathelia and Santosh Kumar) you have committed following irregularities in the process :-a) You did not make discrete enquiry about the partners of the firm before processing/recommending the credit facilities to the unit. Shri Ajay Kumar Kathelia one of the partners of the firm was financed a credit facility of Rs.15,000/- under SEEUY Scheme on 9.2.87 and this loan account was irregular. A Loan of Rs.35,000/- under SEEUY Scheme was sanctioned on 20.10.87 to Ku. Manjulata Kathelia, sister of Shri Ajay Kumar Kathelia. Shri Ajay Kumar Kathelia one of the partners of the firm was financed a credit facility of Rs.15,000/- under SEEUY Scheme on 9.2.87 and this loan account was irregular. A Loan of Rs.35,000/- under SEEUY Scheme was sanctioned on 20.10.87 to Ku. Manjulata Kathelia, sister of Shri Ajay Kumar Kathelia. This unit was not in existence. A Loan of Rs.32,000/- under SEEUY Scheme was also sanctioned to Shri Krishna Kumar Kathelia Uncle of Shri Ajay Kumar. The above unit way not set up and it was not in existence. It is also revealed that a sick unit of Shri Krishna Kumar Kathelia was earlier taken over by Shri Jai Kumar Saraf. The funds were reportedly utilised by Shri Jai Kumar Saraf. Both the partners of the firm M/s. Durgesh Metal Industries, S/Shri Ajay Kumar Kathelia and Santosh Kumar are the relative of Shri Jai Kumar Saraf. Further wife of Shri Jai Kumar Saraf and wife of Santosh Kumar are partners in the firm M/s. Nilesh Metal Industries. All these aspects were ignored while processing/recommending the proposal for sanction. Thus you have extended undue favours to Jai Kumar Saraf and Kathelia family despite the fact that their earlier loan accounts were running irregular. b) You did not obtain partnership deed/letter from the firm (M/ s. Durgesh Metal Industries). While loan application (form Ex-1) has not been signed by all the partners of the firm Form Ex-2 is signed by only one partner in his personal capacity. Shri Santosh Kumar one of the partners is resident of Saugor. The loan account was allowed to be operated by one partner only. Cash Disbursement of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.45,000/- between September, 1987 and January, 1988 were allowed from units Cash Credit Account. There is no other transaction in the account during that period. You did not ensure end use of fund disbursed in cash. The outstandings of Rs.3,10,565=60 are in protested Bills Account. The claim lodged by the Bank with the DIandCGC has been rejected by the corporation. The Bank is likely to saddle with loss of substantial amount. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By extending various credit facilities to different persons of one family without considering that the earlier loan accounts were irregular you passed on undue benefits to a particular family and acted in a manner unmindful of Banks interests. By not obtaining partnership deed/letter from the borrowing firm you have disregarded Banks instructions. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By extending various credit facilities to different persons of one family without considering that the earlier loan accounts were irregular you passed on undue benefits to a particular family and acted in a manner unmindful of Banks interests. By not obtaining partnership deed/letter from the borrowing firm you have disregarded Banks instructions. By allowing cash disbursement and not ensuring end use of funds you have exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. Your acts are unbecoming of Bank Official. You have in the above contravened Rule Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4. Your processed/recommended for sanction of credit facilities aggregating Rs.2.60 lacs (Cash Credit Rs.2.00 lacs and Term Loan Rs.0.60 lacs) to M/s. Shobha Rolling Mills, Prop. Smt. Shobha Kathelia W/o. Shri Premchand Kathelia. Smt. Shobha Kathelia being house wife does not possess skill to manage the affairs of the project, this aspect was ignored by you. You also ignored that the unit was housed in the premises of M/s Prem Metal Industries a unit of her husband which was also sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.2.00 lacs by Zonal Office in March 1986. You accepted the guarantee of Shri Premchan Kathelia husband of the lady proprietor, whose loan account was irregular and his brother instead of insisting for third party guarantee other than the family members. The drawings in the Cash Credit Account were not regulated by DP/Stock statements. The outstandings Rs.3,64,412=05 are in protested Bills Account DIandCGC claim has been rejected by the corporation. The bank is likely to be saddled with loss of substantial amount. ARTICLES OF CHARGES You are charged for being negligent in processing the loan proposal. By accepting guarantee of near relatives of the borrower and the defaulter borrower of the Branch. You have acted in a manner detrimental to the Banks interests. By allowing drawings without arriving at the DP based on stock statements you have disregarded lending norms. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ( 5. ) You processed/recommended for sanction of a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.1.00 lac to M/s. Soni Metal Industries Proprietor Shri Mohanlal who is close relative of Shri Premchand Kathelia. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ( 5. ) You processed/recommended for sanction of a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.1.00 lac to M/s. Soni Metal Industries Proprietor Shri Mohanlal who is close relative of Shri Premchand Kathelia. You accepted guarantee of Smt. Shobha Kathelia W/o. Shri Prem Chand Kathelia. Shri Prem Chand Kathelia and Smt. Shobha Kathelia both are defaulter borrowers of the Branch. You ignored the above facts while considering the loan proposal of M/s Soni Metal Industries. You did not assess the working capital requirement. You also did not obtain stock statement and drawings were not regulated with DP. The unit was not in existence and the loan amounts were misutilised by the borrower. The outstandings of Rs.1,41,045=70 are in Protested Bills Account. DIandCGC claim has been rejected by the corporation. The Bank is likely to suffer a loss of substantial amount. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By accepting guarantee of defaulter borrowers and close relatives of the borrower, you have been negligent and acted in a manner unmindful of the Banks interests and exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. By not regulating the drawings with Drawing Powers you have disregarded the Banks instructions. You have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ( 6. ) A Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned to M/s. Mahavir Plastic Industries Prop. Shri Narendra Chaturvedi on 2.12.87. You recommended to enhance the existing cash credit limit of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- on 1.4.88 despite knowing well that the account of the unit was running highly irregular. You allowed over drawings up to Rs.37.723=50 unauthorizedly against the sanctioned limit of Rs.20.000/-. Thus, the limit was enhanced to cover the over drawings. You further allowed over drawings and outstandings reached up to Rs.95,777=90 against the enhanced limit of Rs.50,000/-. The irregularities were not reported to Controlling Authority. The drawings in account were not regulated with DP/Stock Statement. You also accepted the guarantee of Shri Umashankar Chaturvedi who is the father of Shri Narendra Chaturvedi Prop. Of M/s. Mahavir Plastic Industries. You further allowed over drawings and outstandings reached up to Rs.95,777=90 against the enhanced limit of Rs.50,000/-. The irregularities were not reported to Controlling Authority. The drawings in account were not regulated with DP/Stock Statement. You also accepted the guarantee of Shri Umashankar Chaturvedi who is the father of Shri Narendra Chaturvedi Prop. Of M/s. Mahavir Plastic Industries. The credit facility sanctioned to Shri Uma Shankar Chaturvedi in the name of M/s. K.L. Chaturvedi and sons was running highly irregular at the time, his guarantee was accepted. Outstandings of Rs.1,05,054=20 in Cash Credit Account of M/s. Mahabir Piastic Industries and Rs.3,77,735=87 in Cash Credit Account of M/s. K.L. Chaturvedi and Sons are doubtful of recovery. Thus, you exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By allowing over drawings and not obtaining controlling Authoritys approval, you have exceeded to your authority. By no regulating the drawings by DP/Stock Statements you have violated the Banks instructions. By accepting guarantee of defaulter borrower and enhancing the limit to regularize the over drawings permitted, you have been grossly negligent and acted in a manner unmindful of Banks interests. Your acts are unbecoming of Bank official. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ( 7. ) You have processed/recommended for sanction of credit facilities to M/s. Poonam Metal Industries (Cash Credit limit of Rs.50,000/- sanctioned on 4.2.88) and M/s. Pankaj Metal Industries (Cash Credit limit of Rs. 1.60 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.0.60 lac sanctioned on 14.5.88). The proprietors are father and son in relation. Both the units existed in one premises. No distinction was made in the assets belonging to each unit. You accepted guarantee of Smt. Tara Agrawal w/o Shri Rameshwar Agrawal proprietor of M/s Poonam Metal Industries in both the accounts instead of insisting for independent third party guarantee. You did not obtain any collateral security to cover the advances granted to M/s Pankaj Metal Industries. Opinion reports compiled on one of the guarantor Smt. Tara Agrawal on 4.2.88 and 14.5.88 reveals that her worth has been worked out to Rs.1.5 Lacs and Rs.3.00 Lacs respectively i.e.. 100% increase in the worth within a short period of three months, which indicates a casual approach exhibited by you in compiling the opinion report. Opinion reports compiled on one of the guarantor Smt. Tara Agrawal on 4.2.88 and 14.5.88 reveals that her worth has been worked out to Rs.1.5 Lacs and Rs.3.00 Lacs respectively i.e.. 100% increase in the worth within a short period of three months, which indicates a casual approach exhibited by you in compiling the opinion report. ARTICLES OF CHARGES By recommending credit facilities to the two units owned by the father and son housed in same premises without any distinction of assets you have facilitated the units for diversion/misutilization of loan amounts. By accepting guarantee of wife/mother of the proprietors of the two firms you have acted detrimental to the Banks interests. By increasing worth of the same guarantor within a short period of three months by 100% you have exhibited gross negligence in performing your duties as Field Officer. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos.50(l) and 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank." From the aforesaid allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge- sheet, it would be seen that the main allegations against the petitioner pertain to irregularities committed by him in the matter of processing the cases for grant of loan without following the conditions stipulated in the letter sanctioning loan, as ordered by the competent authority. 5. Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing made submissions mainly with regard to two grounds. The first ground of challenge made by him was to the effect that petitioner had submitted an application seeking grant of 51 documents for his defence. By inviting my attention to the list of documents submitted by the petitioner, as is indicated in Annexure P/9 marked as Exhibit DE/1 in the enquiry proceedings, Shri Vijay Naik submitted that the documents requested for by the petitioner were not supplied and the petitioner was compelled to defend himself without supply of the relevant documents, sought for by him. It was the case of the petitioner that most of the documents sought for by the petitioner, as indicated in the list submitted by him, were not supplied, this caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in the matter of defending himself and, therefore, it is argued that the entire action stands vitiated on the ground of denial of proper opportunity of defence, due to non-supply of the documents. Shri Vijay Naik, learned counsel, emphasized that the enquiry officer while recording the finding at many places, particularly in pages 22, 26 and 27 of his finding - Annexure P/2, has referred to instructions laid down, but the banks instructions referred to by the enquiry officer were never supplied to the petitioner. Emphasizing that action of the authorities concerned in not supplying the relevant documents and holding the petitioner guilty, without supply of these documents, is unsustainable, interference in the matter is sought for. 6. The second ground urged was that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, defence and objection of the petitioner justifying his action is not properly considered by the enquiry officer and, therefore, the entire inquiry stands vitiated. By taking me through some of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer with regard to allegations contained in Charge Nos. 1,2 and 3, Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel, tried to emphasize that the findings recorded with regard to these charges are perverse and cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, even though various grounds are stated in the writ petition, but during the course of hearing the only two grounds urged were as indicated hereinabove i.e. first, non supply of important documents, as prayed for by the petitioner vide list - Annexure P/9; and, second, perversity in the finding of enquiry. Apart from the aforesaid two grounds, Shri Vijay Nayak during the course of arguments tried to emphasize that the enquiry is not properly conducted, but no specific instance with regard to procedural irregularity in the conduct of enquiry is pointed out. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Government of AP and others Vs. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338 , Shri Vijay Nayak argued that the enquiry stands vitiated because the material used in the enquiry particularly copies of the circular and instructions are not supplied to the petitioner. Referring to paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment, Shri Nayak submits that as documents sought for by the petitioner are not supplied, the inquiry stands vitiated. ( 8. ) That apart, placing reliance on another judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , learned counsel argued that findings of the enquiry officer and acceptance of the same by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable and, therefore, the entire action stands vitiated. ( 8. ) That apart, placing reliance on another judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , learned counsel argued that findings of the enquiry officer and acceptance of the same by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable and, therefore, the entire action stands vitiated. ( 9. ) Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents, refute the aforesaid and by placing on record the entire enquiry proceedings and by taking me through the enquiry report and the findings, so also the procedure followed by the enquiry officer, emphasized that in the two lists submitted by the petitioner, various documents were summoned. In the first list submitted, petitioner had sought for 51 documents. Referring to the proceedings of the enquiry and the details in the regard available in the proceedings from 23.7.96 onwards up to the conclusion and the final action taken by the enquiry officer in this regard on 7.10.97, vide Annexure R/1, Shri Akash Choudhary submitted that all the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner. As far as the additional documents sought for by the petitioner vide second list is concerned, Shri Choudhary submitted that all the documents have been supplied to the petitioner. It was emphasized by Shri Choudhary that the second list submitted by the petitioner consisted of about 22 documents, which is available in the proceedings dated 2.9.96. In the proceedings held subsequently, each and every document is taken note of and appropriate orders passed with regard to supply of these documents. Shri Choudhary submitted that all the relevant and material documents available were supplied to the petitioner. Except for contending that certain circulars, instructions and documents were not supplied, Shri Choudhary emphasized that the petitioner has not given any particular instance or details of the documents, which were not supplied and as he has not demonstrated the prejudice caused to him due to non-supply of the documents, it is argued by Shri Choudhary that mere vague allegation that the documents were not supplied is not enough to hold the entire action to be vitiated. However, taking me through the evidence of PW-1 recorded in the enquiry i.e.. However, taking me through the evidence of PW-1 recorded in the enquiry i.e.. of one Shri Vinod Rawat, the then Branch Manager of Sarkanda Branch, and the documents available on record, which were produced in the enquiry, Shri Choudhary argued that this is a case were the allegations and the findings recorded are based on documentary evidence, and as all the relevant documents are available on record, no case is made out for interference in the matter. ( 10. ) Emphasizing upon the limited power of interference available to this Court in such matters, Shri Choudhary, learned counsel, submitted that no case is made out for interference on the grounds raised in this petition. In support of his contention he invites my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 8 SCC 211 , to emphasize that relevancy of the documents, prejudice caused to the employee and the difference it would make to the ultimate finding, having not been demonstrated, therefore, on the grounds raised in this petition no case is made out for interference. ( 11. ) Further, placing reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Indian Oil Corporation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 , Shri Choudhary emphasized that the scope of judicial review laid down by the Supreme Court as indicated in this judgment does not permit this Court to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, contending that on the grounds raised in this petition, no case is made out for interference, Shri Choudhary seeks for dismissal of this petition. ( 12. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the following questions arise for consideration in this matter: (i) The first question would be as to whether documents sought for by the petitioner were supplied and if not, what is the effect of the same on the final outcome of the departmental proceedings. (ii) The second question that arises for consideration is with regard to perversity, if any, in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. (ii) The second question that arises for consideration is with regard to perversity, if any, in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. That apart, as the matter pertains to disciplinary action taken against the petitioner on the basis of a finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry, it may be appropriate to consider whether the procedure undertaken in the departmental enquiry meets the requirement of being in accordance to the principles of natural justice, as no statutory rule or regulation in the matter of conducting the enquiry or its breach or violation is brought to the notice of this Court, during the course of hearing of this writ petition. ( 13. ) Before adverting to consider the two grounds i.e.. Grounds No.(i) and (ii), as indicated hereinabove, it would be appropriate to consider the procedure followed in the departmental enquiry. ( 14. ) From the records, it is seen that after petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him, the competent authority i.e... the Dy. General Manager, who is the disciplinary authority, appointed an officer of the rank of Chief Manager as enquiry officer. Initially the enquiry was conducted by one Shri S.K. Chopra, but due to his transfer one Shri G.L. Nafde, Chief Manager (Enquiry), local Head Office, Bhopal proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his finding, which was forwarded to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2. The first date of enquiry was fixed on 23.3.96, at Sarkanda Branch. On the said date, the enquiry officer Shri S.K. Chopra; the presenting officer Shri S.V.B.S. Sharma; and, the petitioner Shri S.B. Mukherjee, were present. The enquiry officer read out the charge sheet to the petitioner, petitioner accepted receipt of the said charge sheet and denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the enquiry officer asked the petitioner whether he wants the services of a defence counsel to assist him in the enquiry. To this the petitioner replied by stating that he will defend his own case. The presenting officer was thereafter asked to proceed with the case. The presenting officer produced 105 documents in two sets. One set of these 105 documents were supplied to the petitioner, who accepted the same as per the list. After submission of the list, the presenting officer stated that he has brought a file containing the original documents and, therefore, petitioner can verify the documents given to him from the original file. One set of these 105 documents were supplied to the petitioner, who accepted the same as per the list. After submission of the list, the presenting officer stated that he has brought a file containing the original documents and, therefore, petitioner can verify the documents given to him from the original file. The original file was thereafter handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner verified the documents and thereafter all these documents were taken on record as Prosecution Exhibits - PEX 1 to PEX 105. Thereafter, the presenting officer stated that he would like to examine two witnesses namely; Shri V.K. Ravat, Branch Manager; and one Shri Cherian, Field Officer in support of the case of the Bank. The matter was thereafter adjourned. The next enquiry was held on 18.6.96 and on the said date the petitioner submitted a list of 51 documents, which he wanted to be produced by the presenting officer, for his defence. The presenting officer submitted that as the list consisted of various documents, which are to be collected from the branch office, he would require some time to produce the documents. Accordingly, at the instance of the presenting officer, seeking time to produce the 51 documents demanded, the enquiry was adjourned. Thereafter, on various dates proceedings took place with regard to production of these documents and after all the documents available and relevant were produced and petitioner raised certain objections, the enquiry continued. PW-1 Shri Vinod Ravat was examined, he was cross-examined by the petitioner and thereafter in the proceedings held on 2.9.96, petitioner again sought for production of 22 documents. Most of these documents were made available and the proceedings dated 2.9.96 indicate that the documents sought for, 22 in number, were either produced or their non-availability or relevancy explained and thereafter the enquiry continued on various dates up to 2.9.96, during which period proceedings for submitting the documents demanded and cross-examination of PW-1 Shri Vinod Ravat by the petitioner were undertaken. The cross-examination of PW-1 was closed by the petitioner on 2.9.96. Thereafter, on 11.10.96, objections raised by the petitioner were considered, the enquiry officer gave his ruling on the objections, the enquiry was thereafter held on 28.12.96, 9.1.97, 30.1.97 and 18.2.97, but was adjourned because of absence of the petitioner and on one date i.e.. 9.1.97, due to absence of both the parties i.e.. the petitioner and the presenting officer. Thereafter, on 11.10.96, objections raised by the petitioner were considered, the enquiry officer gave his ruling on the objections, the enquiry was thereafter held on 28.12.96, 9.1.97, 30.1.97 and 18.2.97, but was adjourned because of absence of the petitioner and on one date i.e.. 9.1.97, due to absence of both the parties i.e.. the petitioner and the presenting officer. In the meanwhile, after the enquiring authority Shri S.K. Chopra was transferred vide order dated 8.3.97, Shri G.L. Naphade was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry was held on 14.5.97, 16.6.97 and from 9.7.97 petitioner started raising objections initially with regard to admissibility of a death certificate of one Babulal Soni. i.e... with regard to how this death certificate is to be proved. The enquiry was held on various dates upto 7.10.97, but on the question of admissibility of a death certificate, it seems that the petitioner was not satisfied with the ruling of the enquiry officer and, therefore, he protested to the same and did not lead any evidence and the enquiry officer, therefore, concluded the enquiry and submitted his finding. ( 15. ) During the coarse of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any objection nor demonstrated before this Court as to how the procedure followed in the departmental enquiry is vitiated or illegal. In fact no objection to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted was raised at the time of hearing. The procedure followed by the enquiry officer was only objected to with reference to the action of the enquiry officer in not supplying or making available the documents as per the two lists i.e., list of 51 documents and 22 documents respectively and non-production of the banks instruction and circular referred to by the enquiry officer in his finding at various places. Apart from this limited objection, no other procedural irregularity or impropriety in the matter of conducting the departmental enquiry was pointed out, nor any statutory rule or regulation shown to be violated. Even though the records indicate that petitioner was not examined and he had not produced any defence witness, but during the course of hearing by this count, no objections were raised nor any arguments advanced. Even though the records indicate that petitioner was not examined and he had not produced any defence witness, but during the course of hearing by this count, no objections were raised nor any arguments advanced. That being so, it is the considered view of this Court that the procedure followed in the enquiry is proper and the only objection requiring consideration now is the two objections of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of documents and perversity of finding. ( 16. ) As far as supply of documents to the petitioner and holding the enquiry to be vitiated on that count is concerned, before examining the said question on merits in accordance to the objections raised at the time of hearing, it would be appropriate to consider the legal principle governing consideration of such an objection. ( 17. ) In the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 , Honble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of breach of procedural provisions in the matter of conducting a domestic enquiry and after taking note of various judgments on the question, including the judgment in the case of B. Karunakar (supra) relied upon by Shri Vijay Nayak, the ultimate legal principle is laid down in paragraph 33 and the relevant provisions of the same reads as under: "33. We may summarize the principles emerging from the above discussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee): (1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character. (2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case. (3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. (3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest, Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under no notice, no opportunity and no hearing categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) here in below is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. (4) (a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. The principle stated under (4) here in below is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. (4) (a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. xxx xxx xxx xxx (6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. XXX XXX xxx xxx" (Emphasis supplied) ( 18. ) From the aforesaid principle, it would be seen that procedural provisions are bifurcated into two. One is the mandatory provision and the other is directory in nature. The mandatory provisions are to be complied with whereas the directory provisions, if said to be violated, has to be evaluated on the basis of prejudice caused to the delinquent employee. In the present case, no statutory or mandatory provision is brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it can be held that the documents sought for by the petitioner was to be supplied as a mandatory requirement under any statutory provision, but on the contrary it is a requirement, directory in nature and, therefore, it is a case where mere non-production of documents as claimed by the petitioner may not be enough to hold that the departmental enquiry stands vitiated. On the contrary it was incumbent on the petitioner to show as to what prejudice was caused to him for non-supply of the document concerned and in what manner the same would have affected the final outcome in the departmental proceeding. ( 19. ) This principle laid down in the case of S.K. Sharma (supra) is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P State Textile Corporation Limited (supra) relied upon by Shri Choudhary. ( 19. ) This principle laid down in the case of S.K. Sharma (supra) is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P State Textile Corporation Limited (supra) relied upon by Shri Choudhary. It is, therefore, clear from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that mere non-supply of the documents and its establishment ipso facto will not vitiate the entire enquiry. The enquiry would be held to be vitiated and the principles of natural justice held to be violated only if it is shown that the documents called for were relevant and their non-supply caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It would, therefore, be appropriate to consider and apply the aforesaid principle in the facts of the present case. ( 20. ) During the course of hearing even though Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the documents sought for by the petitioner were not supplied, particularly the circulars and instructions relied upon by the enquiry officer in his finding were not given to the petitioner, but he was unable to demonstrate before this Court by referring to any particular document as to how and in what manner non production of the document caused prejudice to him or caused impediment in defence. He was unable to show to this Court as to what was the relevancy of a particular document, how it had affected his defence and in what manner it had affected the final outcome in the departmental proceedings. It may be emphasized that except for contending that the documents were not produced or supplied, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate and prove before this Court the prejudice caused to him by non-supply of any documents. In that view of the matter, applying the principles laid down in the case of S.K. Sharma (supra), the first objection of the petitioner has to be rejected on this ground alone. ( 21. ) However, having found so, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed and analyse as to how in fact this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the enquiry officer in the present case. ( 22. ) From the records, it is seen that initially a list of 51 documents were sought for by the petitioner. ( 21. ) However, having found so, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed and analyse as to how in fact this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the enquiry officer in the present case. ( 22. ) From the records, it is seen that initially a list of 51 documents were sought for by the petitioner. The presenting officer has dealt with each and every aspect of the documents requested to be produced and the proceedings of the enquiry indicate that reply to the request made by the petitioner with regard to each of the 51 documents is available in the enquiry file. If the proceedings of the enquiry from 23.7.96 are scrutinized and if a gist of the same available on record as Annexure R/1 is taken note of, it would be seen that most of the documents sought for by the petitioner have been supplied and made available to the petitioner. If the list of documents submitted by the petitioner and the proceedings of the enquiry are taken note of, it would be seen that most of the documents sought for by the petitioner were either available in the 105 documents produced by the presenting officer or these documents were made available to the petitioner. For example - the first document sought for by the petitioner related to orders placed by M/s Shri Ram Metal Corporation, the list AnnexureR/1 indicates that it was supplied and it was enclosed with AnnexureR/1 dated 7.10.97. AnnexureR/1 dated 7.10.97 is a document showing supply of documents to the petitioner from the list submitted by him and the reasons given, in case the document is not supplied. A scanning of the aforesaid i.e... AnnexureR/1 indicates that most of the documents were supplied and in some cases it is indicated that no such document is available in the branch concerned. As already indicated hereinabove except for contending that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner, reference to a specific document was not made and the fact of its non-supply was not specifically pointed out during the course of hearing, the only specific instance of document not supplied was with regard to banks instructions in the matter of granting loan to family members and acceptance of guarantee. In the list submitted by the petitioner on 18.6.96, these documents are indicated at Serial Nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51. In the list submitted by the petitioner on 18.6.96, these documents are indicated at Serial Nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51. During the course of hearing Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel, had only made specific reference to these four documents and it was said that the instructions and circulars were not supplied. As far as these four documents are concerned, proceedings of the enquiry held on 31.6.98 indicate that while dealing with question of supplying documents and while making available the documents to the petitioner and also while indicating that some of the documents are not available, specific reference is made to the four documents and circulars indicated at Serial Nos. 48 to 51, and if the petitioners argument to the enquiring authority while deliberating on certain statements made by the Presenting officer and the witnesses are evaluated i.e... statement of PW-1 V.K. Ravat, the petitioner has given the following statement, which on reproduction reads as under: "CSO to IA - My submission - contention of the prosecution is not in consonance with the Banks instructions as the Defence demanded vide item No.48 to 51, hence the submission of the prosecution in filing the Banks laid down instructions is not acceptable." If the aforesaid statement of the petitioner made to the enquiry officer is taken note of, it would be seen that his argument was that the contention of the Presenting Officer is not in line to that of the Banks instruction, as defence has demanded vide item Nos.48 to 51. If the petitioner is able to make a specific statement that the contentions of the prosecution is not as per Banks instructions, then a presumption has to be drawn that the documents were made available to the petitioner or that he was aware of these documents. Unless these documents were known to the petitioner or available, petitioner would not be able to make a contention that prosecutions assertion that petitioner has failed to follow banks laid down procedure, is not acceptable. It is, therefore, clear that the arguments advanced by Shri Vijay Nayak with regard to non-production of the banks circular is not correct. Unless these documents were known to the petitioner or available, petitioner would not be able to make a contention that prosecutions assertion that petitioner has failed to follow banks laid down procedure, is not acceptable. It is, therefore, clear that the arguments advanced by Shri Vijay Nayak with regard to non-production of the banks circular is not correct. That apart, if the reference made by the petitioner to the so-called circulars and documents by referring to pages 22, 26, 27, 30, 31 and 33 of findings of Enquiry Officer are taken note of, it would be seen that reference made to the mandatory important instructions, in page 22 is to the instructions contained in the sanction letter No.2355 dated 12.4.88 with reference to allegation No.1. This instruction does not refer to any other Banks instructions or circular, but the instructions contained in the sanction letter issued by the Zonal Office. Similarly, the banks instructions referred to in page 26 pertains to the banks instructions as was produced by the presenting officer vide PEXNo.2, which is the drawing power so also to Exhibits 106 and 107. The enquiry officer has referred to these bank instructions as recorded above, meaning thereby the banks instructions referred to by PW-1 and recorded in the preceding paragraph. Thereafter, the documents referred to in page 27 is the instructions issued to the petitioner, which is said to be violated with regard to charge No. 1. Again in page 29, what is referred to is the instructions conveyed in the sanction letter by the Zonal Office. Similar is the breach pointed out in page 30, with regard to not obtaining documents in accordance to the instructions contained in the sanction letter. In page 31, reference is made to certain instructions in the SEEUY Scheme and the instructions are reproduced by referring to them as under: "That apart, the entire SEEUY Scheme is brought on record as PEX-52." Again, the instructions referred to at page 33 of the enquiry officers finding is with regard to breach of the instructions contained in the sanction letter and in page 34 after taking note of the procedure followed and after taking note of the procedure and the instructions contained in PEX31, it is observed by the enquiry officer that the petitioner has not adhered to Banks financial discipline. Again in page 35, reference is made to Banks instruction, which is not followed by the petitioner in the matter of granting benefit to defaulter borrowers. ( 23. ) On the basis of the material available on record, if the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to non-supply of Banks instructions are evaluated, two important features can be noticed. The first is with the so-called Banks instructions referred to most of the time by Shri Vijay Nayak pertains to instructions contained in the sanction letter forwarded by the competent authority to the petitioner. If the statement of allegations as reproduced in paragraph 4, hereinabove, are taken note of, it would be seen that in each of the statement of allegations and charges, petitioner is alleged to have violated zonal offices sanction or instruction with regard to grant of loan. That being so, the enquiry officer in most of the place refers to breach of instructions as per the sanction granted and not to any instructions available in any particular circular. It is only at two places pertaining to breach of Banks financial discipline and instructions to defaulting borrowers that general instructions are referred to, but petitioner is unable to demonstrate as to how non-production of these documents causes prejudice to the petitioner. If the contention of the petitioner to the enquiry officer with regard to his action being in consonance with the Banks instructions are taken note of, then it is a case where petitioner has merely tried to allege non-production of certain documents, but has failed to prove how these documents were relevant and how their non-production makes or causes any prejudice to him and how they materially affect the final outcome of the enquiry. ( 24. ) In that view of the matter as far as the first ground raised by the petitioner with regard to breach of the principles of natural justice in the matter of non-supply of documents are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that most of the documents sought for by the petitioner were either produced and made available to the petitioner and those which were not produced were either not available or were not at all relevant. However, for the sake of repetition, it may be taken note of that petitioner has not pointed out breach in the matter of supplying documents with reference to any particular document and the prejudice caused to him. That being so, merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations made regarding non-supply of documents, interference into the matter is not warranted. ( 25. ) Judgments in the case of A. Venkata Raidu (supra) and B. Karunakar (supra), relied upon by Shri Vijay Nayak, will not help the petitioner. In the case of A. Venkata Raidu (supra), the principle laid down is the general principle with regard to supply of documents and the resultant violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the said judgment has to be considered in the present case keeping in view the principles laid down in the case of S. K. Sharma (supra) and the other cases where mere breach is held not to be fatal, but the principle laid down is that in case of directory provisions the breach complained of should result in prejudice caused, which has to be established. Similarly, the case of B. Karunakar (supra) will also not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner has not demonstrated the prejudice caused to him due to breach alleged in the matter of conducting departmental enquiry. It is the considered view of this Court that the judgments relied upon by Shri Vijay Nayak in this regard will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 26. ) As far as the second ground urged by Shri Vijay Nayak with regard to perversity in the finding of enquiry officer is concerned, the said question has to be considered in the backdrop of the powers of judicial review available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of judicial review in the matter. ( 27. ) In the case of Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Rajapandian, AIR 1995 SC 561 , it has been held that an administrative Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not sit over the decision of the disciplinary authority as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction. Again in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Rajapandian, AIR 1995 SC 561 , it has been held that an administrative Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not sit over the decision of the disciplinary authority as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction. Again in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , in paragraphs 12 and 13, the scope of judicial review is crystallized in the following manlier: "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eve of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to re appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H. C. Goel (1964), ( AIR 1964 SC 364 ), this Court held at page 728 (of SCR), that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ or certiorari could be issued." (Emphasis supplied) ( 28. ) Thereafter, in the case of State of TN Vs. Thiru K. V. Perumal and others, (1996) 5 SCC 474 , the principles laid down in the case of S.K. Sharma (supra) is followed and the following is laid down: "4......The test to be applied in this behalf has been set out by this Court in State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996 (3) SCC 364 . It was the duty of the respondent to point out how each and every document was relevant to the charges or to the enquiry being held against him and whether and how their non supply has prejudiced his case. Equally, it is the duty of the Tribunal to record a finding whether any relevant documents were not supplied and whether such non-supply has prejudiced the defendants case. Since this has not been done by the Tribunal in this matter, it has to go back for a rehearing." ( 29. ) Finally, in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 416 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to the purpose of considering as to whether the procedure followed is proper, fair and reasonable. Shashikant S. Patil and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 416 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to the purpose of considering as to whether the procedure followed is proper, fair and reasonable. The decision itself is not subject to judicial scrutiny, as if the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction. ( 30. ) On a consideration of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the various judgments with regard to scope of judicial review, it would be seen that the High Court does not sit over the decision of the disciplinary authority as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction, the scope of judicial review is very limited, it is only a judicial review of the decision making process and not the decision itself on merit. If the decision making process is found to be just, fair and reasonable, commensurate with the principles of natural justice, judicial review into the finding, re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the same by an independent finding is not permissible. ( 31. ) If that be so, the second question with regard to perversity in the finding has to be evaluated keeping in view the aforesaid limited scope of interference available to this Court. Except for contending that defence of the petitioner is not taken note of, petitioner was unable to demonstrate before this Court as to how and in what manner the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to not following the instructions of the Zonal office in the matter of granting loan, evaluating documents for grant of loan and taking equitable mortgage or guarantee for the loan sanctioned. Even though oral statement of PW-1 Vinod Ravat is recorded, a perusal of his statement indicates that he has only produced various documents to demonstrate that the instructions given in the sanction granted were not followed by the petitioner and has explained procedure followed by the petitioner to point out the breach committed. The procedural irregularity committed by the petitioner is demonstrated by the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer after evaluating the same has recorded the finding to hold that the petitioner has not followed the instructions given to him, for grant of loan. The procedural irregularity committed by the petitioner is demonstrated by the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer after evaluating the same has recorded the finding to hold that the petitioner has not followed the instructions given to him, for grant of loan. For example - with regard to the allegations as contained in charge No. 1, it was alleged against the petitioner that he permitted equitable mortgage of a house as collateral security with regard to loan granted to M/s Shri Ram Metal Corporation and for the said purpose one Shri Babulal Soni was presented as guarantor. It is found that Shri Babulal Soni had already expired in the year 1966 and, therefore, without verifying the actual identity of the guarantor, petitioner has accepted the equitable mortgage presented in the name of a dead person by an impostor. Similar irregularity has been committed by the petitioner in granting loan to some members of the family when they were not entitled to overdraft facility or certain other benefits. He was also found to have permitted certain account holders like J.K. Saraf to operate the loan account without authority of the firm, in whose name the loan was sanctioned. In fact the finding of the enquiry officer in the present case is based on documentation of the procedure followed for grant of loan and the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the same. The enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have concurrently recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to follow various instructions and laid down procedure. ( 32. ) This Court exercising limited jurisdiction in the absence of specific grounds or facts being demonstrated cannot hold that the findings are perverse. It is a case where on the basis of documents made available, a reasonable finding is recorded by the authorities concerned and the petitioner is compulsorily retired. This Court cannot re appreciate the entire material and hold that the findings are not correct and, therefore, substitute the finding of the authorities with the finding" of this Court. This is not the scope and power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot re appreciate the entire material and hold that the findings are not correct and, therefore, substitute the finding of the authorities with the finding" of this Court. This is not the scope and power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court can only interfere in the matter if from the face of the record it is established that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are perverse to such an extent that they are not based on any material available on record, are based on extraneous consideration or recorded without any evidence available on record i.e... the finding has to be such that no evidence is available to record such a finding and that no prudent person would record such a finding. It is only under these circumstances that a writ court can interfere in the matter. In the present case, the finding of the enquiry officer are based on the documents pertaining to sanction and payment of loan and nothing is brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it can be held that the findings are perverse. ( 33. ) It may be emphasized that during the course of hearing of this writ petition, at no point of time any perversity in the finding was demonstrated with reference to a particular fact or allegation or imputation. Only by reading certain portions of the enquiry officers finding, it was argued that the findings are perverse, but the perversity, actual in nature with reference to a particular fact or documents and material available on record was not brought to the notice of this Court. That being so, this Court has to hold that the perversity alleged with regard to the findings of the enquiry officer is not established from the material available on record and, therefore, on the second ground urged also, interference into the matter is not called for considering the limited jurisdiction of interference available to this Court in such matters. ( 34. ) Finally it can be concluded that in this case petitioner has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment after conducting a departmental enquiry against him in which the charges are proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and. therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. ( 35. ( 34. ) Finally it can be concluded that in this case petitioner has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment after conducting a departmental enquiry against him in which the charges are proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and. therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. ( 35. ) Accordingly, finding no merit, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.