ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment awarded to him in the departmental proceeding communicated vide memo no. 4904 dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7), issued by the then Administrator of Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank’ for the sake of brevity), dismissing the petitioner from service and directing 30% of the loan amount disbursed during his tenure as District Manager, Jamui to be realized from him and also ordering that except subsistence allowance, nothing shall be payable to him for the period of his suspension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was appointed as Land Valuation Officer in the Bank vide letter dated 28.02.1968 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager vide Bank’s letter dated 31.01.1973, whereafter he was promoted as District Manager vide Bank’s letter dated 15.11.1975. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the period from 16.12.1985 to 16.02.1986 while he was posted as District Manager, Jamui, some irregularities were reported in the newspaper with respect to distribution of loans to some Harijans and Adiwasis in Sono and Chakai Blocks and when the Deputy Managing Director of the Bank, along with Finance Officer made enquiry, they found certain irregularities. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, Chakai P.S. Case No. 45 of 1988 was initiated against the then Branch Managers for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 201 of the Penal Code and in that proceeding the name of the petitioner as District Manager of the area having supervisory jurisdiction was added. In that case charge-sheet was submitted against other accused persons, but it did not contain the name of the petitioner and on that basis cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate only against the charge-sheeted persons on 28.08.1997 (Annexure 2) as no material was found with respect to the involvement of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was submitted on 12.12.1988 (Annexure 1), whereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation with respect to the charges, pleading innocence and denying any involvement. It was also averred that thereafter the enquiry officer conducted enquiry, in which the persons, examined in the preliminary enquiry, were brought for cross-examination and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.07.1992 before the disciplinary authority. 7. It was also averred that thereafter the enquiry officer conducted enquiry, in which the persons, examined in the preliminary enquiry, were brought for cross-examination and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.07.1992 before the disciplinary authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the disciplinary authority sent second show cause notice along with the report to the petitioner on 26.07.2001, to which the petitioner replied on 25.09.2001 (Annexure 6) giving detailed explanation with respect to each of the charges and also enumerating grounds against the findings of the enquiry officer, but the disciplinary authority, without considering the aforesaid explanation and grounds, passed the impugned order against the petitioner on 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7) giving harshest punishment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that neither any direct allegation of embezzlement was levelled against the petitioner in the charges framed nor any direct act of embezzlement was found against him either in the enquiry report or in the order of punishment nor there was any evidence also to show any direct act of the petitioner with respect to the irregularities, which were alleged to have been committed by other employees of the Bank. 9. He also claimed that the petitioner was only a supervisory authority and he had no direct role to play in the aforesaid embezzlement, but inspite of that a very harsh punishment of removal from service was awarded to the petitioner, which did not commensurate with the nature of delinquency. In this connection he relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vrs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1151 as well as in case of Subhash vrs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 9 S.C.C. 344 . 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the only allegation against petitioner was that he did not perform his duties properly and hence the doctrine of proportionality was clearly involved, which is a well recognized concept of judicial review in jurisprudence. In this connection he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another vrs. Mukul Kumar, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme 349 . In this connection, he also relied upon a circular of the Bank bearing no. In this connection he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another vrs. Mukul Kumar, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme 349 . In this connection, he also relied upon a circular of the Bank bearing no. 4055 dated 29.04.1970, which provided as follows :- “ Instances have come to the notice of the undersigned that disbursement is sometime delayed due to the non-availability of the District Officer. Each District Officer has several branches under his control and due to enormous increase in the responsibilities of District Officer like co-ordination, supervision, inspection and collection of dues, it has become difficult for him to visit a branch regularly and particularly for this purpose. In order to obviate this difficulty and with a view to ensure expeditions disbursement of loans………………after complying all the conditions laid down by the H.O., it will be personal responsibility of the Branch Managers that all necessary conditions are fulfilled before the loan is disbursed.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded that in view of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner did not deserve any punishment, much less major punishment of termination of service and recovery of such a huge amount specially when the petitioner was going to superannuate in the year 2004, but by the impugned order of 2002 he was deprived of everything. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Bank and its authorities stated that in view of circular dated 23.02.1983 issued by the Bank, specific duties and responsibilities of the District Magistrate were incorporated in its clauses, but it had been validly proved that the petitioner failed to perform his aforesaid duties and to discharge the abovementioned responsibilities as per the said clauses, nor he could give any valid excuses with respect to the non-performance of duties and responsibilities. His claim that the duty and responsibility were of the Branch Manager was clearly falsified by the aforesaid circular. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that altogether there were nine charges levelled against the petitioner, out of which charge no. 1 was with respect to non-performance of his duty as per clauses 6 and 19 of the said circular, whereas, charges no. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that altogether there were nine charges levelled against the petitioner, out of which charge no. 1 was with respect to non-performance of his duty as per clauses 6 and 19 of the said circular, whereas, charges no. 2 to 9 levelled against the petitioner were with respect to other clauses of the said circular and all of them were fully detailed in the charge-sheet and were fully discussed by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report dated 31.07.1992 (Annexure 4), in which each charge of the memo of charges and each clause of the said circular were considered in detail. Similarly the disciplinary authority had also considered the said charges and clauses elaborately in his impugned order dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7). 14. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that the petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer as well as before the Conducting Officer and sufficient opportunity was given to him and it cannot be said that the materials were not available and hence there was no defect in the said proceeding, which resulted in the impugned order, in which it was rightly held that dereliction of duty was amply proved, due to which huge loss had accrued to the Bank, but only 30% of the said loss had been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had raised disputed question of facts, whereas, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority arriving at the said conclusion was based on a detailed enquiry with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence in those circumstances punishment awarded to the petitioner was not disproportionate to the act committed by him, as dereliction of duty at such a high level is a very grave act, specially when it causes huge loss to the employer. Hence he finally argued that the impugned order was legal, valid and proper and there was no occasion to interfere with the same. 16. Hence he finally argued that the impugned order was legal, valid and proper and there was no occasion to interfere with the same. 16. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. 1985 to 1988 the petitioner was posted as District Manager, Jamui of the Bank covering the entire district of Jamui having two Branches under him, namely, Chakai Block Branch and Jamui Block Branch, each having its own Branch Manager, who were both under the control and supervision of the District Manager. 17. Furthermore, the Bank is financed by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) for allotment of loans to the poor farmers for agricultural equipments; such as pump, tractor, machines etc. In such loans, the Bank earns only a small profit, but the responsibility of the Bank and its authorities, specially of the District Manager in that regard, is huge as it becomes the key factor for the development of agriculture in the area or the district concerned. 18. The said function of the District Managers of the Bank is regulated by circular dated 23.02.1983 (Annexure 3), which was issued by the Bank, enumerating the duties and responsibilities of the District Managers. Most of the said responsibilities, numbering 28 enumerated in the said circular, are very serious and important covering every aspect of such disbursement of loans, including the control and supervision over other authorities and employees of the Bank involved in such transactions. A bare reading of the said circular dated 23.02.1983 (Annexure 3) makes it clear that the District Manager is the main officer on behalf of the Bank on whom the said activities of the Bank depend. 19. With respect to the alleged irregularities, a preliminary enquiry was held by the then Managing Director and the Finance Officer of the Bank, who, after investigation, reported the following irregularities :- “(i) Although the names of the loanees were found entered in the loan ledger as beneficiaries receiving loans and the equipments for which loans were granted, but on actual verification neither the water resources nor the pumpsets were found available with the beneficiaries. (ii) The amount shown to have been disbursed either in cash or in shape of pumpsets were swallowed in connivance with the Agents supplying the equipments. (ii) The amount shown to have been disbursed either in cash or in shape of pumpsets were swallowed in connivance with the Agents supplying the equipments. In one case even the name of the village of a loanee was wrongly written. A loanee namely Thakru Mahto was not found to be a resident of Makarkand village he was shown to belong. (iii) Some of the loanees, who were contacted, accepted to have actually received Rs.800 to 1000 only whereas in the loan ledger amount shown to have been disbursed to them varied from Rs.7500 to 11000. They were although assured that pumpsets would be supplied to them later, but were never supplied. (iv) As prescribed in the circulars of the Bank loans could have actually been disbursed only after ensuring that the water resource was available or the construction of well was complete. This precondition was not taken into account before granting or actually disbursing the loan. (v) In 39 cases cheques were drawn from Central Co-operative Bank but in the cash book maintained in the Branch Office, they were not found entered. In eight other cases the amount drawn from Bank were although entered in the cash book but without cheque numbers. In four other cases withdrawals were entered in cash book after two months. In 25 cases the details of cheques issued were entered in the cashbook but the same were not drawn from the Central Co-operative Bank nor were the cheques cancelled. In 3 cases amount of loan of Rs.23 thousands distribution was entered twice in the ledger. In 1986-87 and 1987-88 the total amount disbursed as loan was Rs.99,71,000.00, but the records sent to the head office were for Rs.35,23,500.00 only, whereas, number of loanees involved were 1021, records of 397 loanees only were sent to the head office.” 20. On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary enquiry, memorandum of charges dated 12.12.1988 was sent to the petitioner by the Bank enumerating nine charges and the departmental proceeding was initiated and enquiry was directed to be held. On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary enquiry, memorandum of charges dated 12.12.1988 was sent to the petitioner by the Bank enumerating nine charges and the departmental proceeding was initiated and enquiry was directed to be held. After investigation, according to the prescribed procedure, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the following charges in his report dated 31.07.1992 :- “(i) 29 Harijan laonees of village Kiri under Chakai Branch of respondent-Bank were advanced various amounts as loan for supply of pumpsets between 31.03.1987 and 28.04.1987 without proper verification as to the existence of water resource and without adequate security in violation of Bank’s instruction. (ii) In Khaira village under Jamui Branch of respondent-Bank no pumpsets were found on local verification with the laonees to whom the petitioner had advanced cash loans for purchase of pumpsets in violation of Bank’s instruction which requires that loan should be sanctioned in the form of tangible assets to ensure that the beneficiaries do not misappropriate the loan amount. (iii) In village Padmawat under Jamui Branch of respondent-Bank the petitioner was found to have sanctioned loan simultaneously for purchase of pumpsets and construction of wells in violation of Bank’s instruction. (iv) The petitioner was found to have committed irregularities in maintenance of account in 39 cases and disbursement of loan without realizing adequate share capital money from the member beneficiaries. (v) The petitioner was found negligent in verifying utilization certificates furnished in respect of the loans disbursed and failed to exercise proper control and supervision over the work of his subordinates and thereby causing pecuniary loss to respondent-Bank.” 21. A bare perusal of the charges as well as the enquiry report shows that the charges were serious in nature and they have arisen due to absolute non-function of the main official as its District Manager. It is not in dispute that the notices were sent to the petitioner by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority at every relevant stages and all the particulars were given to the petitioner to place his case at the level of the enquiry officer and also at the level of the disciplinary authority as after receipt of the enquiry report a second show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, whereafter he appeared through an Advocate, who was given sufficient opportunity to place his case. Only thereafter the disciplinary authority passed its impugned order dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure 7), a perusal of which shows that all the nine charges levelled against the petitioner were considered in detail along with the findings of the enquiry officer with respect to each of them, whereafter the objection raised by the petitioner in his show cause was also considered along with the materials, on which he had relied and only thereafter it was found that all the illegalities and irregularities were committed only because the petitioner as District Manager did not perform his duties and responsibilities, for which he was appointed and posted. Hence it was held that the petitioner is highly irresponsible person committing financial irregularities, issuing wrong payment orders violating Bank’s circular and misusing loan distribution at a very large scale, causing huge financial loss to the Bank and hence he was not fit to continue in Bank’s service and his further continuation would be against the interest of the Bank. 22. In the said circumstances, neither any irregularity has been committed by the authorities concerned at any stage of the aforesaid proceeding nor the impugned order suffers from any illegality as sufficient evidence was against the petitioner as is clear from the report of the enquiry officer, which shows very grave acts of dereliction of duty and other illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner as mentioned above and hence this Court does not find that the punishment given to the petitioner is, in any manner, disproportionate to the acts alleged against him, specially when only 30% of the loss accrued to the Bank has been ordered to be recovered from the Bank. 23. Although learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Subhash (supra) and in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), but those cases were with respect to the punishment given to the driver and conductor of a bus, in which the courts had found that the penalty given to the delinquent employees shocked the conscience of the court. However, in the instant case the matter is not with respect to small workers; such as driver and conductor of a bus, rather this is a matter with respect to a person, who being the District Manager, the entire structure of loan disbursement in the district was on his shoulders and the acts committed by him had a very large ramification as it was fully proved that he had issued wrong payment orders, violating Bank’s circular, committed financial irregularities and had misused his authority with respect to the disbursement of loans and miserably failed to discharge the duty cast upon him. Hence his case cannot be validly equated with the aforesaid case laws, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, which cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited (supra) as well as the Circular of the Bank bearing no. 4055 dated 29.04.1970. So far the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is concerned, it is merely with respect to doctrine of proportionality, but the said point has already been considered above and it has been found that the punishment given to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the acts committed by him, which have been proved. Furthermore, the petitioner has relied on the said circular of the Bank dated 29.04.1970 completely ignoring that the Bank had totally changed the said provision by issuing a subsequent circular dated 23.02.1983 (Annexure 3), in which specific responsibilities have been assigned for the District Managers to be performed. In the instant case, occurrence having taken place after issuance of the said circular, it would be governed only by circular dated 23.02.1983 (Annexure 3). 25. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the disciplinary authority nor does it find any irregularity in the enquiry proceeding or in the disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.