Judgment 1. These appeals are filed by the Writ Petitioner as well his Employer -Vijaya Bank, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th August 2008 passed in W.P. No.38283/2002. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder : The appellant -Umesh joined the Vijaya Bank on 25.11.1965 as a Clerk. He was promoted to the Officer cadre in Junior Management Scale-I in the year 1974 and thereafter as to the Manager cadre in Middle Management Scale II and further he was promoted to the Senior Manager cadre in Middle Management Scale III. He was working as Branch Manager, Senior Manager, in-charge of the Bank's small Scale Industries at Bangalore from 22.05.1995. On the ground that grave illegalities and irregularities committed by him in sanctioning loans to the non-existing Small Scale Industries, charge sheet was issued on 05.05.1999. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. Eight charges were framed against the employee in respect of 45 loans disbursed by him. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the Presenting Officer examined several witnesses on behalf of the Bank and relied upon the documents. On closure of the evidence of the Management, the Enquiry Officer gave an opportunity for the appellant to let in his evidence, he declined to made use of the opportunity and following the Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after hearing the appellant and after giving an opportunity passed an order by removing him from the services. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also ended in dismissal. Challenging the order of removal from the services, the writ petition was filed in W.R No. 38283/2002. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties also confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the appellant has proved. However, he was of the opinion that the penalty of removal of the appellant from the service was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, he was of the opinion that the penalty of removal of the appellant from the service was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he modified the order of penalty and altered the same into one for compulsory retirement and further held that the appellant is entitled for the benefits which may flow on account of the modification of the order of penalty. 5. Being not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in modifying the order of penalty, the employee has filed the appeal in W.A. No.1769/2008. The Employer -Vijaya Bank has filed an appeal in W.A. No.1801/2008 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in modifying the punishment as the nature of charges proved against the appellant were of serious nature and the learned Single Judge could not have interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, we have heard both these appeals together. 6. The main contention of Mr. Vittal Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for Sri. Umesh is that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not considering the effect of Regulation 6(17) of the Bank, wherein it was a mandatory on the part of the Enquiry Officer to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant before submitting the report. Contending that on account of clear violation of Regulation 6(17), the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority so also the learned Single Judge have wrongly held that the charges levelled against him are proved, order of punishment is passed. Therefore, he requests this Court to consider the case of the appellant in the background of Regulation 6(17) and set aside the order of punishment in total. 7. The learned Counsel for the Bank contends that the Enquiry Officer has strictly followed the Regulation 6(17) of the Bank. Taking us through the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, he contends that after Presenting Officer concluded the evidence, an opportunity was given to the appellant -employee to give the defence evidence as he declined to do so. In the circumstances, it is appeared in the evidence against him were explained by the Enquiry Officer and he also noted the explanation offered by the appellant in detail. In the circumstances, it is appeared in the evidence against him were explained by the Enquiry Officer and he also noted the explanation offered by the appellant in detail. Taking us through the explanation offered by the appellant in regard to the evidence appeared in the enquiry against him, he contends that there is strict compliance of Regulation 6(17) and therefore, the arguments advanced by the appellant's Counsel holds no water. 8. He further contends that, considering the gravity of charges levelled against the appellant as the appellant had sanctioned the loan to the non-existing units and has sanctioned machinery loan to borrowers even without they actually purchasing the machinery from the manufacturers as fraud has been played with the money of the public and as the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a Manager and an Officer of the Bank and on account of the disbursing the loan to the non-existing SSI Units, the Bank was made to run the risk to recover several lakhs. Therefore, he contends that Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority considering the gravity of offences committed by the appellant have rightly passed an order to removal him from services and the said order of punishment does not shocks the conscious of this Court for modification of the punishment. In the circumstances, he request the Court to allow the appeal of the Bank and dismiss the appeal filed by the employee. 9. Per contra, by way of reply the appellant's Counsel further contends that the appellant having served the Institution right from the year 1965, if he is asked to forego all the retirement benefits would cause greater hardship and therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal of the appellant-Bank. 10. Having considered the arguments advanced by the parties, we have to consider the following two points : a) Whether the Enquiry Officer has followed the Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981? b) Whether the modification of the punishment by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference? 11. So far as the first point is concerned, we have seen the Enquiry Officer's report. b) Whether the modification of the punishment by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference? 11. So far as the first point is concerned, we have seen the Enquiry Officer's report. After the Presenting Officer closed the evidence of the Management, an opportunity was given to the appellant to examine the witnesses if any, or to produce the documents in support of his defence, for which the defence Counsel has categorically stated that he has no more documents or evidence and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has put a question as hereunder : “Would you like to make any submission on the circumstances appearing against you in the proceedings”? 12. By way of reply, the CSO has stated as hereunder : "I deny all the allegations. All the transactions were in the due course of business and I have taken all precautions to ensure the end-use and the interest of the Bank. The observation by the Investigating Officer regarding the non-existence of the unit, nonexistence of stocks and securities, depletion of securities etc., are totally wrong. That is why they have submitted reports without even enquiring with me regarding the positions of the units and stocks. If the report were true I don't understand what prevented them from atleast revealing to me the position as reported by them before submitting the report. My DR will submit detailed written brief in my defence". From the above explanation of the appellant, it is clear to hold that the appellant having understood the circumstances which were appearing in the evidence against him explained to the Enquiry Officer in detail. Therefore, the question would be whether such question and answer of the Enquiry Officer and the appellant would constitute the strict compliance of Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations. Regulation 6(17) which reads as hereunder : "The inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 13. On perusal of the Regulation and the question and answers recorded by the Enquiry Officer, we are of the view that there is a strict compliance of the Regulation and the contention of the appellant that Regulation 6(17) is unacceptable. 13. On perusal of the Regulation and the question and answers recorded by the Enquiry Officer, we are of the view that there is a strict compliance of the Regulation and the contention of the appellant that Regulation 6(17) is unacceptable. Accordingly, Point No.1 held against the appellant. 14. So far as the second point is concerned, admittedly, the appellant joined the services on 25.11.1965 and he had worked till 2002. He has put in service of more 37 years. Therefore, if the learned Single Judge has modified the punishment holding that the appellant has to be directed to retire by way of compulsory retirement, this Court cannot lightly interfere with the order. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. 15. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.