JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to quash the order bearing letter no. ZO:HRD:DAD:2009-10:02 dated 01.04.2010, (Annexure-13) passed by appellate authority, respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder, the appeal of the petitioner challenging the order passed by disciplinary/controlling authority awarding punishment in departmental proceeding against petitioner was rejected, confirming the order of punishments, awarded by controlling authority, by which following punishments were awarded;- “Reduction to initial basic pay of MMGS Scale II for a period up to date of superannuation (i.e.31.08.2010) with further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay under Regulation 4 (f) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (D & A) Regulation-1976 amended up-to-date. Reduction to lower grade viz MMG Scale II under Regulation 4(g) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (D & A) Regulation-1976 amended up-to-date. Both the punishment will run concurrently and independently. Further for the period of suspension from Bank Service, Sri Prasad will neither be entitled for any difference between salary he would have drawn but for his suspension and the subsistence allowance paid to him during the said period nor will he be entitled for any benefit or any increment for the suspension period.” (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to quash the final order bearing letter no.ZO:HRD:DAD:2009-10-206 dated 09.11.2009 passed by controlling authority in the departmental proceeding for the charges served, awarding a number of punishments, though none of the charges has been proved by the Bank against petitioner. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to declare that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits which have not been paid during suspension period and after the order passed by the appellate authority and the controlling authority, which are illegal, arbitrary & against the natural justice. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to restore/reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits as if charges not proved against the petitioner. 2. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to restore/reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits as if charges not proved against the petitioner. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that after following the prescribed procedure petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk on 26.03.1973 in the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) and his date of birth as per his educational certificate and service book was 01.09.1950. Thereafter the petitioner was granted promotion from time to time and was finally granted promotion to the post of Senior Manager by the competent authority and was posted as Senior Branch Manager at Rukunpura Branch where he remained between 28.11.2005 and 03.05.2008 and from there he was transferred to Sasaram Branch of the Bank in the same capacity. 3. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, stated that while his next promotion to the post of Regional Manager was due and he was going to retire on 31.08.2010, show cause notice dated 01.10.2008 was issued to him to explain the alleged irregularities committed by him while posted at Rukunpura Branch. This was merely to frustrate petitioner’s promotion as immediately thereafter several persons junior to him were promoted to the higher post. Furthermore, without waiting for seven days time granted for filing explanation, memo dated 03.10.2008 was served upon the petitioner putting him under suspension under Regulation 12(1) (a) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and subsequently memo of charges was also served upon him on 06.11.2008 along with statement of imputations of misconduct for all the five charges which are as follows:- (i) While working in Rukanpura Branch, Mr. Prasad sanctioned advances aggregating to Rs.59.20 Crores to a single party under different agriculture demand loans accounts on different dates by grossly violating his lending powers. Mr. Prasad has done his above said acts with a malafide intention. (ii) Mr. Prasad allowed overdrawing beyond his delegated powers in CC A/C no.358 quite frequently and recklessly during the period January 2008 to May 2008 and did not report the same to the Regional Office. (iii) Mr. Prasad allowed cash credit limit of Rs.50.00 lac to CC A/C no.356 of M/s A.K. Traders on 31.03.2006 without adhering to KYC and lending norms. (iv) Mr. (iii) Mr. Prasad allowed cash credit limit of Rs.50.00 lac to CC A/C no.356 of M/s A.K. Traders on 31.03.2006 without adhering to KYC and lending norms. (iv) Mr. Prasad did not make any provision of interest on MMDC for the period October 2007 to March 2008 with an intention to inflate the profit figure of the branch for the half year ended on 31.03.2008. (v) Mr. Prasad got responded as IBCA of Rajendra Nagar Branch pertaining to debit balance of his two OD A/c’s by getting the same debited to sundry debtor head of Rukanpura Branch. It should have been debited to his O/D A/C by opening OD account in Rukanpura branch. Consequent upon his transfer, the said amount outstanding in nominal sundry debtor was recovered from Sasaram Branch by raising an IBCA, which was kept unresponded by Mr. Prasad there too. 4. The petitioner submitted that enquiry proceeding was initiated by the conducting officer from 11.12.2008, whereafter on 17.03.2009 and 18.03.2009 petitioner demanded relevant documents to defend his case, but the same were supplied only partly and some documents which were necessary were withheld by the Bank although those documents were readily available in Rukunpura Branch. However, after closure of enquiry, petitioner filed his detailed written argument with respect to every aspect of the matter on 29.05.2009 and thereafter conducting officer submitted his enquiry report dated 15.06.2009 before the disciplinary authority finding charge nos.(i), (iv) and (v) to be proved. 5. The petitioner averred that on receipt of enquiry report through disciplinary authority he submitted his written defence on the finding of the enquiry officer explaining his defence, but without considering the same the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 09.11.2009 concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded two punishments both to run concurrently and independently which are as follows:- (i) “Reduction to initial basic pay of MMGS Scale II for a period up to date of superannuation (i.e.31.08.2010) with further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay under Regulation 4 (f) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (D & A) Regulation-1976 amended up-to-date. (ii) Reduction to lower grade viz MMG Scale II under Regulation 4(g) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (D & A) Regulation-1976 amended up-to-date. Further for the period of suspension from Bank Service, Sri Prasad will neither be entitled for any difference between salary he would have drawn but for his suspension and the subsistence allowance paid to him during the said period nor will he be entitled for any benefit or any increment for the suspension period.” 6. The petitioner claimed that against the said order of the disciplinary authority he filed an appeal which was unduly kept pending by the appellate authority, hence he filed CWJC No.3313 of 2010 which was disposed of on 15.03.2010 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time. Only thereafter the appellate authority without applying its independent mind and without considering the evidence on record dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.04.2010 and affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority dated 09.11.2009. Against the said order the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 7. With respect to charge no.(i), the petitioner argued that as the Senior Branch Manager, he had the power to sanction loan of Rs.3 crore at a time and the allegation of sanctioning an aggregate of Rs.59.20 crores showed that loans and advances were not given to any party at a time and hence the advance was never beyond the limit of Rs.3 Crore. Furthermore, the security against a loan of Rs.6 crore was by way of time deposit receipt and the said receipt was in custody of Bank and on demand during course of enquiry it was never given to the petitioner, hence the said charge according to the petitioner was not proved. 8. With respect to charge no.(iv) the petitioner argued that not making provision on interest of MMDC for the period October 2007 to March 2008 was due to inadvertence and improper punching which was due to unintentional mistake and was rectified subsequently but it was a mere accounting error which did not cause any loss to any one. 9. 8. With respect to charge no.(iv) the petitioner argued that not making provision on interest of MMDC for the period October 2007 to March 2008 was due to inadvertence and improper punching which was due to unintentional mistake and was rectified subsequently but it was a mere accounting error which did not cause any loss to any one. 9. With respect to charge no.(v) petitioner argued that Annexuure-9 series, letters to branch, IBCA with required documents show that inter branch corresponding accounting of debit balance of the petitioner was in fact sent to the respective branch but since he was transferred to another branch it was done by the staff of the Branch and letter from the said Branch dated 25.02.2009 showed that the interest amount had already been recovered from his savings account which proved that neither forgery nor any manipulation was done by the petitioner and the entire misunderstanding happened due to delay in communication between the branches and in any view of the matter, there was no loss to any one nor there was any gain to the petitioner, hence there was no occasion for the authorities to punish the petitioner. 10. In support of his argument, the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Trilok Nath Vs. Union of India, reported in 1967 SLR 759 (SC). (ii) Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2118 . (iii) State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 . (iv) State Bank of Patiyala and others Vs. S. K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 . (v) Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvari and others Vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani reported in (2004) 1 SCC 497 . (vi) State Bank of India and others vs. D. C. Aggarwal and another, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 13 . (vii) Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College Vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey & others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 404 . 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the enquiry report was submitted after full and proper enquiry, examination of evidence etc. and considering the legality of the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed its impugned order dated 09.11.2009 in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the enquiry report was submitted after full and proper enquiry, examination of evidence etc. and considering the legality of the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed its impugned order dated 09.11.2009 in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure. Thereafter, the appellate authority also considered the matter in detail and upheld the order of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the findings and penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the details of time deposit receipts as demanded by the petitioner in enquiry showed that in view of charges that loans given were fully unsecured and the important witness, namely M W 1 clearly deposed that there was no mention of any time deposit number and the same was not even available in the Bank. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that principle of natural justice and the procedure prescribed had been followed as had been detailed in the order of the disciplinary authority with respect to enquiry, notice, opportunity and show cause and mere suspension before expiry of time to file explanation did not show that there was any bias of the authorities concerned against the petitioner. 14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court which are as follows:- (i) Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 . (ii) Tarachand Vyas Vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565 . (iii) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 . (iv) Union of India and others Vs. Alok Kumar reported in (2010) 5 SCC 349. (v) State Bank of Patiala & others Vs. S. K. Sharma, reported in 1996(3) SCC 364 . (vi) B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (vii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and others Vs. Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 279 . 15. (v) State Bank of Patiala & others Vs. S. K. Sharma, reported in 1996(3) SCC 364 . (vi) B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (vii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and others Vs. Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 279 . 15. From the arguments on behalf of both the sides as well as from the materials on record it is not in dispute that till the date the petitioner was posted as Senior Branch Manager at Rukunpura Branch of the Bank, the petitioner had been transferred and given promotion etc. as per the requirements of law and the petitioner was proceeded only thereafter because of five serious charges detailed in paragraph 3 above were found by the authorities concerned against the petitioner. For the first time, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 01.10.2008 for explaining the alleged irregularities committed by him while posted at Rukunpura Branch of the Bank and only thereafter the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 03.10.2008 under the provisions of Regulation 12(i) (a) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Immediately thereafter memo of charges were also served upon the petitioner on 06.11.2008 along with statement of imputations of misconduct for all the five charges. 16. These steps taken by the authorities were quite in accordance with the prescribed Rules and mere suspension in the aforesaid circumstances cannot legally lead to any conclusion that the authorities had any bias against the petitioner, especially when suspension is not a punishment. 17. So far the enquiry proceeding is concerned, it started in December 2008 and the petitioner filed his explanation, whereas department produced evidence, both documental and oral, in support of the charges against the petitioner. Although the petitioner had claimed that he demanded relevant documents from the authorities to defend his case and the same was not supplied to him, but there is no documentary evidence at all to prove the said claim of the petitioner, whereas the materials on record clearly depict that the enquiry was held in a legal and proper manner during which relevant documents were produced and even the witness deposed supporting the charges against the petitioner. Hence, the conducting officer appears to be quite justified in filing his enquiry report on 15.06.2009 on the basis of charge nos.(i), (iv) and (v) which were found to have been proved. 18. Thereafter also the disciplinary authority sent enquiry report along with second show cause notice to the petitioner and gave him opportunity to submit his written defence on the findings of the enquiry officer. From a bare perusal of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority dated 09.11.2009 it is quite apparent that he had considered not only the enquiry report, but had also considered the defence of the petitioner and the materials on record before awarding punishments of reduction to initial basic pay and reduction to lower grade. 19. When the petitioner challenged the said order of the disciplinary authority in appeal, the appellate authority also considered the matter in detail, including the pleadings of the parties, the materials on record, the evidence on record and the principles of law involved and only thereafter the appeal was dismissed on 01.04.2010 by a detailed order on each of the points raised. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularities in the proceedings and the orders of the authorities concerned. 20. So far the allegations against the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner miserably failed to produce any material to disprove charge nos. (i) (iv) and (v), whereas time deposit receipts clearly showed that the loans given were fully unsecured and there was not even mention of any time deposit number nor any such paper was available in the Bank. Apart from this, witness produced by the department also deposed against the petitioner and his statement was supported by materials. 21. The charges against the petitioner for advancing huge loans without making provision on interest of MMDC and furthermore belated sending of inter branch corresponding accounting of debit balance of the petitioner were also proved by letters (Annexure-9 Series) to Branch, IBCA with required documents. In the said circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was on the lower side and in any view of the matter cannot be said to be on a higher side. 22. The decisions of the Apex Court in case of Trilok Nath (supra); in case of State Bank of Patiyala & Ors. In the said circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was on the lower side and in any view of the matter cannot be said to be on a higher side. 22. The decisions of the Apex Court in case of Trilok Nath (supra); in case of State Bank of Patiyala & Ors. (supra) and in case of Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvari and others (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case as neither any reasonable opportunity had been denied to the petitioner nor the authorities have failed to furnish the copies of charges, the grounds on which the charges were based etc. at the relevant time. 23. Similarly, the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Kashinath Dikshita (supra) and Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College (supra) are also not attracted as the petitioner had miserably failed to show by any document that the authorities have failed to supply copies of statements of witnesses and copies of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority or even that the authorities have failed to supply copies of any document which the petitioner required. 24. The decisions of the Apex Court in case of State of Uttaranchal and others (supra) and in case of state Bank of India and others (supra) are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the departmental proceeding evidence had been led in the first instance and the copies of inquiry report along with requisites had been furnished to the charged employee before the order of the disciplinary authority. 25. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner nor does it find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned orders and proceedings of the authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.