JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner is filing this writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent viz., the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Indian Overseas Bank, dated 18.09.1995, enforcing penalty of reduction in basic pay by 5 stages with cumulative effect as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent herein/the General Manager, Appellate Authority attached with Indian Overseas Bank, dated 24.02.1997. 2. The petitioner submits that he is a Post Graduate in Economics and also a holder of C.A.H.B. He was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent (I.O.B) Bank on 05.01.1997 and was posted to Keelakaranai Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. He was promoted as Officer Grade-I, in the Junior Manager Grade-I on 01.08.1981 and was posted to Regional Office of Indian Overseas Bank at Ahmedabad, Gujarat State. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Manager and was posted in the same place, he was officiating in the post of Manager, in the same branch on and from 23.04.1987. Thereafter he was promoted as Manager and was posted to Vembakottai branch and he joined duty on 07.03.1988. The petitioner initially collected huge deposits in the said branch which stood at Rs.15,00,000/- and raised the same to Rs.54.22 lakhs within a period of one year. Therefore, he was given the award for the best performing Manager among the Rural branches of the Indian Overseas Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted to the middle management Grade-II and was posted to the Central Office of the respondent Bank at Chennai as Officer in the SSI Department, incharge of Madurai and Trichy Zone. 3. Under some circumstances, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 12.03.1992, containing as much as eleven charges on the ground that the petitioner had contravened regulations of Sections 3(i) and 3 (ii) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. The charges against the petitioner is that the petitioner granted IRDP loans to various persons through middle man. After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11.05.1992, explaining the circumstances under which he had sanctioned the loan by adopting the procedures in vogue. Even though, the petitioner was issued with a 2nd charge memo-cum-suspension order by the 1st respondent/Deputy General Manager, attached to Indian Overseas Bank containing as many as 14 charges. The order of suspension was revoked on 13.06.1992. Even though, the petitioner was issued with a 2nd charge memo-cum-suspension order by the 1st respondent/Deputy General Manager, attached to Indian Overseas Bank containing as many as 14 charges. The order of suspension was revoked on 13.06.1992. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the 2nd charge memo also. Not satisfied with the explanation the respondent directed for an inquiry to be conducted. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was issued with an impugned order from the 1st respondent dated 18.09.1995. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner prepared an appeal on 31.11.1995 and the same was rejected by the General Manager, Appellate Authority/2nd respondent herein on 24.02.1997. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dated 12.03.1992, stating that the petitioner had contravened Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976, a breach of which amounts to misconduct in terms of regulation 24. In and by the said charge sheet as many as eleven charges were made against the petitioner, the grant of Intentive Rural Development Programme (IRDB) small loans when the petitioner was Branch Manager of Vembakkottai branch of the respondent's bank, it was also alleged that the petitioner had received illegal gratification from a middleman called Rathinavel. The petitioner further submits that the basis for charges in all the eleven charges was that the petitioner received illegal gratification through the middleman Rathinavel for sanction of loan. In this connection it is relevant to point out that the middleman Mr.Rathinavel was not at all examined in the enquiry. On a reading of the proceedings of the inquiry it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the charges. Similarly the petitioner was issued with another charge memo dated 02.06.1992 for contravention of Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the Regulations a breach of which would amount to misconduct in terms of regulation 24. In and by the said charge sheet 14 charges were levelled against the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges, the respondent and bank decided to proceed with the inquiry. The petitioner further submits that even in respect of the 2nd charge memo except one Durairaj, who had also not spoken of any involvement of the petitioner in accepting illegal gratification from any middleman for the sanction of the loan, no other witnesses were examined. 5. The petitioner further submits that even in respect of the 2nd charge memo except one Durairaj, who had also not spoken of any involvement of the petitioner in accepting illegal gratification from any middleman for the sanction of the loan, no other witnesses were examined. 5. The petitioner additionally submits that the Intentive Rural Development Programme was approved by the Government of India whereby loan could be granted to individual for doing small business. The beneficiaries are selected after a pre-inspection by a Task Force Committee appointed by the State Government consisting of : (1) The President of the Local Panchayat; (2) Block Development Officer; (3) Tahsildar; (4) Manager of the concerned Bank and two local people. The Block Development Officer will forward the application to the bank for the grant of the loan along with the recommendation of the Task Force Committee and the dealers quotation. As per the Reserve Bank of India's guide lines the application should be deposed of within 15 days by the Bank Manager. Any rejection of the application SC/ST beneficiaries shall be made only with prior written approval of the Regional Manager of the concerned Bank. The Branch Manager who is empowered to grant all Intentive Rural Development Programme loan, shall advise the sanction of loan to the Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer shall forward the advice to the District Collector with his recommendation for the release of subsidy. Only after the receipt of the subsidy advice from the Collector, the Branch Manager can release the loan. The loan is paid in the form of bankers cheque in the name of dealers after getting authorization from the borrowers. They will thereafter surrender cash receipts plus bills evidencing the supply of goods to the borrow. These particulars are kept in the bank along with other documents. From the reading of the above, it would appear very clear that the entire process for the grant of Intentive Rural Development Programme loan, is not at the sole discretion of the Bank Manager. The Bank Manager has to simply sanction the loan on the basis of recommendation by the Task Force Committee. 6. The respondents have filed their counter statements stating that the petitioner himself mentioned the name of the middle man. The investigation report dated 17.08.1991, clearly mentioned the name of Rathinavel, who had colluded with him and defrauded the bank and the borrowers. 6. The respondents have filed their counter statements stating that the petitioner himself mentioned the name of the middle man. The investigation report dated 17.08.1991, clearly mentioned the name of Rathinavel, who had colluded with him and defrauded the bank and the borrowers. Further, the charges are held to be proved based on the evidence let in before the inquiry Officer, besides the writ petitioner had not come forward to cross examine the investigator and as such openly admits his guilt. Further, the writ petitioner has not submitted a reply to the charge sheet dated 02.06.1992, inspite of affording sufficient opportunities even though the disciplinary authority had discussed each and every charge, at least eleven charges relating to first charge sheet and 14 charges relating to the 2nd charge sheet. As such the Disciplinary Authority had properly applied his mind and proved the case. 7. The respondents additionally submits that one Durairaj, in his deposition has clearly stated as to how manipulations were done after he signed the voucher, this is material evidence for committing the fraud. One Sakkaiah Naicker had made a complaint to the bank that he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards relief amount which was paid under a withdrawal slip. This irregularity committed by the writ petitioner had been proved. Further, the Investigation Officer had verified all the relevant documents available at the bank and relating to the charges. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment for the charge proved against the petitioner. 8. The respondents additionally submit that the Investigation Report dated 17.08.1991 along with its enclosures of Sri.A.Ganappa is of an extensive nature. Mr.Rathinavel, through his representative Mr.Sivanu and Mr.Murugesan received necessary cash of Rs.5,500/- each for a loan of Rs.6,000/-granted to borrowers. The loans were granted only for accommodation purpose and to enjoy the subsidy benefits without creations by any access for the loans sanctioned to the borrowers. It is evident from the investigation report, the statement of account of M/s.Jansi Match Company, shows that the amount of Rs.5,500/- received by Mr.Murugesan and Mr.Sivanu for making payment to borrowers. The borrowers who are interested to enjoy the subsidy benefits without creating assets cannot be expected to be examined in the departmental proceedings. The bank had interest in the transaction as it is Bank's money and the charges were proved on the basis of documentary evidence. The borrowers who are interested to enjoy the subsidy benefits without creating assets cannot be expected to be examined in the departmental proceedings. The bank had interest in the transaction as it is Bank's money and the charges were proved on the basis of documentary evidence. If the petitioner is really interested in examining the witness he should have brought them and examined them in the departmental proceedings. 9. The respondents, additionally submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in at every stage of the proceedings to produce his witnesses and documents in the Departmental proceedings. Further the petitioner was also given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and also to peruse all management exhibits. Further the petitioner himself signed the inquiry proceedings, as such the findings of the inquiry proceedings is maintainable. In respect of charge sheet dated 12.03.1992 after duly conducted inquiry held that all the eleven charges were proved including the 8th charge which was partly proved. In respect of additional charge sheet dated 02.06.1992, the 14 charges were proved and out of them the 9th charge was partly proved. As such the writ petitioner has to be dismissed from service after proving the 2 charge sheets namely 12.03.1992 and 02.06.1992 respectively, however the Disciplinary Authority took lenient view and awarded the punishment of reducing his basic pay by five stages in the present time scale as on the date of this order with accumulative effect in terms of Regulation 4(E) of Indian Overseas Bank, Officers, employers discipline and appeal Regulations, 1976. Further, the Disciplinary Authority also held that the period of suspension will not be treated as one spent on duty. 10. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, submits that there is no proper evidence on the side of the respondents as well as there is no proper documentary evidence in order to prove the two charge sheets dated 12.03.1992 and 02.06.1992 in order to prove 11 charges and 14 charges respectively which have been levelled against the writ petitioner. Further the concerned persons are participating in order to process a loan from the bank, those persons were not examined to prove the said charges, as listed witnesses. Further the concerned persons are participating in order to process a loan from the bank, those persons were not examined to prove the said charges, as listed witnesses. The writ petitioner had not sanctioned the loan at his own discretion or individual capacity, actually all the petty loans were sanctioned on the strength of the recommendations by the Task Force Committee and followed by the advice of the District Collector and his Subordinate for subsidy besides two local people, as such the alleged two charge sheets are not sustainable under law. Further the writ petitioner had marked about 12 documents which were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority, since those documents are the letters from the borrowers themselves denying payment of any illegal gratification to the petitioner. Additionally the learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner had done meritorious service in improving the deposits of the bank. 11. The punishment of reduction in the basic pay by five stages with accumulative effect and also being transferred from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala, which is a double punishment having being imposed on the petitioner which is a violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, besides the quantum of punishment is on the higher side, since the charges have not been proved through pertinent witnesses. As such the impugned order is not found to be suitable to operate against the petitioner, since there are several shortcomings in the said impugned order. The Disciplinary Authority has not applied his mind properly before passing the said order, further sufficient opportunities have not been given to the petitioner to establish his defense. Before processing the loan a free inspection was conducted by the Task Force Committee appointed by the State Government consisting of the president of the local panchayat, Block Development Officer, Tahsildar, Manager of the concerned bank, two local persons besides the beneficiaries of the loans and the dealer who had not appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and had not adduced any evidence in this regard, since the above mentioned witnesses are absolutely necessary as witnesses/connected persons who have nexus in sanctioning the said loan, therefore, there is no possibility for committing illegal gratification. The strong contention raised by the respondent that one Mr.Rathinavel, a middle man had assessed the writ petitioner for committing the illegal gratification. The strong contention raised by the respondent that one Mr.Rathinavel, a middle man had assessed the writ petitioner for committing the illegal gratification. Actually, the said middle man is not at all connected in sanctioning the said loan, therefore, the evidence of the middleman is not sustainable under law, besides not being examined. 12. Supporting the writ petition, the learned counsel had cited the below mentioned citations: (1) Kumar P. v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government Labour Employment Department, Chennai-9 , reported in 2010-IV-LLJ-237 (Mad) (W.P. No.10055/2005, dated 23.03.2010) "(i)Petitioner, a Junior Training Officer in Government Industrial Training Institute incurred the wrath of the third respondent Principal of the Institute for his absence in the class room at 6.45 p.m. On August 13, 2004. For this lapse he was twice punished -first with a transfer to Tiruchendur and second by withholding increment for period of six months. Hence, his present petition challenging the second punishment. It was allowed. (ii)HELD: The High Court observed that respondents were not entitled to frame same charge again and award the impugned punishment. It was immaterial the consequence of such punishment would have no bearing on the promotional avenue of the petitioner." (2) Indian Airlines and others v. W.B.Correya (W.A.No.505 OF 1976, DATED 03.07.1978) "Indian Airlines – principles of Natural Justice – standing orders (Regulations) Discipline and Appeal – S.O.16 and 26 Domestic enquiry – Statements of witnesses recorded behind the back of the delinquent – such statements being straightway accepted by the enquiry Officer who asked the delinquent to begin – cross- examination-witnesses were neither asked to confirm not deny the statements - witnesses were also allowed to depose from the statements recorded ex-parte – whether these procedures are defective – whether detrimental to the interests of the delinquent – Held, because of this procedure the principles of natural justice are violated and the enquiry is vitiated." (3) Central Bank of India v. P.C.Jain (Bhargava J.), reported in AIR 1969 Lab.I.C.1380 (Vol.2, C.N.306) "Industrial Disputes Act (1947), sections 33 (5), 33(2) (b) Powers of Tribunal – Tribunal can disregard findings of Enquiry Officer if they are perverse – Test of perversity." 4. Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others , reported in 2009 (1) L.L.N.806 (Civil Appeal No.7431 of 2008, dated 19.12.2008) "(i) Disciplinary proceedings – held, is a quasi-judicial proceeding – Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. (ii) Disciplinary proceeding - Documentary evidence – manner of proving – purported evidence collected by investigating officer against the accused cannot be treated to be evidence in disciplinary proceeding – witness has to be examined to prove the said documents – F.I.R in itself is not an evidence without actual proof of facts stated therein. (iii) Disciplinary Proceeding – peon in bank – Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him on the allegation that he had taken away one blank draft issue book of the bank – allegedly he made confession of his conduct before police officer-confession, if and when admissible – Held, employee's confession should have been proved – some evidence should have been brought on record there was no direct evidence – even there was no indirect evidence – hence punishment set aside – reinstatement granted. 5. Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunji Behari Misra and another (C.A.No.1884/1993 etc., with C.A.No.7433/1995, dated 19.08.1998) "Disciplinary Proceedings – Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 – Regulations 6 & 7 Principles of natural justice – Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with findings of inquiring Authority – Need to follow principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing – when disciplinary authority differs with findings of enquiry officer and proposes to come to different conclusion, opportunity of hearing should be granted to delinquent officer-Delinquent officer should have opportunity to represent before disciplinary authority before final findings on charges are recorded and punishment imposed-This is part of first stage of enquiry-Principles of natural justice as to be read into regulation 7(2)-Disciplinary authority should given delinquent officer opportunity to represent before it disagrees with inquiring authority and records its findings – Report of enquiry officer containing findings should be conveyed to delinquent and delinquent should have an opportunity to persuade disciplinary authority to accept favourable conclusion of enquiry officer-Disciplinary authority before taking final decisions of imposing penalty has to give opportunity to delinquent officer to file representation before it records its findings on charges framed against delinquent. 6. 6. Muneesan v. Indian Overseas Bank, Madras and Others (W.P.No.11750/1995, dated 05.08.2003) "Dismissal – From service – Based on disciplinary authority's findings made while disagreeing with those of enquiry officer – Such disagreement and punishment, held, would be itself amount to prejudice – Punishment set aside as no opportunity given to delinquent when disciplinary authority disagreed from enquiry officer's findings." 13. The very competent counsel had also submitted written arguments which are as follows: “There are two charge sheets. First of them is dated 12.3.1992 containing 11 charges (page 6 to 13 of petitioner's typed set) in regard to irregularities alleged in granting, through middlemen, of IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Programme) Loans. The petitioner explained on 11.05.1992 and it was, in brief, that he granted IRDP Loans following procedures laid down and that there was no middlemen involved in granting them. One Mr.Rathinavel, whose name only was mentioned as middleman, was the President of Sevalpatti Panchayat and a member of the Task Force Committee constituted by the Government. There was no evidence that any middlemen were involved. Even this Rathinavel was not examined. 2. In the second Charge Sheet dated 2.6.1992, also placing the petitioner under suspension, 14 charges (page 14 to 23 of petitioner's typed set) with annexure A to E purported to have been enclosed to the charge sheet but not enclosed in regard to allegations of irregularities in granting the loans. In this charge sheet also no name of any middleman though averred was cited. The same Rathinavel was averred to be a middleman. He was not examined. His reply to this charge sheet marked as DE422 was even referred to in the findings, not to speak of it being considered. 3. Totally there were 25 charges, 11 charges under the Charge sheet dated 12.3.1992 and 14 charges under the charge sheet dated 2.6.1992. But the Disciplinary Authority (DA) in last but 3 paragraphs of his Original Order dated 18.9.1995 (page no.39 of respondent's typed set) has held that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Authority holding 24 charges in the 2 charge sheets as fully established and the remaining two charges as partly established. D.A. has not made application of mind even in respect of number of charges. Total number of charges exceeds the number of charges listed in the charge sheets. IA does not state in his findings there were 26 charges. 4. D.A. has not made application of mind even in respect of number of charges. Total number of charges exceeds the number of charges listed in the charge sheets. IA does not state in his findings there were 26 charges. 4. Though the reply to charge sheet dated 02.061.992 was submitted and marked as DE 422 under the list of defense exhibits by the IA it was not taken into account by the DA while passing his original order dated 18.09.2005 (page 34 to 40 of respondent's typed set). Even the counter affidavit before this Hon'ble Court does not make any mention of DE 422. 5. There were 5 management witnesses. Out of them 3 are party witnesses viz., (1) Kaliraj (MW1), (2) Dorairaj (MW2) and (3) Sakkaiah Naicker (MW5). Dorairaj and Sakkaiah Naicker are listed in charge 14 of the 2nd charge sheet (page 22 of petitioner's typed set) There is no charge relating to any loan/advance granted to Kaliraj (MW1). Therefore his evidence is unrelated to the charge sheets and of no consequence. Regarding loan to Dorairaj (MW2), ME281 is their own documentary evidence against what he tries to orally say. ME281 is the Pay Order issued in his favour by the Branch for Rs.3,731/- duly discharged by him on a Revenue Stamp. Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. MEs 285, 283, and 284 are withdrawal slips issued by Sakkaiah Naicker (MW5) from out of the proceeds of the credit made in his S.B. Account under ARDRS. Same principle applies here also. (II Addl. Typed set of the petitioner). 6. The only witness that speaks about of all the charges is M.W.3, He is Mr.Gnanappa who gave the following three Investigation Reports, marked as M.E.314, M.E.315 and M.E.316:- a. M.E.314 deals with charge no.11 (Indra Vikas Patra) of the first Charge sheet b. M.E.315 deals mostly with IRDP accounts and c. M.E.316 deals with ARDRS accounts also. MW3's (Investigation Officer) evidence is rank hearsay. (Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jain ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ) and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009 I LLN 806). D.A. in his Original Order dated 18.9.1995 (pages 34 to 40 of respondent's typed set) relies on MW3 deposition alone. MW3 simply deposes that he stood by the contents of these Mes. (Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jain ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ) and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009 I LLN 806). D.A. in his Original Order dated 18.9.1995 (pages 34 to 40 of respondent's typed set) relies on MW3 deposition alone. MW3 simply deposes that he stood by the contents of these Mes. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the persons against whom the enquiry is held has been violated in respect of every charge in the charge sheets subject to what is submitted in para 5 supra. Therefore the findings of the D.A. Are perverse. 7. It is laid down by Supreme Court that the D.A. should give the delinquent Officer opportunity to represent, before disagreeing with the Enquiring Authority and recording its findings, etc. (Punjab National Bank & others V Kunj Behari Mishra and another reported in 1998 II LLJ Page 809). This is followed by this Hon'ble Court in its decisions in Muneesan V Vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2004 I LLJ 296) and in WP 15959/1995 dated 18.07.2002 (Flavian Miranda Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & ors) (unreported). But this dictum of Supreme Court has been violated. Details are: i. The IA does not hold that fourth imputation of the charge sheet dated 12.3.1992 is proved. But the D.A. differs from the IA to hold that this imputation is established (Page No.6 and Page No.37 of respondent's typed set). ii. The IA does not hold that the first imputation of the Additional Charge sheet dated 2.6.1992 is proved. But the D.A. differs from the I.A. to hold that it is established. (pages 14, 15 and 36 of respondent's typed set) iii. IA does not hold that the third imputation of Additional Charge sheet is proved whereas the D.A. holds that it is established (Pages 18 and Page 37 of the Respondent's Typeset). iv. I.A. does not hold that imputation 4a and imputation 4b of the Additional Charge sheet are proved but the D.A. differs and holds that they are established. (Pages 18, 19 and 37 of Respondent's Typeset). iv. I.A. does not hold that imputation 4a and imputation 4b of the Additional Charge sheet are proved but the D.A. differs and holds that they are established. (Pages 18, 19 and 37 of Respondent's Typeset). v. I.A. says that in regard to 10th imputation of the Additional Charge sheet dated 2.6.1992 “therefore in all probability this IRDP Loan was meant for accommodation purpose” and still perversely holds that this imputation is proved whereas D.A differs from the I.A. to hold straightway that it is established (Pages 28 and 38 of Respondent's Typeset). vi. I.A. holds that imputations 6 and 12 of additional charge sheet are proved on the basis of M.E.315, one of the investigation reports of MW3. But the D.A. says they are established on the basis of M.E.316, another of the investigation reports of MW3, and that too without assigning any reason. (Pages 21, 29 and 37 of Respondent's Typeset). Vii. I.A. says imputation 2 of the additional Charge sheet is proved on the basis of ME.315 but D.A says imputation 1 and 2 are established on the basis of M.E.316 and the evidence of M.W.1. (pages 17 and 36 of respondent's typed set) viii. In regard to imputation No.11 of the charge sheet dated 12.03.1992, there is no evidence that the petitioner caused the missing of 4 Indira Vikas Patras aggregating Rs.20,000/- except the investigation report of M.W.3, i.e., M.E.314 which says also that 8 other succeeding managers took charge of the branch after the relief of the petitioner on 29.01.1991. (Page 48 of respondent's typed set). But M.W.4, who was the Manager of the branch as on the date of his deposition and 9th succeeding incumbent Manager of the Branch after the relief of the petitioner from the branch, deposes that he noticed the missing of these Indra Vikas Patras and, being so, Petitioner cannot be held responsible on the face of record. xi. IA deals with a total of 25 charges but the DA states that 26 charges are proved or partly proved. (Page 39 of respondent's typed set) 8. M.E. 314, 315 and 316 are authored by MW.3 and he cannot be held as himself corroborating these reports. 9. xi. IA deals with a total of 25 charges but the DA states that 26 charges are proved or partly proved. (Page 39 of respondent's typed set) 8. M.E. 314, 315 and 316 are authored by MW.3 and he cannot be held as himself corroborating these reports. 9. D.A. imposes (page 40 of respondent's typed set) double penalty of reducing the petitioner's basic pay by 5 stages invoking Reg.4(e) of D and A Regulations and posting him outside the State of Tamilnadu which order is not in accordance with law. [Kumar P vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors., reported in 2010 IV LLJ 237 (Mad)]. 14. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. 15. The very competent counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, submits that two charge sheets were levelled against the petitioner on 12.03.1992 and 02.06.1992 respectively and it proved 11 charges and 14 charges respectively against the petitioner after due inquiry. The petitioner himself has submitted a written brief and he had signed the same before the inquiry. Therefore, the written submission by the petitioner is to be most considered. As such the allegation being levelled by the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity does not arise in this case. The bankers cheque issued to and in favour of M/s.Jansi Match Company for 11 petty loans each Rs.6,000/-in turn the said Jansi Match Company issued cheques in the name of the middleman for Rs.5,500/-and the cheques were duly passed by the petitioner. The petitioner had utilized outside assistance to fill up the documents/enter ledgers to cancel the irregularities from other staff members. 16. The very competent counsel submits that the irregularities have been committed by the petitioner through management witness. The borrowers had received the loan amount from the 3rd parties Viz., Mr.Rathiinavel, who had paid less than the sanctioned loan amount, the same has been proved through Bank voucher. As such the borrowers have not utilized the bank loan amount in full, further one M/s.Krishna Stores had issued a quotation through a middleman and the loan amount sanctioned to Krishna Stores through bankers cheques and both cheques were credited to the dealers current account and the said amount has been withdrawn and the same disbursed to the beneficiaries through a middleman without purchasing of goods as per invoice. Further, one D.Davamani, had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.25,000/-, since he was Proprietor of Sangeetha Match Works, actually he is a lecturer attached to Alagappa College, Karaikudi. This is also one of the irregularities committed by the petitioner. 17. Further, it is crystal clear that all the petty loans had been sanctioned on the basis of irrelevant records by the writ petitioner with the help of middleman Rathinavel and some of the dealers who had issued invoices and as per these invoices the goods were not supplied to the beneficiaries as such the welfare scheme had not been utilized by beneficiaries due to high irregularities committed by the petitioner in a fraudulent manner for his personal gain, further some of the borrowers have not remitted on earlier loan amount, under such circumstances addition loans had been granted to the defaulters which are against the banks policies. Therefore, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the entire bank documents scrutinized, then the impugned order had been passed against the petitioner, since the allegations had been proved especially as per documentary fact. Further, the documents are not created but which have been maintained by the bank including loan transaction particulars namely applications, invoice, mode of bank loans and method of disposal of the bank loan amount. Hence, the impugned order found to be suitable for operation against the writ petitioner. 18. In reply the highly competent counsel Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, submits that so many irregularities had been pointed out which had been committed by the petitioner but the connected person, namely middleman Rathinavel, who played a major role in arranging the loan, the dealers who had issued invoices in order to receive bank loans and the beneficiaries who had received the loans have not been examined, as such the impugned order is not found to be proceeded with any, further since there is lack of evidence and as such a lacuna, shortcomings and lapse have been perpetrated by the respondents, hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the impugned order of the respondents. 19. 19. After the above discussions this Court is of the view that: (1) The respondent's allegation that the writ petitioner had received illegal gratification through the middleman Mr.Rathinavel, for the sanction of IRDB small loans, as such he is the prime factor or crucial witness in the instant case, therefore a total neglect of him makes the case an infraction and with no force whatsoever, further this Court finds it difficult to understand how a middleman was brought into the picture and without any substantial evidence whatsoever; (2) Actually as per the contention of the writ petitioner, the beneficiaries are selected after a free inspection by a Task Force Committee appointed by the State Government consisting of the President of the local Panchayat, concerned Block Development Officer, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Manager of the concerned bank and two local persons. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer will forward the petty loans application to the bank for the grant of the loan along with the recommendation of the Task Force Committee under the dealers quotation. Further the sanctioned loan amount paid in the form of a bankers cheque in the name of dealers after grafting authorization from the borrowers. This is the methodology for the sanction of the loan, as such the writ petitioner cannot sanction the loan on his own accord in his individual capacity. This is a collective process after well scrutinizing the loan application and the collected relevant documents; (3) For deciding the charges i.e., illegal gratification of funds, the respondent had not conducted a comprehensive inquiry with the concerned persons by marking relevant documents, as such the impugned order does not show enough force for operating against the writ petitioner and there is a lacuna in the impugned order; (4) The middleman Rathinavel, has no local stand as an authorized person for arranging the loan to the borrowers. Since, the Task Force Committee and other concerned Government Officials are functioning as authorized persons for analysing the loan application and other physical verifications; (5) The respondents stated in this reply submission that the relevant witness viz., Mr.Sivanu, Mr.Murugesan and M/s.Jansi Match Company are also necessary witnesses in this case, as such the respondent suggested that the writ petitioner has to examine them after being brought for the enquiry. This contention raised by the respondents is not acceptable, since the respondents have levelled charges against the writ petitioner, therefore they have to bring them for enquiry as witnesses for proving their case. It is not the duty of the writ petitioner to bring them for an examination in the Departmental Proceedings; (6) The beneficiaries of the said loan had given an undertaking letter stating that there is no illegal gratification having been committed by the writ petitioner, those documents were marked at the time of the enquiry which is crucial evidence. Further, in order to prove that the letter/documentary evidence, the disciplinary authorities ought to have sent notice to the concerned beneficiaries to determine the veracity of the said case. It is the bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority but not the duty of the writ petitioner since both the charge sheets have been levelled against the writ petitioner, as such the respondents are liable to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt; (7) The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a typed set of papers in which findings of the enquiry authority including discussions have been filed. It reveals that some of the dealers names have been mentioned and many borrowers/beneficiaries names have been mentioned and also quantum of loans mentioned, however, the dealers and beneficiaries were not examined before the enquiry authority since they have submitted loan application along with necessary particulars including invoices quotations but they are witnesses of paramount importance in order to determine the veracity of the genuineness of the loan application, quotations, other legalities and mode of payment of loan transactions, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents loses its strength. As such this Court does not find sufficient force to operate the said order against the writ petitioner any further. 20. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the respondents and this Court's view mentioned above, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent made in Ref.No.Do-DGM(RN) : DA : 95, dated 18.09.1995 as confirmed by the second respondent order made in Ref.No. DO : G.M (RV) : AA :97, dated 24.02.1997, is quashed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.