ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary authority dated 9.8.2007, whereby, after holding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct said to have been proved on the basis of departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed upon him punishment of dismissal from service separately for the charges No.1,2,3 and 5 and for Charge No. 4 punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon him. Consequently, a consolidated punishment of “dismissal from service which will ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” has been imposed upon the petitioner by the impugned order. The petitioner had preferred appeal before the appellate authority which has been rejected by an order dated 29.9.2007. The said order of the appellate authority dated 29.9.2007 is also under challenge in the present writ application. 2. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Assistant Manager, Katihar Branch of Central Bank of India. At the same time, he became one of the principal Office bearers of “Central Bank Karamchari Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, Katihar”(hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative Society). By an order dated 3.6.2004 the petitioner was put under suspension on a charge that being one of the principal Office bearer of the Cooperative Society, he used bank’s name for attracting public deposits and in the pass book printed the address of the Co-operative Society, as “C/O Central Bank of India”. It was further alleged that due to the illegal, unauthorized and unlawful act of the petitioner a number of depositors of the Cooperative Society used to come to the Branch at Katihar and created nuisance in the Bank premises on non payment of such deposits, by the Cooperative Society. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had been issuing post dated cheques of Central Bank of India without maintaining sufficient balance in the account and therefore, the same were returned to the beneficiaries, thus, adversely affecting the image and the reputation of the Bank. Subsequently, the Bank initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner with the following article of charges:- “1. Sri Vishwakarma, who is also Secretary of a Cooperative Society named Central Bank Karamchari Credit Co-operative Society Ltd”, along with other office bearer of the said Co-op. Society misused the Central Bank’s name to in cash its reputation and goodwill for the benefit of the co-op. Sri Vishwakarma, who is also Secretary of a Cooperative Society named Central Bank Karamchari Credit Co-operative Society Ltd”, along with other office bearer of the said Co-op. Society misused the Central Bank’s name to in cash its reputation and goodwill for the benefit of the co-op. society, which is highly detrimental to the interest of the bank.(sic) 2. He, in connivance with Sri K.K.Lal, B.M. Souria cheated the bank by raising loans from two different branches ( i.e. Katihar & Soria) on the same securities ( 6” MMDCs of B/O Rly. Colony, Katihar, he thus, acted fraudulently with malafide intension. 3. He influenced bank’s officials for sanctioning of CC limit Rs.5 lacs for his son. The loan was sanctioned without proper appraisal and the limit was arrived on the basis of unrealistic figures without verifying the actual ones. 4. He abused his position of Secretary in the said Co-operative Society and availed huge amount of loans against the norms of the Co-op. Society to gain pecuniary benefit. 5. He Brought disrepute to the bank.” 3. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that the acts of the petitioner was in breach of Regulation 3(1) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976 read with Regulation 24 which attracted penalty under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees ( Discipline and Appeal ) Regulation, 1976. Along with the article of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct in their support were also supplied to the petitioner by way of Annexure-II to the charge memo. By way of Annexure-III to the charge memo, the list of documents/witnesses in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner were also supplied to the petitioner. 4. I consider it apt to place here itself the imputations of misconduct in support of the article of charge No.2, the purpose of which will be evident from the discussions hereinunder. The imputations of misconduct with respect to Article of charge no.2 read as follows:- “Charge No.2: Sri Vishwakarma in connivance with Sri K.K.Lal, Branch Manager Souria branch cheated the Bank by availing demand loan facility from B/o Souria on the same securities, which were part of the securities of overdraft a/c at B/o Katihar. Both the loan A/cs pertain to CBKCC Society Ltd. The following MMDCs of B/o Rly. Colony Katihar were part of the securities kept against OD a/c no. Both the loan A/cs pertain to CBKCC Society Ltd. The following MMDCs of B/o Rly. Colony Katihar were part of the securities kept against OD a/c no. 2657 of CBKC C Society Ltd. At B/o Katihar. Sl.No. MMDCN Old No. MMMDC New No. Principal amount 1 20/344 20344 71145.00 2 20/343 20343 71145.00 3 19/214 190214 94790.00 4 19/215 190215 94790.00 5 19/212 190212 94790.00 6 19/213 190213 94790.00 The above MMDCs were sent by B/o Katihar vide letter dt. 08.01.03 to B/o Railway Colony Katihar for renewal. The letter was written by Sri K.K.Lal Chairman of CBKCC Society Ltd., who was also BM of Souria branch, on behalf of B/o Katihar and received by Sri Vishwakarma under his proper acknowledgment for doing the needful. These MMDC’s were renewed at B/o Railway Colony, Katihar but were not deposited at B/o Katihar rather, these MMDCs were deposited at B/o Souria for taking demand loan for Rs. 140,000/- ( against MMDC no. 20343 & 20344) and Rs. 350,000/- against MMDC No. 190215, 212,213 and 214). The loan documents were executed by Sri K.K. Lal and Sri Vishwakarma as Chairman and Secretary of the Co-op. The loan was sanctioned by Sri Lal as B.M, Souria. Thus Sri Vishwakarma. Knowing well that the above MMDCs are part of the securities against OD a/c at B/o Katihar fraudulently indulged in availing demand loan against the same securities. Thus he has availed demand loan at Souria branch with malafide intention. The above acts of Sri Vishwakarma is unbecoming of a bank Officer, as he did not act with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence.” 5. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 17.2.2005 terming the charges as baseless and making request to the disciplinary authority to withdraw the charge-sheet in toto. The disciplinary enquiry thereafter, commenced before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his conduct before the Inquiry Officer and there is no grievance raised in the writ application that the Inquiry Officer ever denied him due opportunity of hearing and defending his case which caused any prejudice to him. From Annexure-13 to the writ application, it would be evident that the prosecution witnesses were examined, documents were produced on behalf of the bank in course of the disciplinary enquiry in presence of the petitioner and petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. From Annexure-13 to the writ application, it would be evident that the prosecution witnesses were examined, documents were produced on behalf of the bank in course of the disciplinary enquiry in presence of the petitioner and petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. On the basis of the enquiry so-conducted, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.4.2006 before the disciplinary authority/Assistant General Manager of the Bank. The Inquiry Officer found charges no.1, 2 and 5 to be proved whereas charges no. 3 and 4 as not proved. The petitioner was given opportunity to deal with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was served upon him on 26.5.2006. The petitioner submitted his comment against the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the extent they related to charges no. 1,2 and 5. The comments were submitted by him on 30.5.2006, addressed to the disciplinary authority. However, the disciplinary authority after considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer, records of the disciplinary proceeding as well as petitioner’s response to the findings of the Inquiry Officer concurred with the view of the Inquiry Officer to the extent they related to charges no.1,2 and 5. He, however, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the extent they related to Charge nos. 3 and 4 and recorded reasons for such disagreement in his communication dated 26.6.2006 addressed to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority asked the petitioner to send his submission as regards the said charges no. 3 and 4. The petitioner submitted his response, thereafter, before the Disciplinary authority on 30.6.2006. The disciplinary authority finally imposed upon the petitioner punishment for various misconduct which according to him stood proved in terms of Regulation 4(J) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal ) Regulation, 1976. The punishments were imposed with reference to each of the charge separately. Relevant portion of the Administrative order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority is being quoted hereinbelow:- “Charge No.1- “Dismissal which ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of Regulation 4 (J) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal ) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.2- “Dismissal which ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of Regulation 4 (J) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.2- “Dismissal which ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of Regulation 4 (J) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.3-“Dismissal which ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of Regulation 4 (J) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal ) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.4- Compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4(h) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees ( Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Charge no.5- “Dismissal which ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of Regulation 4 (J) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal ) Regulations, 1976.” 6. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Patna against the order of dismissal, which came to be rejected by an order dated 29.9.2007 ( Annexure-20). These are the circumstance in which order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 19.8.2007 and that of the appellate authority dated 29.9.2007 are under challenge. The appellate authority concurred with the findings arrived at and penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. 7. As has been noted above, no procedural irregularity in conduct of the disciplinary proceeding causing any prejudice to the petitioner has been alleged and argued. 8. Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly urged that act of the petitioner which is the basis for initiation of departmental proceeding against him is not relatable to discharge of his duty as an employee/officer of the Bank. He has contended that for any act done by him as a Principal Office bearer of the Cooperative Society cannot constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees ( Conduct) Regulations, 1976. He has strenuously contended that every act of the petitioner alleged under the charges, except Charge no.3, can be said to have been committed by petitioner in his capacity the Secretary of the Cooperative Society and such act did not constitute any misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of Conduct Regulations, 1976. It has also been contended by him that there was no bar for the Bank employee from forming a Cooperative Society till January, 2007. According to him accepting any deposits from the outsiders was not a misconduct. It has also been contended by him that there was no bar for the Bank employee from forming a Cooperative Society till January, 2007. According to him accepting any deposits from the outsiders was not a misconduct. He has also submitted that interest of the Bank was being insured and protected by the petitioner to the extent that even deposits of the outsiders were deposited in the Central Bank of India and the Bank earned interest over the outsiders’ money. His specific plea with respect to charge no.2 is that conduct of the petitioner as alleged in Charge no.2 cannot be said to have been committed in his capacity of customer/Secretary of the Bank. He has further contended that the disciplinary authority did not apply an independent and judicial mind and did not assign proper and adequate reasons while differing with the findings of petitioner’s innocence recorded by the Inquiry Officer with respect to charges no. 3 and 4. 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank on the other hand, defending the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has contended that the conduct of the petitioner as enumerated in the article of charges constituted grave misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(i) of Conduct Regulations, 1976. He submits that conduct of the petitioner as alleged in the charge-sheet is certainly unbecoming of a Bank Officer. He submits that there being no procedural irregularity in holding the disciplinary proceeding and the petitioner having been given adequate opportunity of hearing in course of departmental proceeding, interference by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. He submits that the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well the disciplinary authority are based on cogent materials and reasons. The findings cannot be termed as perverse, which according to him is the only situation, which may warrant interference by this Court in such matter in exercise of power of judicial review. He has contended further that findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be without evidence or material. In such circumstance, he contends that this Court would ordinarily not sit in appeal over the findings of fact arrived at by the quasi- judicial authority unless such findings are totally perverse. 10. He has contended further that findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be without evidence or material. In such circumstance, he contends that this Court would ordinarily not sit in appeal over the findings of fact arrived at by the quasi- judicial authority unless such findings are totally perverse. 10. He has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in (2012) 2 SCC 641 ( Vardhwan Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Asim Chaterjee) to contend that the conduct of the petitioner as a Secretary of the Cooperative Society as alleged in the articles of charge were well within the scope of scrutiny by the Bank, being the petitioner’s employer, for the purpose of taking disciplinary action against him as conduct of the petitioner as an Office bearer of the Cooperative Society was integrally connected and linked with his position as an employee of the Bank. 11. As has been noted above, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment upon the petitioner for five various charges framed against him and punishments have been assigned separately with respect to each of the charge. It would be evident from the discussion and quotation of articles of charges and order of the disciplinary authority that the Inquiry Officer found charges no.1,2 and 5 to be proved. As per the first charge the allegation against the petitioner is that he misused the name of the Bank to encash its reputation and named said Cooperative Society as “Central Bank Karamchari Credit Cooperative Society Limited.” It was charged that in the letter head of the Cooperative Society, “Central Bank” was printed in bold letter, whereas other words like “Karamchari Credit Cooperative Society Limited” was printed in small letters. It is the plea on behalf of the petitioner that there was no bar from forming a Cooperative Society of the nature and such bar has been imposed only with the issuance of the circular dated 23.10.2007 by the Central Office of the Bank. 12. Even if for the sake of the plea, this argument is accepted, I am of the opinion that charge no.2 as levelled against the petitioner is of very serious nature, while evaluating the conduct of a bank employee. 12. Even if for the sake of the plea, this argument is accepted, I am of the opinion that charge no.2 as levelled against the petitioner is of very serious nature, while evaluating the conduct of a bank employee. The imputation of misconduct as regards article of charge no.2 has been quoted hereinabove, according to which, the petitioner in connivance with the Branch Manager of Souria Branch availed demand loan facility from Souria Branch on same securities, which were part of securities of over draft account at the Branch of Katihar. Both the loan accounts pertained to the said Cooperative Society. The imputation of misconduct with respect to charge no.2 refers to five number of money Multiplier Deposit Certificates (MMDCs) of Railway Colony, Katihar Branch which were part of securities kept at OD ( Over Draft) Account No. 2657 of the Cooperative Society at Branch Office, Katihar. As per the allegation, the said MMDCs were sent by Branch Office Katihar on 8.1.2003 to Branch Office Railway Colony, Katihar for renewal. The letter was written by Sri K.K. Lal, Chairman of the Cooperative Society who was Branch Manager of Souria Branch, on behalf of Branch Office, Katihar and it was received by the petitioner under his proper acknowledgment for doing the needful. Surprisingly, after renewal of MMDCs at Branch office Railway Colony, Katihar they were not sent back to branch Office B/o Katihar rather these MMDCs were deposited at branch Office Souria for taking demand loan of Rs. 140,000/- and Rs. 350,000/- against the same MMDCs. The loan documents were executed by Sri K.K. Lal and the petitioner. As Chairman of the Cooperative Society and the loan was sanctioned by Sri Lal as Branch Manager of Souria Branch. It was, thus, alleged against the petitioner that he knowing well that the above MMDCs were part of securities against over draft account at Branch office Katihar fraudulently indulged in availing the demand loan against the same securities. His conduct was therefore, termed as unbecoming of Bank Officer as he did not act with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as has been noted above, has vehemently contended that this conduct of the petitioner was not as an Officer of the Bank rather it was in his capacity as Secretary of the Cooperative Society. The submission has been made to be rejected. 14. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as has been noted above, has vehemently contended that this conduct of the petitioner was not as an Officer of the Bank rather it was in his capacity as Secretary of the Cooperative Society. The submission has been made to be rejected. 14. In the present case the conduct of the petitioner while acting as Secretary of Cooperative Society and as an Officer of the Bank are integrally connected and in my opinion the two are not separable. The petitioner indulged in availing demand loan facility as Secretary of the Cooperative Society from Branch office, Souria on the basis of same securities which were pledged against over draft account no. 2657 of the Cooperative Society Limited at Branch office, Katihar where the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager. The misconduct as alleged against the petitioner in the second charge has been found to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. 15. As has been noted above, separate punishments have been imposed referring to all the five charges. For Charge no.2 punishment of “dismissal from service which shall have ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” has been imposed. The punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct against the petitioner. I have not dealt with other charges in much detail. However, I am of the view that there being no procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, since finding of the disciplinary proceeding cannot be said to be perverse with respect to other charges also, no interference is required by this Court. 16. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank is right in his submission referring to paragraph 15 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Case of Vardhman Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Asim Chatterjee (supra) that the conduct of the petitioner as Principal office bearer of the Cooperative Society was integrally connected with his status and Officer of the Bank. His conduct as the Office bearer of the Cooperative Society adversely affecting the Bank interest was certainly within the scope of the Disciplinary enquiry by the employer and the competent authority was well within its jurisdiction to take appropriate action if it came to a finding that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of an Bank Officer. 17. His conduct as the Office bearer of the Cooperative Society adversely affecting the Bank interest was certainly within the scope of the Disciplinary enquiry by the employer and the competent authority was well within its jurisdiction to take appropriate action if it came to a finding that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of an Bank Officer. 17. Misconduct in my opinion is a generic term and instances of such misconduct are prescribed under the Conduct Regulations. It is on the basis of robust commonsense that it has to be decided as to what conduct of an employee would constitute a misconduct warranting disciplinary action against him. Conduct of a Bank Officer in such matters has to be assessed slightly on different parameters. If any misconduct or misdemeanor is detected and proved against the Bank employee touching his honesty and integrity, the disciplinary authority will be justified in taking a strict view. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, questioning the impugned action of the disciplinary authority has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in (2006)9 SCC 440 ( Law Nigam Vs. Chairman and Managing Director ITI Limited) and referring to paragraph 10 of the said judgment, he has contended that the disciplinary authority was required to serve upon the petitioner notice relating to punishment proposed as the disciplinary authority had differed with the view taken by the Inquiry Officer. As has been discussed above, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to charge nos. 1, 2 and 5, whereby the Inquiry Officer had found the charges proved. The disciplinary Authority concurred with findings of the Inquiry Officer on Charge no.2. The disciplinary authority has imposed punishment with reference to prove misconduct for Charge no.2 as “dismissal from service which will ordinarily disqualify him from future employment”. In my opinion, Charge no.2 is severable from all other charges. There is exclusive finding by the Inquiry Officer with respect to charge no.2 which has been concurred by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgment in case of Law Nigam Vs. Chairman and Managing Director ITI Limited (supra) is not applicable at least to Charges no. 1, 2 and 5. 19. There is exclusive finding by the Inquiry Officer with respect to charge no.2 which has been concurred by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgment in case of Law Nigam Vs. Chairman and Managing Director ITI Limited (supra) is not applicable at least to Charges no. 1, 2 and 5. 19. So far as charges 3 and 4 are concerned, admittedly, before differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, referring tentative notes of disagreement, the disciplinary authority asked the petitioner to submit his response which he did. After considering the response of the petitioner of tentative notes of disagreement with respect to charges 3 and 4, the disciplinary authority came to a finding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. 20. In facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any prejudice to have been caused to the petitioner since in my opinion punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority against charge no.2 itself is sustainable and needs no interference. Such punishment is based on agreement of the disciplinary authority with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 21. I accordingly, do not find any merit in this application. This application is therefore rejected.