ORDER The petitioner in the present application is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2011 (Annexure-15), whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon him by the Respondent-Bank. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure-16), whereby his appeal against the said order of compulsory retirement has been rejected. Petitioner also seeks consequent relief of reinstatement in service. 2. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as the Branch Manager, Patna Main Branch and Circle Head of Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), at Patna. A disciplinary proceeding on the allegation of commission of serious irregularities during his tenure as Branch Manager, Patna Main Branch was initiated against him, with the issuance of a charge-sheet through letter dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure-9) containing altogether 19 charges. Along with the charge-sheet, statement of imputations of misconduct, based on which the charges were framed against the petitioner were also furnished to him. The charges of irregularities related to the period 12.09.2006 to 13.10.2009 during which he had functioned as Assistant General Manager/Branch Manager and Assistant General Manager/Circle Head, Patna of the Bank. The borrowal accounts with respect to which irregularities were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner pertained to the following:– “1. A/C Small Wonders School 2. A/C Madhu Shala Wine Shoppe 3. A/C Ritwick’s Petro Shoppe 4. A/C Sanjay Dhawan 5. A/C Country Club International 6. A/C Ayushi Logistics 7. A/C Nath Hitech Engicons Pvt. Ltd. 8. A/C J.R. Industrial Switch Gears 9. A/C Sai Enterprises 10. A/C Maa Katyani Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 11. A/C Sri Krishna Fabricon Pvt. Ltd. 12. A/C Aditya Vision Ltd. 13. A/C Aditya Consumer Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” 3. On reading of the charge-sheet and the statement of imputations of misconduct the allegations related to :– “Charge 1 You had sanctioned huge enhancement in limits, just to accommodate the borrowers without even a semblance of credit appraisal. Even application from the borrower was not obtained in many cases. Charge 2 In many cases of enhancements in limits sanctioned by you, you had failed to extend the mortgage over the underlying properties, and also failed to modify the charge with ROC,- wherever applicable, for the enhanced limits. Charge 3 You had failed to conduct inspection of stocks and to obtain stock & book debts statement in many accounts and simply treated the sanctioned limit as drawing limit. Charge 3 You had failed to conduct inspection of stocks and to obtain stock & book debts statement in many accounts and simply treated the sanctioned limit as drawing limit. Charge 4 You had created terms loans in the books of the Bank without any request from the parties, without any appraisal and documentation and used the proceeds to clandestinely regularize the excesses in the working capital accounts of the parties concerned. The exercise was done to falsify the true status of the working capital accounts which otherwise were overdue and would have slipped to NPA. Thus you manipulated the books of accounts with a view to suppress the true status of the accounts from the knowledge of higher authorities. Charge 5 You had created EM with copies of title deeds and unregistered partition deeds, without the permission of the competent authority. Further, you had also created Equitable Mortgage in a loan account without the express authority of all the owners. You had also failed to inspect/ensure inspection of EM properties. Charge 6 You had sanctioned huge limits indiscriminately far beyond your discretionary powers. Charge 7 You had recklessly allowed huge excesses frequently far beyond your discretionary powers in many of the Working Capital accounts, allowed frequent TODs and did not report them to Circle Office for confirmation. Charge 8 You had suppressed the fact of having sanctioned a limit of Rs. 150 lakhs under your powers to M/s Country Club International, while sending a proposal for Rs. 15,36 crores to Head Office. Charge 9 You had increased the limit from Rs. 22 lakhs to Rs. 54 lakhs in the OCC a/c Nath Hitech Engicons Pvt. Ltd, without any proper appraisal. Further, you had marked the limit of Rs. 72 lakhs in the system, for which there was no request/documentation. When questioned on the huge excess in the account, you had replied that the account was brought within limit, although the account was in fact far beyond the sanctioned limit. Thus you made false and misleading submissions to Circle Office. Charge 10 You had failed to classify and declare many overdue accounts as NPA, although they were technically NPA (in some cases the limits were enhanced despite the accounts being technically NPA). Thus you had violated the HO/RBI guidelines in respect of NPA norms and misled the higher authorities. Thus you made false and misleading submissions to Circle Office. Charge 10 You had failed to classify and declare many overdue accounts as NPA, although they were technically NPA (in some cases the limits were enhanced despite the accounts being technically NPA). Thus you had violated the HO/RBI guidelines in respect of NPA norms and misled the higher authorities. Charge 11 You had without getting permission from the Circle Head, the sanctioning authority, released the enhanced limits to the borrower M/s Srikrishna Fabicons Pvt. Ltd. While taking up with Circle Office for permission to release the enhanced limits, although several sanction terms were not fulfilled, you had not informed the Circle Head that the enhanced limits sanctioned by him had already been released by you. Thus you suppressed the facts from the knowledge of higher authorities. Charge 12 You had failed to carry out proper pre-sanction appraisal in many of the loan accounts in violation of the guidelines of the Bank. Charge 13 You had failed to ensure the end use of funds/monitor the conduct of the accounts and thus failed in post sanction monitoring. Charge 14 You had sanctioned Secured overdraft (SOD) limit to M/s Govardhan Lal Dhawan and Sanjay Dhawan for take over of their liability with another Bank, where it was already an NPA. You had suppressed about the NPA status of the account at the time of take over in the appraisal note. Take over of NPA a/cs is in violation of the guidelines of the Bank. Charge 15 You had sanctioned a loan to M/s Surya Food Products by taking over their NPA/ suit filed with DRT liability with State Bank of India in the name of their group Company M/s Surya Traders. Charge 16 You had sanctioned loans without power for the purpose of shopping complex, construction activity and other commercial real estate activity, which come under selective category list as per the Loan Policy of the Bank. Thus you had violated the Loan Policy guidelines of the Bank. Charge 17 You had sanctioned Adhoc OCC on 09.10.2007 to M/s Surya Traders for a period of 3 months despite the fact that the OCC account of its group account, M/s Surya Food Products, was already running in excess of the sanctioned limit frequently. Thus you had violated the Loan Policy guidelines of the Bank. Charge 17 You had sanctioned Adhoc OCC on 09.10.2007 to M/s Surya Traders for a period of 3 months despite the fact that the OCC account of its group account, M/s Surya Food Products, was already running in excess of the sanctioned limit frequently. When it remained unadjusted even beyond the three month period, you had, in order to cover up the overdue liability, sanctioned a regular OCC limit and thus accommodated the party. Charge 18 You had without waiting for the sanction released a home loan of Rs. 11.00 lakhs to your wife Mrs. Padmalatha Sharma on 05.04.2007 itself though the facility was sanctioned by CO on 19.04.2007. Thus you had misused your official position for your personal gains. Charge 19 You had taken indiscriminate credit decision in the MTL a/c Birendra Singh and favoured the borrower by releasing the loan for a business activity which was not assessed and appraised by the branch. You failed to make enquiry and due diligence about the supplier, M/s Prem Engineering Works, to whom an amount aggregating to Rs. 61.12 lakhs was paid from the KTL proceeds. It subsequently transpired that the said Prem Engineering Works does not exist. The MTL proceeds were not used for acquiring machinery but diverted through bogus persons/accounts. Your above reported acts of omission and commission, if proved, would constitute misconducts under Regulation 24 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (as amended from time to time), in as much as they would be in breach of Regulation 3(1) of the Said Regulations, for your falling to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an Officer employee. The misconducts, if proved, are punishable under Regulation 4 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976, as amended from time to time.” An inquiry was conducted thereafter and a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 06.05.2011. The disciplinary authority proposed to impose major punishment of compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and sought opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission in this regard. The disciplinary authority proposed to impose major punishment of compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and sought opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission in this regard. The Central Vigilance Commission in its letter dated 18.08.2011 advised the disciplinary authority to impose suitable major punishment. The petitioner’s response was, accordingly, sought in view of the advise of the Central Vigilance Commission which was submitted on 12.09.2011. The petitioner, it appears, submitted his representations vide letters dated 23.09.2011 and 21.10.2011 before the disciplinary authority, explaining the bonafide of his acts; and his defence. These documents are Annexures 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively. Through these representations, the petitioner also sought for a copy of the letter dated 12.07.2011 issued by the disciplinary authority, seeking advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. Finally, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 31.10.2011 imposed the major punishment of compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 5. So far as the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority before imposition of major punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner is concerned, there is no much controversy. I do not find any such infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding so as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. What has been urged by Mr. Mustafa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is the background of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. He has contended, referring to Annexure-1 of the writ application that representation of one Arvind Kumar, a junior colleague of the petitioner dated 16.08.2009 addressed to the Deputy Director, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India and subsequent letter dated 31.8.2009 written by Shri Vijay Kumar Choudhary, Ex Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India are the main reason behind initiation of the proceedings against him. Referring to the said letter dated 31.8.2009, which is Annexure-3 to the present application, Mr. Mustafa submits that if this letter is compared with the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner, it would appear that almost all the charges framed against the petitioner have been mentioned in the said letter dated 31.8.2009. Referring to the said letter dated 31.8.2009, which is Annexure-3 to the present application, Mr. Mustafa submits that if this letter is compared with the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner, it would appear that almost all the charges framed against the petitioner have been mentioned in the said letter dated 31.8.2009. However, while seeking petitioner?s explanation as regards irregularities reported against the petitioner in the borrowal accounts sanctioned by the petitioner, by letter dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure-4), no whisper was made as regards the said complain of Vijay Kumar Choudhary, Ex-Member, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India dated 31.08.2009. It is his plea that action against the petitioner was taken under the pressure mounted by said Ex-Member, National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India, who had acted at the behest of a junior colleague of the petitioner who had complained to the Commission against the petitioner as the petitioner had refused to accede to his request for transfer. 7. The petitioner’s grievance is that immediately after receipt of the said complaint from Vijay Kumar Choudhary, the petitioner was put under suspension and explanation was sought from him. His contention in this regard is that communication made by the said Vijay Kumar Choudhary, which is apparently the basis for initiation of action against him should have been supplied to the petitioner while seeking explanation from him or in course of the disciplinary proceeding. Non-disclosure of this fact and non-supply of the said letter of ex-member, National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes before and at the time of the disciplinary proceeding amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, according to him. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner though concern petitioner’s conduct and administration of loan department, there is no evidence on the records of the disciplinary proceeding to indicate petitioner’s lack of honesty and integrity. He has placed reliance upon Clauses 10.2.2, 10.2.4 and 10.2.7 of the Manual of Instructions under the head “Staff Accountability ( for Officers)” which reads thus:– “2.2 Bonafide Commercial judgments of various authorities in the Bank should not be questioned later, unless malafide intention is proved. A distinction should be brought out between accountability arising out of genuine business decisions, out of negligence or out of malafide/faruds. A distinction should be brought out between accountability arising out of genuine business decisions, out of negligence or out of malafide/faruds. 2.4 Deficiencies which can be rectified and the irregularities which are not likely to the enforceability of securities may be treated as procedural lapse and decision taken on that basis. 2.7 The bonafide actions and business risks taken by Officials should be recognized and officials involved in such actions should be protected and supported so that the decision making process in the Bank does not suffer for the reason ‘Fear of Accountability’. 9. It has been stated in paragraph 25 of the writ application that the petitioner did not own any direct operation responsibility in view of the Circular issued by the Bank with regard to “Job Role” of Branch Managers/Assistant Branch Manager. It has been stated further that though the petitioner was the Branch Manager, there was a separate loans department at Patna, Main Branch which was headed and controlled by Senior Manager and a Credit Monitoring Officer and as per Manual of duties and responsibilities, Manager (Loans)/Credit Monitoring Officer is the custodian of all loans and he alone is responsible to do all the loan appraisal documentation, pre sanction verification, post sanction follow up etc. It has been stated that role of the petitioner was confined to take the credit decision of sanctioning the facility on the basis of recommendation/reports forwarded by the loans department. 10. It has also been stated in the writ application in Paragraph 35 that as a matter of fact, the petitioner placed maximum reliance on the value of the security covering the advance in order to protect the interest of the Bank and rest of the requirements were generally dealt with and because of that the Bank did not face any hurdle in enforcing SEREESI action and such substantial recovery has already been done now. This statement that substantial recovery had already been made, has not been denied in paragraph 36 of the Counter affidavit, in reply to paragraph 35 of the writ application. In paragraph 29 of the writ application following statement has been made:– “29. This statement that substantial recovery had already been made, has not been denied in paragraph 36 of the Counter affidavit, in reply to paragraph 35 of the writ application. In paragraph 29 of the writ application following statement has been made:– “29. That it is humbly submitted that the impugned orders are bad, illegal and fit to be quashed on the ground that so far as indiscriminate lending is concerned, the authorities ought to have considered as per the budget approved by the Head Office, the petitioner did not indulge in erected lending and in spite of classifying many account as technically NPA, recovery has come in most of the accounts. Moreover, no lending was done without sufficient addition of security by way of mortgage of property. In case of Sri Krishna Fabricons and Nath Hi-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., there was agreement with Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation that all the payments will be made to the Indian Bank and then only project was financed. This issue was also not considered by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities and the impugned order was passed without considering the relevant material.” 11. There is no denial of such averment as contained in paragraph 29 of the writ application in the counter affidavit and it has been simply stated that it is a matter of record. 12. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations of the appellate authority that because of recklessness shown by the petitioner in credit disbursal, Bank was saddled with the sticky loans of more than 5 crores which are difficult to recover is incorrect, referring to the statement made in paragraph 37 of the writ application, that as a matter of fact during the petitioner’s tenure as Branch Manager during the relevant point of time the Bank’s profit rose to 4.5 crores from Rs. 1.5 crores. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 36 of the writ petition as follows:– “36. That it is humbly submitted that the impugned order are bad, illegal and fit to be quashed on the ground that the concluding observation of the disciplinary authority that the bank is likely to suffer a huge loss of over Rs. 5 Crores is perverse. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 36 of the writ petition as follows:– “36. That it is humbly submitted that the impugned order are bad, illegal and fit to be quashed on the ground that the concluding observation of the disciplinary authority that the bank is likely to suffer a huge loss of over Rs. 5 Crores is perverse. The fact remains that the aforesaid observation draws strength from a “falsely” projected amount of “probable loss”, which is not only farfetched but also contrary to the record. Since the recoverability aspect has a great bearing in this case, it is submitted that many questioned accounts have already been closed and there have also been substantial recovery in other accounts. So far as the subsisting liabilities are concerned, there are sufficient securities to cover those advances and it can be safely submitted that the recovery of subsisting liability is only a question of time. Even Mr. Kamalnath Jha MW 1 deposed that all the advances are adequately covered with collaterals and the prospect of recovery is good. The manner in which disciplinary authority has disregarded the present status of the questioned accounts, substantial recovery done therein and collaterals covering the subsisting liabilities, it is evident that the respondent authorities acted in an unfair manner to give effect to a pre-determined decision of capital punishment.” 13. The statements have, however, not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit, except for making a statement that the calculation of loss to the tune of Rs. 5 crore has been made on objective basis. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that non denial of the averments made in the writ application, specifically in the counter affidavit amounts to admission by the respondent. He has submitted that these aspects were required to be considered specifically by the appellate authority who has failed to take into account irrelevant aspects. 15. From the appellate order it appears that the appellate authority has not taken into account the petitioner’s specific case that even Management Witness No.1 in course of examination stated that all the advances were adequately covered with collaterals and the prospect of recovery was good. 16. 15. From the appellate order it appears that the appellate authority has not taken into account the petitioner’s specific case that even Management Witness No.1 in course of examination stated that all the advances were adequately covered with collaterals and the prospect of recovery was good. 16. This is also to be noted that the petitioner has taken a plea in paragraph 12 that the petitioner was not supplied with the copies of the documents cited in the articles of charge, along with charge-sheet in violation of Regulation 6(3) of the Indian Bank Officers Employees’( Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 which reads thus:– “6. Procedure for imposing Major penalties ………… …………… 3. Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall, frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the article of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, list of documents relied on along with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Officer employee, who shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority( for exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority written statement of his defence: Provided that wherever it is not possible to furnish the copies of documents, Disciplinary Authority shall allow the Officer employee inspection of such documents within a time specified in this behalf.” 17. This statement made in paragraph 12 of the writ application has also not been denied specifically in the counter affidavit. It has been contended that the plea of non- supply of documents has been taken by the petitioner all through, but this has not been considered by the appellate authority. 18. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner has not been able to counter the submission that as a matter of fact the loans advanced by the petitioner have been substantially recovered and most of the accounts have been closed. 19. I find force in submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the plea as raised by the petitioner. 20. 19. I find force in submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the plea as raised by the petitioner. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider it appropriate to remand the matter back to the appellate authority after quashing the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Executive Director/appellate authority (Annexure-16) to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass reasoned order on the basis of facts/materials available on records of the disciplinary proceeding. The appellate authority while passing the order afresh must take into account the following points which have been raised by the petitioner in the present writ application:– (a) Whether the copies of the documents figuring in the list of documents relied upon by the bank while serving upon the petitioner the charge-sheet were supplied to the petitioner or not as required under Regulation 6(3) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees’(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. If not, whether non supply of such documents would have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. (b) The appellate authority shall specifically consider the petitioner’s plea that many of the questioned accounts had already been closed and that there has been substantial recovery in other accounts also and for subsisting liabilities also there are sufficient sureties to cover those advances. The appellate authority shall consider the statement of M.W. 1 in his order as he said to have stated that all the advances were adequately covered with collateral and prospect of recovery is good. The appellate authority will be required to test the conduct of the petitioner on the basis of material on record, with reference to Clauses 10.2.2, 10.2.4 and 10.2.7 of the Manual of Instructions of the Bank which deals with Staff Accountability (for officers). (c) The appellate authority shall be required to pass an order on the petitioner’s appeal in the light of the observations/directions given hereinabove. (d) The appellate authority shall also consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a punishment of compulsory retirement can be substituted by any other suitable punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. The appellate authority will be required to pass order pursuant to present order in this case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 22. 21. The appellate authority will be required to pass order pursuant to present order in this case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 22. This writ application is allowed, accordingly.