Deepak Sibal, J. 1. The SAS Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as - the Bank) has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-4), through which revision petition filed by respondent no. 3, challenging the order of his punishment, was accepted. 2. Though the revision petition decided respondent no.3's, challenge to order dated 28.10.2009, vide which punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect had been imposed on him and to the order dated 07.11.2009, vide which recovery of TDS was ordered to be affected from him, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank submits that he presses the present petition only qua the setting aside of the order dated 28.10.2009 by the Revisional Authority. 3. Through order dated 28.10.2009, for several irregularities and procedural lapses on the part of respondent no. 3, he was punished by the respondent Bank. A penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed. His statutory appeal against the punishment order having been dismissed, he preferred a revision petition before the Government, which through the order impugned in the present writ petition, was allowed. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference : - "7. I have carefully considered the arguments put forth by the counsels and perused the record available on the file. A perusal of the charges leveled in the chargesheet issued to the petitioner shows that while advancing loans the petitioner has committed some irregularities such as documents submitted by the loanees have not been verified by him, loan was advanced over and above the prescribed limits, pay slips of the guarantors have not been got verified from the concerned D.D.O, loans have been advanced to employees of the private firms and commercial banks etc. etc. There is no charge of embezzlement against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that recoveries in all the cases were regular. The counsel for the Bank did not deny this fact. As far as the matter relating to deduction of TDS is concerned, it is a proven fact that the petitioner had kept some amount as fee of the Advocate in sundry account so that the same could be deposited as TDS. The counsel for the Bank did not deny this fact. As far as the matter relating to deduction of TDS is concerned, it is a proven fact that the petitioner had kept some amount as fee of the Advocate in sundry account so that the same could be deposited as TDS. It is also an admitted fact that before the TDS could be deposited in the concerned account, the petitioner was transferred from the Branch and in his place a new Branch In-charge was appointed. The new Branch Manager made the payment to the Advocate concerned out of the amount kept in sundry account for TDS purpose. In my view the Bank has unnecessarily involved the petitioner in this case once it is proved that the petitioner was transferred. Keeping in view the above, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders. Order reserved on 19.3.2013 is written and signed to-day. Parties be informed." 4. A perusal of the above quoted order shows that the Revisional Authority acknowledged that respondent no.3, while serving as a Branch Manager, had committed glaring irregularities such as documents submitted by the loanees had not been verified by him; loans were advanced over and above the prescribed limits; pay slips of the guarantors had not been got verified from the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer; loans had been advanced to employees of the private firms and commercial banks etc., but only because there was no embezzlement, the punishment order was set aside. 5. These irregularities were serious. As a Branch Manager of the Bank, the petitioner had been found to have disbursed loans without verifying the documents of the loanees; the loans were advanced over and above the prescribed limits; the pay slips of the guarantors had not been got verified from the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer and loans had been advanced to employees of the private firms and commercial banks etc. The prescribed procedures were thrown to the winds. At this stage, reply submitted by respondent no. 3 to the charge-sheet assumes importance, wherein he has virtually admitted to the procedural irregularities on his part. The relevant extract from the reply submitted by respondent no. 3 to the charge-sheet is given below : - "A) Para no. The prescribed procedures were thrown to the winds. At this stage, reply submitted by respondent no. 3 to the charge-sheet assumes importance, wherein he has virtually admitted to the procedural irregularities on his part. The relevant extract from the reply submitted by respondent no. 3 to the charge-sheet is given below : - "A) Para no. 1 : At the time of advancing C. D. loans to different different loanees while filling up documents some of them were not verified, but now I have verified the documents from account no. 407 to 432 by visiting at Lalru. Para-2 : xx xx xx Para-3 : Residential proof and I.Cards of some of the loanees and guarantors have been placed in the file after obtaining the same and for the remaining it is being tried. Para-4 : DDO does not verify the pay slips of government employees. Loan targets are to be achieved. B) Para-1 : In some of the cases resident/card of loanees and guarantors were not verified. Account no. 11 to 37 have been verified. Para-2 : xx xx xx Para-3 : xx xx xx Para-4 : xx xx xx Para-5 : A lecturer, whose pension is Rs.12,000/- is hail and hearty, he is senior citizen, is land lord, post dated cheques have been taken from him. Para-6 : xx xx xx Para-7 : xx xx xx Para-8 : Almost in all cases, the forms have been completed." 6. Merely because there was no embezzlement on the part of respondent no. 3, the punishment meted out to him could have not been set aside. Once it was proved that respondent no. 3 had not followed the prescribed procedure, committed glaring irregularities and put at risk the capital of the Bank, the petitioner Bank had rightly imposed on respondent no.3 the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The Revisional Authority, only on the ground that there was no embezzlement on his part, should have not set aside the punishment meted out to the respondent no. 3 as for the irregularities done on his part, he deserved the same. 7. In view of the above, order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) is quashed to the extent that it sets aside the order of punishment dated 28.10.2009 and resultantly, the punishment meted out to respondent no. 3 as for the irregularities done on his part, he deserved the same. 7. In view of the above, order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) is quashed to the extent that it sets aside the order of punishment dated 28.10.2009 and resultantly, the punishment meted out to respondent no. 3 by the petitioner Bank of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is upheld. 8. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. 9. No costs.