Judgment :- Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. This writ application has been preferred challenging the entire disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 2nd December, 2012 issued by the respondent no.3, the enquiry report communicated vide memorandum dated 14th November, 2012, the second show cause notice dated 4th January, 2013 issued by the respondent no.2, the final order of punishment issued by the respondent no.2 on 15th January, 2013 and the order dated 10th July, 2013 issued by the appellate authority. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as SBI) on 29th October, 2001 and upon discharging 11 years of service in different posts, the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager at Panjipara Branch of SBI on 18th December, 2008 and he was in the said post till 21st November, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred to Berhampore Branch of SBI and while he was working there a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Region-II vide memorandum dated 29th August, 2011 to which the petitioner furnished a reply on 16th September, 2011 and more than 4 months thereafter the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 2nd December, 2012 containing 14 charges to which the petitioner replied and subsequent thereto an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry on four days and submitted the enquiry report which was communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 14th November, 2012 to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 24th November, 2012 and thereafter vide memorandum dated 4th January, 2013 a second show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.2 proposing a major penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SBOIOSR) to which the petitioner filed his reply and subsequent thereto the respondent no.2 issued the order of punishment on 15th January, 2013. Challenging the same the petitioner initially preferred a writ application being W.P.No.4967 (W) of 2013 but subsequently he withdrew the same with liberty to prefer an appeal departmentally and thereafter the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 10th July, 2013. Mr. Challenging the same the petitioner initially preferred a writ application being W.P.No.4967 (W) of 2013 but subsequently he withdrew the same with liberty to prefer an appeal departmentally and thereafter the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 10th July, 2013. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have all proceeded on the basis of a preconceived notion that the petitioner has wrongfully gained through disbursement of agricultural loans, though there was no specific charge to that effect. Mr. Chatterjee argues that 563 loans of Rs.30,000 each were sanctioned to both categories of farmers i.e. land owners and landless farmers, out of which a sum of Rs.25,000 had been disbursed to each borrower by the petitioner during his tenure as Branch Manager at Panjipara, while Rs.5,000 was withheld for disbursal at harvest time. The loan was sanctioned to landowners on the basis of khatian and in case of landless farmers, as the identity and status of the farmer was not clear from the khatians, loan was sanctioned on the basis of Pradhan certificate, in terms of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as RBI) circular dated 30th April, 2007 and as all the loans were below Rs.50,000 RBI guidelines were applicable and that out of a total of 563 loans, 50 loans, mostly sanctioned to landless farmers, were selected on sample basis for enquiry. Significantly, khatians, which were not actually used for appraisal and sanction of such loans, were forcibly linked with the loans and charges were framed against the petitioner while other irrelevant and insignificant issues were fished out to embellish the charges. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the findings in respect of charge Nos.1 to 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 although held to be proved are based on no evidence and only on surmises and conjectures and are perverse, while the charge No.5 was held to be ‘Not Proved’ and the charge Nos.8, 11 and 12 were held to be ‘Partly Proved’. He further submits that a perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority would reveal no independent application of mind save and except reiteration of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer. He further submits that a perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority would reveal no independent application of mind save and except reiteration of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer. According to him, the enquiry officer proceeded in hot haste to conclude the hearing and though it was an impossibility to consider the voluminous documents involved in the proceedings within a short period, the enquiry officer abruptly concluded the enquiry within 4 days and arrived at a finding to the effect that all the charges are proved except the charge Nos.8, 9 and 12, which are partly proved and the charge No.5, which does not stand proved. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the charge Nos.1 to 4 are overlapping each other and are thus bereft of classification and that under the circulars of RBI dated 30th April, 2007 and 30th March, 2009 even landless agricultural farmers/labourers are eligible for such loan and that only Panchayat Pradhan certificate of land holding is sufficient for sanction. The charge No.5 was not proved and the allegation in charge No.6 to the effect that the signature of BLRO in the land possession certificates obtained by the petitioner was found to be forged does not stand established since the said government official was not examined to substantiate the said charge. The charge Nos.7 and 10 are related to curable procedural lapses which were pointed out in course of audit, but no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cure such defects in spite of request. So far as the charge No.8 is concerned, the marginal delay which occasioned towards submission of corresponding returns for August, 2009 was due to the fact that at that juncture the petitioner was on leave to look after his wife who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and the child was born on 28th August, 2009. As regards charge No.9 the defence of the petitioner was that he himself manned the cash counter and disbursed 212 loans for enhancing customer service. KCC withdrawal vouchers submitted by numerous borrowers were posted at one go in bulk by means of Trickle Feed Technology and the KCC accounts were debited and total money was parked in an internal system suspense account. KCC withdrawal vouchers submitted by numerous borrowers were posted at one go in bulk by means of Trickle Feed Technology and the KCC accounts were debited and total money was parked in an internal system suspense account. The charge deliberately omits to mention the subsequent event that simultaneously, cash was withdrawn from the system suspense account and admittedly paid to all individual borrowers against their respective acknowledgement on the vouchers on the very same day. Mr. Chatterjee submits that charge No.13 is the only charge which speaks of an anticipated financial loss and such loss has been sought to be attributed to the petitioner in a most illegal and malafide manner. In reality, however, most loans were prematurely declared non-performing asset (hereinafter referred to as NPA) in November, 2011 (after receiving reply to show cause in September, 2011) while loans which were on verge of turning NPA, did not actually turn NPA, but, as per SBI Times Report, were renewed subsequently after the completion of the enquiry against the petitioner. Thus, according to Mr. Chatterjee, the finding of the enquiry officer to the effect that “so many irregularities observed hence no question of renewal” is a glaring factual error. As per bank circular on NPA, the loans could not have been declared NPA before May, 2012. In the instant case, a sizeable number of loans were prematurely declared NPA in November, 2011 to embellish the charge (charge sheet issued in February, 2012) and such fact is also clear from the deposition of PW2 at page 139 and also from comparison of the statements at pages 314 and 315 (viz. “recalled assets”). According to Mr. Chatterjee, the charge No.14 is absolutely vague and is bereft of the particulars in support of the allegations to the effect that the petitioner had failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank. Mr. Chatterjee strenuously argues that the inherent defects, in the charges as pointed out through the representations made by the petitioner in reply to the enquiry report, were not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while inflicting the punishment of removal from service. Referring to the appellate order, Mr. Mr. Chatterjee strenuously argues that the inherent defects, in the charges as pointed out through the representations made by the petitioner in reply to the enquiry report, were not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while inflicting the punishment of removal from service. Referring to the appellate order, Mr. Chatterjee submits that the appellate authority while considering the validity of the order of punishment took into consideration facts which were not part of the proceeding and the mitigating circumstances detailed in the appeal were not taken into consideration and the said order does not reflect any independent application of mind and is a cryptic one and such infirmities malign the decision making process. According to Mr. Chatterjee the punishment imposed is disproportionate and that the said punishment shocks the conscience and that as such the same is liable to be struck down. In support of his arguments, Mr. Chatterjee has relied upon the following judgments: a) Narinder Mohan Arya –vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 (paras 26 & 44). b) Unreported decision of Calcutta High Court dated 14.07.2014 in W.P. No.8512 (W) of 2009 (Md. Afzal Hussain –vs- Coal India). c) Hardwari Lal –vs- State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582 (para 3). d) Central Bank of India Ltd. –vs- Prakash Chand Jain, reported in AIR 1969 (SC) 983 . e) Unreported decision in W.P. No.8527 (W) of 2006 (Kashinath Chakraborty –vs- W.B.S.E.B.). f) Union of India and others –vs- J. Ahmed, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 (para 11). g) Dipankar Sengupta –vs- United Bank of India, reported in 1998 (2) CLJ 204 (paras 25 & 26). h) Kailash Nath Gupta –vs- Enquiry Officer, (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 (para 11). i) Ms. G. Vallikumari –vs- Andhra Education Society and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497 (paras 19 & 20). Per contra, Mr. h) Kailash Nath Gupta –vs- Enquiry Officer, (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 (para 11). i) Ms. G. Vallikumari –vs- Andhra Education Society and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497 (paras 19 & 20). Per contra, Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that there is a direct nexus of the petitioner with the charges alleged against him and submits that the RBI letter dated 30th April, 2007 has no manner of application in respect of the loans granted during the year 2008 to 2009 and that the loans were granted taking into consideration khatians and land revenue records and most of the certificates issued by the concerned Gram Pradhan were blank and the LTIs were not verified. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Sinha submits that the enquiry officer submitted the report assessing the evidence and the competent authority passed order of dismissal taking into consideration the records and the submissions made by the petitioner in course of personal hearing and thus the allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice is absolutely unfounded. According to Mr. Sinha, the agricultural loans were required to be granted in compliance of the terms and conditions contained in Bank’s Consolidated Master circular (Crop Production Loan) dated 30th March, 2009 and that the area of land shown in the appraisal was found to be higher than the actual land holding shown in khatians kept with the loan documents and several khatians are not in the name of the borrowers or their family member. He further submits that many of the KCC borrowers are not farmers and they are daily labourers, not having agricultural lands. No evidence and or documents were given that they cultivate lands for agricultural purposes. Even affidavits stating which land they cultivate were not filed. He further submits that many of the KCC borrowers are not farmers and they are daily labourers, not having agricultural lands. No evidence and or documents were given that they cultivate lands for agricultural purposes. Even affidavits stating which land they cultivate were not filed. Some borrowers filed khatians of lands which they cultivate but the said lands do not correspond with the land mentioned in said khatians and that false land holding certificates from government department, filed by the borrowers, were not acceptable for granting loans and blank certificates from Pradhan were accepted for granting loans and the control returns were not submitted in due time and that the loan amounts were not credited in the saving bank accounts of the borrowers and instead cash payment was made by the petitioner to the alleged borrowers and the thumb impressions on the loan documents were also not verified and fictitious persons took loan in many cases. He further submits that almost all loan accounts sanctioned by the petitioner had become NPA and that the petitioner committed serious irregularities in connection with 563 KCC loans as a result of which the bank had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.125 lakhs and that the petitioner failed to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank. According to Mr. Sinha the order of the enquiry officer was a detailed one and supported with reasons and the order of penalty was rightly imposed upon the petitioner in the backdrop of the proven charges. Replying to the allegation to the effect that the order of penalty was an unreasoned one, Mr. Sinha submits that such allegation is absolutely unfounded inasmuch as an order affirmation need not contain elaborate reasons and furthermore Rule 68(3) details the circumstances in which reasons are to be given. According to Mr. Sinha, in banking business, absolute diligence is required to be preserved and in the event such discipline is not maintained, the confidence of public/depositors would be impaired and the petitioner, being a bank employee, is expected to be extremely cautious in his duties and having committed an offence, the petitioner cannot lament and seek sympathy from the Court. In support of his argument, Mr. Sinha has relied upon the following judgments: I. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors. –vs- Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in AIR 1996 SC 320 . II. In support of his argument, Mr. Sinha has relied upon the following judgments: I. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors. –vs- Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in AIR 1996 SC 320 . II. Unreported decision in APO 485 of 2014 with WP 1801 of 2008 (Subhas Chandra Bar –vs- State Bank of India & Ors.). In reply, Mr. Chatterjee submits that the contention of the learned advocate for the bank, in course of hearing, that the RBI circular was applicable only for the year 2007-2008 is a new issue not raised before the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in the entire proceedings and not even in the affidavit of the bank and that the concerned circular was never withdrawn by any other circular and the same was issued on the basis of the annual policy statement. The enquiry officer did not deny the relevance and applicability of RBI circular and the specific finding of the enquiry officer was that Pradhan’s certificate is nothing but normal character certificate and the enquiry officer deliberately highlighted the residential-cum-character certificate issued by Pradhan (obtained additionally as Proof of Residence) instead of referring to the actual land holding certificate issued by Pradhan though both the certificates were on record. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the appellate authority does not even stand supported with a brief reasoning and such infirmity warrants interference. He further submits that the judgment delivered in the case of Subhas Chandra Bar (supra) is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the said matter the charge-sheet was issued against the writ petitioner when he was more than 52 years of age and the said writ application was filed when the petitioner was more than 54 years and the charges were much more serious involving manipulation of records and sanction of house loans to fraudulent borrowers on the basis of fabricated mortgaged deeds. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. Records reveal that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to contest the disciplinary proceedings and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. Records reveal that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to contest the disciplinary proceedings and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. If fairness is shown by the decision-makers to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of its situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. It is not for this Court to revaluate the materials on record in order to assess and measure the quality of the evidence and materials. The Court is essentially concerned about the decision making process. It is not intended to take away from the authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law. But it is important to remember in every case that the purpose of remedies is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authorities. Adequacy and sufficiency of evidence cannot be dealt with by this Court and in the absence of any perversity in the decision making process the Writ Court should not ordinarily interfere. Credibility of testimony, oral or circumstantial, depends on judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny and application of the said proposition to the facts of the instant case does not lead to a conclusion to the effect that there was no evidence on record in support of the charges alleged. However, a close perusal of the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority reveal that there is no allegation as regards the petitioner’s integrity, no malafide has been alleged against the petitioner and there is no charge to the effect that the petitioner has indulged in any fraudulent activity, misappropriation or embezzlement of the bank’s funds. The charge to the effect that the petitioner sanctioned and disbursed loans to persons who have already expired has not been proved and a part of the charge No.11 alleging operation of middlemen was also not proved. The charge to the effect that the petitioner sanctioned and disbursed loans to persons who have already expired has not been proved and a part of the charge No.11 alleging operation of middlemen was also not proved. While dealing charge No.12 the enquiry officer observed that the complainants were not produced for verification and testification of complaints and that as such the portion of charge no.12 relating to complaints was also not proved. In the records there is also no answer to the contention of the petitioner that the KCC loans were declared NPA prematurely and that the liability of non-payment of the loan by the borrower cannot be shifted upon the petitioner. In the charge No.13 it has been stated that “the bank may sustain a reputational as well as financial loss not less than 125 lakhs” but it has not been detailed as to whether the said anticipated loss is in respect of 563 loans or in respect of the sample 50 loans taken into consideration while framing the charge-sheet and that as such the quantification of such anticipated loss is vague. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not suspended and in fact he was given higher responsibility to hold a post pertaining to accounts at Berhampore Branch of SBI. It is well settled that a negligent action cannot be construed to be equivalent to an act of taking bribe or illegal gratification. The petitioner is presently aged about 39 years and at present he has more than 20 years of service left and his family consists of his aged mother, his wife and two daughters and the order of removal would seriously affect his livelihood and survival of his family. In the backdrop of the mitigating circumstances and in tune with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is scope for fresh consideration of the punishment, which has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Accordingly the present writ application is disposed of with the following directions: The writ petitioner must submit a fresh representation before the appellate authority with a prayer for reconsideration of the order of punishment. This must be done within a period of six weeks from date. Accordingly the present writ application is disposed of with the following directions: The writ petitioner must submit a fresh representation before the appellate authority with a prayer for reconsideration of the order of punishment. This must be done within a period of six weeks from date. The said authority, upon receipt of the same, must consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with the rules and preferably, after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The entire process must be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Action to be taken or order to be so passed must be duly communicated to the writ petitioner within a further period of two weeks. There is no further interference except to the extent as indicated herein. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.