ORDER : 1. Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Corporation Bank. Articles of charges were issued against him alleging certain acts of misconduct. Charges pertained to (a) advancing loan in favour of 43 persons in excess of power and authority conferred as per the Regulations (b) unauthorized absence for a period of nearly 3½ months (c) dealing with the customer of the bank in the matter of purchase of a car. 2. A disciplinary enquiry was held by appointing an enquiry officer. In the course of enquiry, bank adduced evidence producing as many as 130 documents. 8 witnesses were examined. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. He produced 19 documents and also cross-examined witnesses examined by the bank. 3. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 01.12.2007 finding petitioner guilty of all charges. The disciplinary authority, after providing an opportunity to petitioner to have his say with regard to findings recorded by the enquiry officer, passed the order imposing penalty of dismissal on 17.01.2008. Appeal filed by petitioner before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on 21.06.2008. Petitioner sought for review of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The said petition was also dismissed. In this background, aggrieved by the punishment of dismissal imposed confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel Sri. Padmanabha Mahale has principally contended that all loans except two have been fully recovered by the bank and therefore, there was absolutely no justification to impose such extreme penalty of dismissal against petitioner on the charge of advancing loan in excess of limit fixed. It is his contention that there was a target fixed for petitioner to achieve in the matter of advancing loan to farmers and others; in the normal course, loans granted in excess of the authority of petitioner used to be ratified but in the instant case higher authorities did not ratify the loans but all loans except two have been recovered, therefore, there is no justification to impose penalty of dismissal against petitioner. 5. 5. With regard to unauthorised absence, it is submitted by him that petitioner had an ailing and aged mother and the transfer resulted in serious prejudice and hardship to petitioner, hence, he was constrained to stay back under a bona-fide impression that his application submitted for leave would be considered and he would be in a position to utilize the leave available to his credit. It is also contended by him that petitioner did not purchase any car from the customer of the bank and the findings recorded in this regard were unsupportable from the evidence on record. He has lastly contended that punishment of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled and proved, hence this Court has to interfere in the matter in the ends of justice. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Others vs. Hoti Lal and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 605 . He has also pointed out that as per Regulation 6(17) of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, after the officer employee got himself examined in the enquiry, the enquiring authority shall question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. As such a procedure was not followed in the present case, in his submission, entire enquiry stood vitiated. 6. Learned counsel for respondent has strongly refuted these contentions and has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 304 (Paragraph 3). He has urged that whether the misconduct attributed to employee has resulted in any loss or not, mere proof of official exceeding his power in advancing loan tantamounts to misconduct and is liable to be dealt with seriously. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Disciplinary Authority- Cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . It is also his submission that unauthorized absence paralyses the work of the Bank and causes serious inconvenience to the customers and therefore, the said misconduct has to be viewed seriously entailing even the extreme penalty of dismissal. It is also his submission that unauthorized absence paralyses the work of the Bank and causes serious inconvenience to the customers and therefore, the said misconduct has to be viewed seriously entailing even the extreme penalty of dismissal. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 . The said judgment is also relied on for the purpose of refuting the contention of petitioner that penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I find from the materials on record that the charge of misconduct of advancing loan in excess of the authority given to petitioner has been established. Charge of misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent for a period of nearly 3½ months has been also examined. Petitioner has not adduced his evidence. Even assuming that majority of such loan advanced by petitioner have been recovered and no loss has been caused to the bank, that cannot be a ground to hold that petitioner was not guilty of misconduct alleged against him. 8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent referring to the judgment in the case of Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , proof of loss on account of misconduct of delinquent is not necessary, particularly, when allegation is made against an officer of the bank who had in number of cases exceeded his authority in advancing loans. 9. As regards violation of regulation 6(17) of the Regulations of the bank is concerned, mere violation of the procedure prescribed would not be sufficient for this Court to interfere in the matter. Petitioner has to establish prejudice, if any, caused against him for non-observation of the said procedure. In the instant case, the enquiry officer has indeed questioned the petitioner and has sought his say in the matter with regard to the allegations leveled against him, particularly, with regard to the reckless and illegal sanction and disbursal of loans without observing the norms. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to petitioner by the enquiring authority in not specifically questioning him on specific circumstances appearing against him in the evidence so as to enable him to explain such circumstances. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to petitioner by the enquiring authority in not specifically questioning him on specific circumstances appearing against him in the evidence so as to enable him to explain such circumstances. 10. The judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar (cited supra) clearly lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement would not violate the enquiry unless the delinquent officer was able to establish prejudice. In the facts of the present case, petitioner is not in a position to show how prejudice has been caused in not strictly adhering to the regulation. Indeed, as already referred to above, the enquiry officer has generally questioned petitioner with regard to charges leveled against him and has provided an opportunity to him to explain the same. Hence, this contention also does not hold good. 11. As regards the explanation sought to be offered regarding the unauthorized absence stating that mother of petitioner was sick and hence, petitioner could not leave her to attend duties in the transferred place, such explanation cannot be accepted as it was incumbent upon petitioner either to obtain permission by way of leave to stay away from his duties or to report for duty. His unilateral decision to stay back without reporting to duty in the transferred place, certainly, handicaps and paralyses banking activities in the place where he was transferred and hence, tantamounts to misconduct. 12. Insofar as the last contention urged stating that punishment of dismissal from service, in the facts of case is shockingly disproportionate, I am of the view that the disciplinary authority has got the discretion to examine the entire evidence before it and come to the conclusion with regard to the nature of penalty to be imposed. It is true, when the penalty imposed is irrational, illogical and disproportionate so that no reasonable employer could have imposed such penalty in similar facts and circumstances this Court would interfere keeping in mind the ends of justice, but, this is not one such case where it can be said that punishment imposed is irrational or illogical so as to shock the conscious of the Court. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have exercised their power and discretion keeping in mind the nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have exercised their power and discretion keeping in mind the nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances. If the entire materials are cumulatively considered, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by them in the matter of imposition of punishment was irrational or illogical so as to warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 13. Hence, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.