JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. It is feeling aggrieved by an order dated 25.02.2016/02.05.2016 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in Service Appeal No. 110 of 2004 whereby the appeal has been dismissed thus confirming the order of the Board of Directors dated 10.05.2004 circulated through the Memo No. 99 dated 12.05.2004 of the Managing Director whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and proceedings directed for realization of the defalcated amount through appropriate proceedings that the writ petition is filed. Copies of the order of the Registrar and the Managing Director are enclosed at Annexures-19 and 14 respectively. 2. Facts as noted from the pleadings briefly stated is that the petitioner who was initially appointed as an Assistant in the year 1979 was holding the post of Assistant Branch Manager, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dhansoi Branch, Arrah at the stage when a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him for alleged acts of misconduct. Copy of the charge memo is placed on record through the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank at Annexure R/4 and would confirm that the petitioner was charged with several acts of misconduct which varied from dereliction of duty to causing financial irregularities. The petitioner filed his reply to the charges which is enclosed at Annexure R/6. The report of the Enquiry Officer is present at Annexure R/8 upholding the allegations and which culminated in an order of dismissal passed on 23.04.2003 enclosed at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred Service Appeal before the Registrar Cooperative Societies and vide order passed on 12.04.2004 the appellate authority remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority with the direction to serve a copy of the enquiry report and allow an opportunity to the petitioner to file representation to the enquiry report. A copy of the order of remand passed by the appellate authority, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is enclosed at Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the enquiry report together with the second show cause dated 15.04.2004 enclosed at Annexure 10 and 11 to the writ petition, he represented before the respondents for supply of documents and though an order to such effect was passed by the Managing Director, but was not carried out. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the enquiry report together with the second show cause dated 15.04.2004 enclosed at Annexure 10 and 11 to the writ petition, he represented before the respondents for supply of documents and though an order to such effect was passed by the Managing Director, but was not carried out. It is the case of the petitioner that he again requested for supply of documents but which was never supplied to him rather by an order bearing memo No. 99 dated 12.05.2004, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Directors vide resolution No. 2 passed on 10.05.2004 was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service. A copy of the order issued under the signature of the Managing director bearing Memo No. 99 dated 12.05.2004 is enclosed at Annexure 14. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner again moved in Service Appeal No. 110 of 2004 which was dismissed on 03.07.2007/06.07.2007 vide Annexure 15. 4. It is questioning the 2 orders that the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 861 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed vide order passed on 20.01.2014 by a coordinate bench who after recording opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority was non speaking and did not assign reasons for dismissal, set aside the same and remitted the mater to appellate authority for disposal afresh. Copy of the order passed on the writ petition is at Annexure-18. 5. On remand the Registrar, Cooperative Society has considered the appeal of the petitioner which was heard analogous with the appeal filed by the Accountant of the same branch and vide order passed on 25.02.2016/02.05.2016, the Registrar, Cooperative Society has dismissed all the appeals including the appeal of the petitioner arising from Appeal No. 110 of 2015. The order is impugned at Annexure-19. Feeling aggrieved he is before this Court. This matter was heard on 20.12.2017 and when Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner appearing along with Advocate on record Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh raised the following issues for consideration: (a) Though the dismissal of the petitioner is on charge of financial misappropriation but there is complete absence of evidence to connect him to the charge. This matter was heard on 20.12.2017 and when Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner appearing along with Advocate on record Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh raised the following issues for consideration: (a) Though the dismissal of the petitioner is on charge of financial misappropriation but there is complete absence of evidence to connect him to the charge. (b) Neither the order of the Board of Directors as communicated by the Managing Director impugned at Annexure 14 nor the order of the Registrar impugned at Annexure 19 deals with the issues raised by the petitioner. (c) Neither a Presenting Officer was appointed nor any evidence was led in support of the charge; and (d) The order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is mechanical and is resting on no evidence. 6. The argument of Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh is not only attractive but stands on sound principles for if no evidence was led during the course of proceeding nor any Presenting Officer was appointed to lead evidence, the enquiry was clearly vitiated. In fact these arguments if taken on its face value, is sufficient to allow the writ petition but it is not such a cake walk for the petitioner because he is seriously opposed not only by Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned S.C. 26 but also by Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank who have opposed these contentions in the backdrop of the charges on the financial irregularity facing the petitioner. 7. It is the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner holding the post of the Branch Manager had to maintain utmost integrity and transparency in commercial dealings but the allegations put up in the charge memo are sufficient indication of the collusiveness of the petitioner in the financial irregularities along with the Accountant of the Bank namely Ravi Shankar. While accepting the proposition advanced by Mr. Singh learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in absence of evidence connecting a delinquent to the charge, the order of penalty cannot withstand the test, it is submitted that where the facts speaks for itself and the guilt is admitted, perhaps this proposition advanced by Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 8. Singh learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in absence of evidence connecting a delinquent to the charge, the order of penalty cannot withstand the test, it is submitted that where the facts speaks for itself and the guilt is admitted, perhaps this proposition advanced by Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 8. An exhaustive supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank placing on record the documents connected with the proceedings and in reference thereto, it is the argument of Mr. Rai that if the guilt of financial irregularity has been accepted by the petitioner, his explanation that no loss was caused to the bank, will not come to his aid. According to Mr. Rai as supported by Mr. Ambastha, the bank ledgers are full of interpolation and overwriting and since there are only two officers managing the Bank i.e. the petitioner as the Branch Manager and one Ravi Shankar as the Accountant, there is no escape for either of them, once the defalcation has been detected. In reference to the charge memo enclosed at Annexure R/4, it is submitted by Mr. Rai that the petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction to allow overdrawal by certain account holders which was to the extent of Rs. 8,81,615/-. It is submitted that although onus for such violation is being shifted by the petitioner on the Accountant, but holding the post of Branch Manager, he shares equal responsibility. 9. In respect of charge No. 2 it is submitted that there is evidence that the petitioner kept the money realized from the loanee in his custody and would deposit it with delay drawing gain for himself and loss to the bank as manifest from the report at Annexure R/3 particularly at page 44 which would show that though a recovery was made on 14.06.2001, the money was deposited by the petitioner only on 13.06.2002. 10. In reference to the reply given by the petitioner to the said allegation enclosed at Annexure R/6 it is argued that the allegation has been accepted under a cover that the realization of money was in installments and it is trusting the loanees that the petitioner had issued receipt without realization of the money, which was deposited after it was received in full. 11. 11. It is further argued that the petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction in extending financial assistance to several members of the same family under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme, although only one of such member was entitled to such benefit. It is further argued in reference to the documents present at Annexure R/12 that although the petitioner allowed withdrawal from the account of one Jagdish Prasad Singh but it was not entered in his Pass Book rather the withdrawal of Rs. 13,000/- was done by interpolating the ledgers. Responding to the arguments of counsel for the respondent Bank/State which questioned the very conduct of the petitioner on his integrity, Mr. Singh learned Senior counsel has reiterated that since none of the documents referred to, were supplied to the petitioner, he was prejudiced from giving a purposeful reply to the allegations. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. The issues raised by Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as noted above regarding absence of evidence and non appointment of Presenting Officer to lead evidence, is by itself sufficient to allow the writ petition but there is a caveat attached to this otherwise settled proposition. Had the petitioner contested the allegations of financial irregularity viz. withholding money realized from loanees, allowing drawal from account of Jagdish Prasad Singh on a withdrawal slip but without any corresponding entry in Pass Book, though ledger confirmed it, etc. it would require to be proved by the bank with aid of evidence but here, the petitioner has justified the acts. 12. Disciplinary matters involving a bank employee stands on a different pedestal, for a Bank employee is expected to maintain utmost integrity, honesty and transparency in his work and the reason is plain and simple and that is because, he deals with public money and public trust. 13. The need of Presenting Officer is for the purpose of presenting the case on behalf of the Department by leading evidence in support of the charges framed against the delinquent. No doubt, an appointment of a Presenting Officer is an important facet of a disciplinary proceeding because it is only when a delinquent is confronted with the material evidence led by him in support of the allegation that the delinquent has an opportunity to contest the same for disowning the allegations. No doubt, an appointment of a Presenting Officer is an important facet of a disciplinary proceeding because it is only when a delinquent is confronted with the material evidence led by him in support of the allegation that the delinquent has an opportunity to contest the same for disowning the allegations. In fact these essential procedural requirement is in tune with the principles of natural justice and affords every opportunity to the delinquent to vindicate his stand. 14. A somewhat similar issue came up for consideration in a case (State Bank of Patiala versus S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 ). The Supreme Court after analyzing the issue has concluded in paragraph 34 by explaining the circumstances in which an enquiry can be held vitiated on non supply of documents etc. It was held that a violation of such procedural provision would gain importance where it prejudices a delinquent from coming clear of the allegations. Applying the said principle to the case in hand, the non supply of the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer for upholding the allegation, to the petitioner would undoubtedly prejudice his case had the petitioner contested these charges on merits. The case in hand is different because in the present case the petitioner admits his guilt of non deposit of the money realized from the loanees on the pretext that since it was being given in installments, it was deposited on full realization even though he issued the receipt earlier. In my opinion this admission by the petitioner of withholding public money with himself even after issuing a receipt to such effect, is a gross financial irregularity which is unpardonable. 15. The answer of the petitioner to the allegation as present at Annexure R/6 runs under: ^^----------------------------------------------------- bl lanZHk esa dguk gS fd dqN _.kh lnL;®a }kjk jlhn dk iwjk :i;k rRdky ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] fo’ok’k esa eSausa jlhn dkV dj ns fn;k tSls&tSls :i; ÁkIr gksrk x;k ‘kk[kk esa tek djrs x;s ftl dkj.k dqN :i;k tek djkus esa foyEc gqvk] ftlds fy;s Jheku dk vkHkkjh gWwa A---------------------------** 16. The second financial irregularity accepted by the petitioner is in respect of withdrawal of money from the account of one Jagdish Prasad Singh. While the ledger extract placed on record though the supplementary counter affidavit of the bank would confirm several overwriting, it is accepted by the petitioner that an amount of Rs. The second financial irregularity accepted by the petitioner is in respect of withdrawal of money from the account of one Jagdish Prasad Singh. While the ledger extract placed on record though the supplementary counter affidavit of the bank would confirm several overwriting, it is accepted by the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 13,000/- had been withdrawn from the account of Jagdish Prasad Singh but was not entered in his pass book because the bearer of the cheque did not produce the same on the date of withdrawal. The ledger enclosed at Annexure R/11 at page 76 confirms a withdrawal on 24.05.1997 of Rs. 13,000/- but there is no matching entry in the passbook on the said date i.e. 24.05.1997, which confirms that though amount was withdrawn from the account of Jagdish Prasad Singh, it was not entered in his passbook and the factum of withdrawal has been accepted by the petitioner in the following terms: ^^----------------------bl Ádkj ds yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lEca/k esa eq>s Li”V :i ls dguk gS fd Jh txnh’k Álkn flag cpr [kkrk la[;k&684 ,d bZekunkj ,oa vPNk [kkrk/kkjh Fks] tks ges’kk fudklh Hkjdj Jh jke feJ f’kf{kdk vuqlsod dks ns fn;k djrs Fks] iwoZ ds Hkkafr Jh feJ }kjk fudklh QkeZ ij cqd u0 ,oa ist u0 ds lkFk fcuk iklcqd dk ÁLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls eSa Hkqxrkuk vkns’k yxkdj Hkqxrku dj fn;k] og jde ‘kk[kk ds dS’k cqd] Ms cqd ,oa LØ©y esa of.kZr gSA-----------------------------** 17. The allegation regarding allowing overdrawal by the Account Holders beyond the limit fixed, is again a serous irregularity and an act without jurisdiction. The factum of overdrawal by these account holders has again been accepted by the petitioner under a plea that due information was given to the Head office, which again goes to admit the guilt. 18. The allegation against the petitioner regarding extending financial assistance to several members of the same family has again been admitted by him under a pretext that it was accepted by the Headquarters, although the Kisan Credit Card Scheme allowed financial assistance to only one member of each family. There is also an allegation that the petitioner has earned interest on several incorrect entries in his savings bank account and which has been admitted by him with an explanation that it was not done by him and that no sooner it was detected that the amount has been adjusted for. There is also an allegation that the petitioner has earned interest on several incorrect entries in his savings bank account and which has been admitted by him with an explanation that it was not done by him and that no sooner it was detected that the amount has been adjusted for. In my opinion, a plain reading of the explanation given by the petitioner to the allegations, a copy of which has been enclosed at Annexure R/6 by itself confirms admission of guilt by the petitioner to the financial irregularity and in which circumstance, the absence of a Presenting Officer for leading of evidence, would pale into insignificance. The legal position in this regard is well settled and an enquiry is required to be held only in respect of allegations which are contested. The discussions above would confirm that most of the allegations involving financial and administrative irregularity has been accepted by the petitioner and in which situation the proposition advanced by Mr. Singh as noted above would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 19. I am persuaded to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court (Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager & Ors.versus Nikunj Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 ) which at paragraph 7 concludes that every bank employee is to act within the limits of his authority and any deviation therefrom is uncondonable. Reference is also made to a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ganesh Santa Sirur Versus State Bank of India & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 13 ) wherein at paragraph 34 it has been held that any allegation against a bank employee involving financial implications is uncondonable. To the same effect is a judgment (State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Bela Bagchi & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 435 ) when at paragraph 50 it is held that a bank official is required to demonstrate highest degree of honesty and integrity because he deals with money of depositors and it is his duty to protect the interest of the Bank with utmost integrity. It was also held in reference to the judgment in Nikunj Bihari Patnaik that the principle of no loss/profit, is not any justification for an illegal act. 20. It was also held in reference to the judgment in Nikunj Bihari Patnaik that the principle of no loss/profit, is not any justification for an illegal act. 20. The legal position being thus, the petitioner, holding the post of a Branch Manager was expected to keep the situation under his control and not to get swayed by the power and trust reposed in him. In the nature of discussions above and while agreeing that the submissions made by Mr. Singh is sound on legal principle yet, in the nature of admissions made by the petitioner to the financial irregularity, the proposition so advanced would not come to his aid. The orders impugned in the circumstances discussed, requires no indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed.