ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29-5-2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges and the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner in that background, is also assailing the order dated 10-10-2009 whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed. The petitioner is seeking that the respondents therefore be directed to pay the benefits that he would be entitled to. 2. The respondents have filed their objection statement disputing the contentions as put forth in the petition and to contend that the action initiated and the decision taken by the respondents is in accordance with lav and the same does not call for interference. 3. The petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in the respondent-Bank at the point when the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him through the Articles of Charges issued to the petitioner and the statement of imputations as contained at Annexure-L to the petition. Several irregularities were attributed to the petitioner in sanction of 5 Housing loans for purchase of flats from Skylark Constructions Group during August 2004. In that regard, it was specifically alleged that the borrowers as named therein were name lenders to the transactions and in that light allegations was to the effect that the petitioner had sanctioned the said loans and had adopted the manner in which the repayment was taken and the loan was closed only to accommodate the said builder. Similar transactions by the petitioner involving the same builder was also referred. 4. In respect of the detailed charges alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner had replied through Annexure-M wherein he had stated with regard to the manner in which the consideration of the loan application of the borrowers were made and in that view, had contended that the transactions were commenced and concluded in terms of the very nature in which the transaction is permitted as per the terms in the format of the tripartite agreement that is followed in all such transactions by the respondent-Bank. The reply as put forth by the petitioner was not to the satisfaction of the respondents and as such Sri. G. Thippeswamy, General Manager was appointed as the Enquiring Authority. The enquiry was held by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The reply as put forth by the petitioner was not to the satisfaction of the respondents and as such Sri. G. Thippeswamy, General Manager was appointed as the Enquiring Authority. The enquiry was held by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. 5. The Enquiring Authority after detail consideration of the documents had arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the petitioner is proved and the housing loans regarding which the charge was framed were sanctioned for accommodating the builder and in that view the Enquiring Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner made representations and the Disciplinary Authority having taken note of the same and keeping in view the nature of the findings rendered against the petitioner has passed the order imposing the punishment of reduction to the lower grade from MMG Scale III to JMG Scale II and the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 19,920/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only). The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. 6. The Appellate Authority while examining the contention as put forth by the petitioner in the appeal has also taken into consideration the proceedings of the enquiry, the charges alleged against the petitioner, the consideration made by the Disciplinary Authority and has ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the punishment as imposed on the petitioner is appropriate and the same does not call for interference. The Order passed by the Appellate Authority is at Annexure-Q to the petition. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the orders impugned would contend that very nature of the transactions would indicate that though the builder was constructing the flats, the borrowers are all employees of a particular public sector undertaking who had applied for the Housing Loan pursuant to which the accounts were opened and the consideration of the application was made following the guidelines relating to the Housing Loan. 8. 8. Insofar as the allegations made against the petitioner that the amount had not been credited from the salary of the borrowers but had been credited based on the payment made by the builder, the learned Counsel has referred to the copy of the tripartite agreement at Annexure-W to contend that all the transactions relating to the loan application in question and the manner in which it has been regulated is in accordance with the terms as contained in tripartite agreement and therefore no fault could be found with the petitioner. It is also the contention that though the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment has referred to earlier minor penalty dated 5-12-2005 for a similar misconduct having been imposed on the petitioner. The said aspect itself should not have been a basis to impose major penalty inasmuch as they were contemporaneous transactions and the present transaction was almost concluded at the same time when the earlier minor punishment/penalty has been imposed, hi that light, it is contended that even if this Court arrives at the conclusion that there is no procedural irregularity in holding the proceedings against the petitioner, the penalty as imposed presently is too harsh inasmuch as the punishment imposed earlier cannot be taken as a circumstance to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner has committed similar misconduct despite the imposition of lighter punishment in the earlier instance since the present transactions is not subsequent to the completion of the earlier proceedings. Even otherwise, the contention as put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the conclusion as reached by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner is guilty of the charge alleged against him is not justified and as such the orders impugned be set aside. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent would however refer to the very petition papers which has been produced before the Disciplinary Authority and would point out that the very documents as relied on by the respondents in the enquiry proceedings would clearly establish the charges and the Enquiring Authority has referred to in detail and in that regard has arrived at the conclusion. It is pointed out that no material whatsoever was placed by the respondent to dispel the allegations as made, more particularly with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions by indicating the name sake borrowers and it is also contended that the respondent had taken into consideration the fact that same builder was being accommodated in such manner by the petitioner in repeated transactions though through the different branches. In that view, it is contended that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority having kept in view the nature of the allegations and keeping in view the irregularity which amounts to a misconduct and the integrity of a person dealing in financial matters in a bank has imposed an appropriate punishment and the same does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the rival contentions, insofar as the allegations as made against the petitioner, the Articles of charge and the statement of imputation as at Annexure-L would indicate that the same is exhaustive as the charge as alleged in respect of 5 Housing loan transactions relating to the charge has been referred to in detail. In that regard the very charge-sheet would refer to the earlier consideration that had been made where the minor penalty had been imposed through the order dated 5-12-2005. In that background, the enquiry proceedings had proceeded and the proceedings as at Annexure-N would disclose that the Enquiring Authority had permitted the presenting Officer as well as the petitioner who was the Charge-sheeted Officer to take part in the proceedings in its entirety and on referring to the documents had rendered the findings. 11. In such circumstances when the very nature of the contention as put forth by the petitioner is that the procedure followed by him with regard to the sanction of the loan and recovery was also made in terms of provisions as contained in the tripartite agreement, all that it is sought to be put forth by the petitioner is that even if there is certain irregularities, those are permissible. Be that as it may, in the nature of consideration made by the Enquiry Officer and the findings rendered, the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and when no fault can be found with regard to the procedure followed, the nature of the loan transaction and the conclusion reached and the Appellate Authority has adverted to these aspects of the matter, insofar as both the authorities arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in the nature of loan transaction, the findings to that effect cannot be interfered. 12. Though this Court is of the said opinion on that aspect of the matter, the question that would still arise for consideration is with regard to the proportionality of the punishment keeping in view the nature of the charge alleged from what has been indicated in the consideration as made by the Enquiry Authority and the consideration as made by the Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal, certainly it would indicate that the very fact that in respect of the housing loans granted to 5 borrowers, who are the employees of the public sector and the repayment of loan was not from their salary by crediting to their account after transferring from their salary account, but the loan amount was cleared by accommodating the builder and the second loan was also disbursed and the quantum of amount as referred to has been paid by the builder on behalf of the borrowers, certainly the irregularity is established. However, there is no allegation that based on such irregularities any financial loss is caused to the respondent-bank. In that circumstance, even if the charges are held to be proved and also the fact that the minor penalty imposed earlier is kept in view, the order of the Appellate Authority does not indicate that any specific reference to the quantum of the punishment keeping in view the nature of the charge alleged against the petitioner. In that regard, an examination is required to be made by the Appellate Authority as to the gravity of the misconduct and the ultimate punishment that has been imposed on the petitioner in reducing from the MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II is the only appropriate punishment. In that regard, an examination is required to be made by the Appellate Authority as to the gravity of the misconduct and the ultimate punishment that has been imposed on the petitioner in reducing from the MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II is the only appropriate punishment. The said consideration is required more particularly due to the fact that within a short duration from the imposition of the punishment, the petitioner had also retired from the services of the respondent-bank and in that circumstances, the punishment as imposed would also severely affect the terminal benefits/pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner which would also act as an additional impediment to the petitioner. 13. Therefore, though I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Enquiry Authority, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority holding the petitioner guilty' of the charges, a consideration is to be made by the Appellate Authority with regard to the quantum of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Hence, only to that extent the order dated 10-10-2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to re-examine the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the observations made, the reconsideration by the Appellate Authority insofar as holding of the charge as proved would not be necessary. Such consideration shall be made by the Appellate authority in an expeditious manner. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.