ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the substituted respondent No.1. 2. The appellant Bank official is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement dated 13.09.2013, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 3679 of 2003, whereby the writ application filed by the original respondent No.1, challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, have been allowed by the Writ Court, setting aside the punishment order, finding it to be disproportionate to the proved charges, and directing the Bank to pass fresh order on the quantum of punishment. 3. The original respondent No.1 was an officer of the Bank of India, and he was served with the memorandum of charges containing four charges. Since we are concerned only with the two charges which have been proved, the charges not proved are not being taken into consideration. The proved charges were Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 3, which are as follows:- Article 1:- You have in gross violation to the Bank’s laid down norms/rules financed tractor loans in as much as these tractor loans were financed out of service area of the branch, without creation of mortgage/Bank’s charge before disbursement, without conducting any post sanction inspection to ensure proper end use of the funds and without registration/ insurance of most of the tractor/ trailor and /or other implements. You have in the process of financing the said tractor loans coerced the borrowers to take tractors/implements from a particular tractor dealer with ulterior motives and with a view to unduly accommodate the tractor dealer. The details of these tractor loan accounts are given in Annexure-A. Article 3:- You with a view to unduly accommodate the borrower and with ulterior motives sanctioned a loan of Rs.1 lakh under PMRY Scheme to Ms. Ritu Kumari Sah though she was not resident of the service area of the Branch and inspite of the fact that her earlier application was rejected by D.I.C. The instant application was personally got forwarded from DIC by you. In the said account you also failed to ensure proper utilisation of the loan and thus aided and abetted with the borrower to misutilise the loan. 4. In the said account you also failed to ensure proper utilisation of the loan and thus aided and abetted with the borrower to misutilise the loan. 4. The original respondent No.1 was put to a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the memorandum of charges, and after the departmental enquiry a further departmental enquiry was also held. The final enquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the memo of appeal, in which so far as the findings on the aforesaid charges are concerned, they are as follows:- Article 1:- Finally, I conclude that the Charge No. 1 is proved to the extent that (a) the C.O. has made the financing beyond the service area. However, it is not clear whether he was required to obtain clearance from the competent authority in this regard in the year 1996, (b) creation of charge on land / equitable mortgage were not created in most of the accounts and (c) Non registration of tractors and trailors is partially proved. Article 3:-Considering the evidence on enquiry record as elaborated above, the charge No. 3 is proved. 5. Thereafter after following the due procedure, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the original respondent No.1, which was also upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the original respondent No.1 moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3679 of 2003, which was adjudicated by the Hon’ble Single Judge, and taking into consideration the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, mainly in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 442, and taking into consideration that no loss had been caused to the Bank, the Writ Court has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed upon the original respondent No.1 was excessive and disproportionate to the proved charges. As such the punishment order was set aside, and the matter was referred to the Bank for passing the punishment order afresh. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant Bank official, which was admitted vide order dated 05.01.2015, and the operation of the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court was stayed. 8. As such the punishment order was set aside, and the matter was referred to the Bank for passing the punishment order afresh. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant Bank official, which was admitted vide order dated 05.01.2015, and the operation of the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court was stayed. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, two charges were duly proved in the disciplinary proceeding, and in that view of the matter the Writ Court could not have entered into the quantum of the punishment, irrespective of the fact whether any loss was caused to the Bank or not, by the impugned action of the original respondent No.1. Though learned senior counsel has pointed out from the counter-affidavit that the impugned action of the original respondent No.1 had resulted in substantial loss to the Bank, but since that was not the part of the charge, we are not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter. 9. Learned senior counsel has confined her arguments only to the point of law that once the punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in a duly conducted disciplinary proceeding, and the punishment order was confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional authorities also, the quantum of punishment could not be interfered by the Writ Court. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the law is well settled that whether the impugned action of the delinquent officer had resulted in loss to the Bank or not, is absolutely immaterial consideration, rather the question is whether the Bank can still impose faith upon the delinquent officer or not. In support of her contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank And Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , wherein the law has been laid down as follows:- "14: A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , wherein the law has been laid down as follows:- "14: A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer /employee of the bank. As was observed this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer /employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. -------------." (Emphasis supplied). 10. Learned senior counsel has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 15 , wherein the law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:- "31. The High Court itself has noticed a large number of decisions and formed the opinion that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were of grave nature. A major punishment may be inflicted even where no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank by reason of the act of the delinquent officer. -----------."(Emphasis supplied). 11. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 321 , wherein also, taking note of the various earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Placing reliance on these decisions learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order passed the by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Placing reliance on these decisions learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order passed the by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that initially an enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, but even thereafter a re-enquiry was made, in which even the earlier enquiry officer was also examined a witness. Learned counsel though has challenged the findings given by the second enquiry officer, but the fact remains that the original respondent No.1 had taken part in the said further disciplinary proceeding and the challenge to such further or second departmental enquiry is no longer available to the respondent. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that though the original respondent has been found guilty of the charges, but so far as the charge that the delinquent officer had made the financing beyond the service area, the enquiry officer was himself not very clear whether the delinquent was required to obtain clearance from the competent authority in this regard in the year 1996, i.e., the period during which those loans were sanctioned by the original respondent No.1. 14. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as mentioned in the impugned Judgement, particularly upon the decision in Bhagat Ram’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the punishment of dismissal from service on the trivial charge of negligence which resulted in no loss to the department was disproportionate and excessive. 15. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Corporation Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 9 , wherein where, the charge against the delinquent was only of misplacing the file and he was having nearly twenty years with unblemished service, the punishment of dismissal from service was set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court, finding it to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 16. Reliance has again been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 , wherein where the loss caused to the bank was about Rs. 16. Reliance has again been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 , wherein where the loss caused to the bank was about Rs. 46,000/-, it was held that the said loss could be recovered from the delinquent officer, and in that view of the matter, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was not warranted. In this connection, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Samarendra Kishore Endow & Anr., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 537 . 17. Placing reliance on these decisions learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the charges proved necessarily relate to the fact that the loan was granted by the original respondent No.1 outside the service area of the Bank, and in view of the fact that no loss was proved to be caused by the impugned action to the Bank, and there was nothing to show that the delinquent officer was required to take clearance from the higher authorities for sanctioning such loans, the punishment imposed upon the original respondent No.1 was disproportionate, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court. 18. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the charges which have been proved against original respondent No.1 are that he had made financing outside the service area. He had also granted loan without any creation of charge on land / equitable mortgage were not created in most of the accounts, and in case of some of the tractors purchased, it was found that they were not even registered after the purchase. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Management had not been able to prove whether for granting loan beyond the service area of the Bank, the delinquent was required to take clearance from the competent authority, does not impress us at all, in as much as it cannot be said that in absence of any such proof, the delinquent could have acted beyond his own jurisdiction and sanctioned the loan beyond the service area of the Bank. In fact, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.C. Kakkar's case (supra), acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. Though learned counsel has placed reliance upon the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court to show that in such facts particularly, when there was no loss to the Bank, the extreme punishment of removal from service could not be imposed upon the delinquent, but the later decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra), clearly lay down the law that a major punishment may be inflicted even where no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank, and the fact whether the impugned action of the delinquent had caused any loss to the Bank is absolutely an immaterial consideration. The actual question is whether the Bank could impose faith in the officer or not, and as also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.C. Kakkar's case (supra), every officer of the bank is required to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer, otherwise the extreme punishment of removal from service could also be awarded. 19. In the present case, we find that the respondent had not only sanctioned loan beyond the service area of the Bank, rather he was also sanctioning loan without creation of charge on land / equitable mortgage in most of the accounts, and the case is clearly made out in which the Bank may not impose any faith upon such an officer. 20. In the facts of this case, and in view of the fact that the original respondent No.1 had been subjected to punishment after due disciplinary proceeding, we find that the Writ Court has wrongly entered into the arena of punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer. As such, the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court suffers from inherent illegality, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 21. In view of the forgoing discussions, the impugned Judgement dated 13.09.2013, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 3679 of 2003, is hereby, set aside. 22. This Appeal is accordingly, allowed.