ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the penalty order vide ref. No. ZO:DHN:IR:13-14:175 dated 16.08.2013 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been inflicted penalty of “Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” in terms of regulation 4(j) of Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976; (ii) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the appellate order vide ref no. ZO:DHN:IR:297 dated 31.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3 by which the respondents have rejected the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the punishment order dated 16.08.2013; (iii) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the order vide ref. no. RNK:RA:31 dated 12.05.2016 passed by respondent no.1 by which he has rejected the review petition of the petitioner preferred against the order of penalty and the appellate order. 2. Case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Barbindia Branch, was suddenly suspended vide order dated 21.11.2011 issued by respondent No.2 on the allegation that he has misused the official position by unauthorized debiting the accounts of K.I. Estate Branch and Barbindia Branch by crediting the amounts to various accounts of his relatives and his own account. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2012 and charge-sheet was issued on 10.12.2012 mentioning to proceed against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The petitioner denied the charge vide his letter dated 21.12.2012. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.12.2012 departmental enquiry was initiated and Sri Deb Prasad Ray, Senior Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Vide letter dated 24.01.2013 a corrigendum was also issued with respect to the memorandum of charge. Further case of the petitioner is that after noticing so many typographical errors and clerical errors in issuing the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses, which were not ratified even in the corrigendum, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 19.02.2013 stopped further proceeding of the departmental enquiry till further instruction. Subsequently respondent No.3 issued a fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013 for the memo of charge against the petitioner mentioning therein the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses. Subsequently respondent No.3 issued a fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013 for the memo of charge against the petitioner mentioning therein the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses. Realizing that some mistake has occurred with respect to account number even in the fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013, again a corrigendum dated 02.05.2013 was issued. Specific case of the petitioner is that immediately thereafter the departmental enquiry was concluded and Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.06.2013 and by letter dated 18.07.2013 petitioner was directed to submit his reply within five days, to which the petitioner replied vide his letter dated 26.07.2013, but without considering his reply, the respondents-authorities passed the order of major punishment of dismissal which remained sustained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. It is also stated that during the enquiry proceedings, an F.I.R. bearing Govindpur P.S. Case No.142/2013 dated 08.04.2013 was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC for the same set of allegations, in which Final Form has been submitted which has been accepted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 and hence, he has knocked the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds: (i) The charge cannot be altered or added once the written statement has been filed and accepted. (ii) For the self same charges, criminal case as well as departmental proceedings has been initiated. (iii) A man cannot be a judge of his own cause. (iv) Complete violation of principles of natural justice. (v) Procedural laches and violation of the rules particularly Rules 6(3) and 17) of the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The learned counsel argues that all the allegations against the petitioner are false and the respondents-Bank has not suffered any financial loss due any act of the petitioner. The action of the Bank was mala fide in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner did not find the charges against the petitioner proved and hence final form was submitted. The action of the Bank was mala fide in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner did not find the charges against the petitioner proved and hence final form was submitted. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority did not frame different and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations which is contrary to the Regulations. As per the Regulations, particularly Clause 21 thereof, the enquiry is vitiated and amounts to procedural lapse. It was further argued that the petitioner was suspended by the Zonal Manager, Dhanbad and the appeal was heard by the same authority. The person who has suspended the petitioner and the petitioner who has passed the appellate order, are the same and one person. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivatava, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the Investigating Officer submitted final form vide Final Form No.74/2014 dated 30.04.2014, whereas, the Investigating Officer found the case untrue and found the F.I.R. false and forwarded the same before the learned trial Court of Sri Daya Ram for accepting the final form. Further it has been argued that the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the offences. Learned counsel has also placed heavy reliance in the cases of S. Bhaskar Reddy and another v. Superintendent of Police and another reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 and State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P. Kata Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657 . 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank, in reply to the contention of the petitioner, drew attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel justifying the impugned orders are as follows : - (i) Suspension is not a punishment and the petitioner is nowhere prejudiced even if the authority, who has suspended the petitioner, has passed the appellate order. (ii) The contention regarding appellate order was never raised in the enquiry proceedings. These objections were never raised at point of time before any authority, rather for the first time it has been raised in the writ petition. (ii) The contention regarding appellate order was never raised in the enquiry proceedings. These objections were never raised at point of time before any authority, rather for the first time it has been raised in the writ petition. (iii) The departmental proceedings were initiated after framing of different charges, so there is no ambiguity in the charge-sheet. (iv) There is no bar in initiation of a criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings simultaneously. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that the petitioner was never prejudiced from the action of the Bank regarding issuance of a fresh charge-sheet and this ground was never taken before the disciplinary authority including the second show cause notice that he had been prejudiced due to correction and substitution of charges in the order dated 25.02.2013. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that it has been held in a catena of decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if prejudice is not caused to the delinquent, the enquiry proceedings is not vitiated. It has been further argued that acquittal in criminal case does not debar the civil proceedings, as the criminal case is decided on the basis of the facts that the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubts, but in the civil proceedings, the charges are proved on the ‘preponderance of probabilities’. It has been further argued that there is no anomaly or error in the proceedings or penalty order. The banking system fully depends upon the integrity and confidence and as such, no mercy can be shown in an employee, if the employer has lost confidence in his working. Justifying the order of dismissal, the learned Senior Counsel further argued that no interference is warranted in the writ petition and the order of dismissal is fully justified. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference for the following facts and reasons: - (i) Exception in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of criminal proceedings or departmental proceedings or held by two different entities or in the same hierarchy. The outcome of departmental proceedings has no bearing in the criminal proceedings and hence, it does not seem any legal bar in continuing both simultaneously. The outcome of departmental proceedings has no bearing in the criminal proceedings and hence, it does not seem any legal bar in continuing both simultaneously. (ii) The legal proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & anr reported in 1999 AIR SC 1416 reads as under:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” (iii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India and others reported in 2012 AIR SC 755 has been pleased to hold as under: - “44(a) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. (b) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed, would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex question of facts and law. (c) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceeding. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (d) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.” (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. Of Police v. Narendra Singh reported in (2006) 4 SCC 265 at paragraph 13 held as under: - “13. It is now well settled by reason of a catena of decisions of this Court that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed.” (v) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 held as under: - “11. In our view, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are fallacious. This Court has taken the view consistently that acquittal in a criminal case would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent officer. It is well-settled principle of law that the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities.” (vi) Same view has been reiterated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors [2017 (1) AIR Jhar. HCR 283]; in the case of Md. Rafique Alam v. The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P. (S) No.3677 of 2017] and in the case of Madhu Saksena & Ors v. Bank of India and others [W.P. (S) No.231 of 2002] reported in 2013 (2) JLJR 344 6. HCR 283]; in the case of Md. Rafique Alam v. The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P. (S) No.3677 of 2017] and in the case of Madhu Saksena & Ors v. Bank of India and others [W.P. (S) No.231 of 2002] reported in 2013 (2) JLJR 344 6. From perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that enquiry has been conducted observing the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself at every stage. The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal which was affirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. The petitioner has not been able to establish that how he has been prejudiced by fresh charges or the finding against him has been arrived at by excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant materials. 7. I find substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. A. Allam that the conduct of the petitioner has resulted into loss of confidence and going through seriousness of the charges and findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment order which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal confirmed by the aforesaid two authorities does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal.