JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Head office at Ashochak, Agam Kuan, Patna, erstwhile Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’.) 2. The petitioner has challenged order dated 12.7.2014, i.e., punishment of reduction of eight lower stage in time scale of pay till his time of retirement, i.e., 31.8.2015 with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay under Regulation 39(1) (b) (i) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officer & Employee) Service Regulation, 2010. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 14.9.2015 of the Board of Directors of the Bank, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Regulation 49 of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officer & Employee) Service Regulation, 2010 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Branch Manager posted at Belaon branch of the bank in the Buxar district. On 9.3.2013 he was served with charges alleging that the petitioner had failed to observe due diligence in pre-appraisal for sanctioning of loan under the Kishan Credit Card (KCC) scheme to the beneficiaries. By doing so, he had allowed sanction and disbursement of loan on basis of the forged Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and Land Revenue Receipts (LRR). Details of various loans under KCC scheme in whose favour loans were sanctioned have been mentioned in the charge memo. 4. The petitioner submitted his written defence. Stand of the petitioner is relevant to the instant dispute and is being taken note of from the petitioner’s response/show cause dated 23.3.2014 (Annexure 2/1 of the writ petition). In his response, the petitioner has submitted that he has no role in the pre-appraisal prior to sanction of the loan. He submits that it was the Second Officer of the bank who was responsible for the pre-appraisal prior to sanction of the loan to the various beneficiaries, because prior to sanction of loan amount under KCC, the Second Officer who was posted since before in the branch, had done the pre-appraisal. Thereafter same was sanctioned and disbursed by the petitioner on satisfying himself regarding identity of the beneficiaries of the KCC loan. Thereafter same was sanctioned and disbursed by the petitioner on satisfying himself regarding identity of the beneficiaries of the KCC loan. Processing for sanction of loan had been completed prior to being placed before the petitioner for sanction and final disbursal of the loan. At that stage, petitioner has categorically stated that to ensure that the disbursal is made to the genuine beneficiaries he had issued notice to the various loanees and had personally contacted every loanee to ascertain that the loan was being utilized by genuine beneficiaries and no impersonation occurred in the process. It is submitted that the petitioner has discharged due diligence. 5. Right from pre-apprisal prior to sanctioning, which was to be done by Second Officer up till disbursal of the loan done by the petitioner, the process involved a chain of responsibility. It is his specific stand that the manner in which loans have been sanctioned subsequent upon pre-appraisal done by the Second Officer leaves no scope for accusation made against the petitioner in the process. The charges have been denied by asserting that the entire responsibility of the pre-appraisal was upon the Second Officer. In the circumstances, the fact that the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and Land Revenue Receipts (LRR) were forged is an issue which is required to be answered by the Second Officer. Similar stand has been taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Appellate Board of the Bank. In addition to the said stand he has also stated that in all the cases, which have been mentioned in the charge memo, an affidavit of no dues have been obtained from the various loanees and therefore there is no laches in the sanction of loan. 6. Another submission which has been made by the petitioner’s counsel, referring to his response to the charge memo as well as memo of appeal, is that merely on the basis of approval of loan the petitioner has been proceeded against as is evident from the charge memo, though he had no role to play in process of pre-appraisal. 7. It is also submitted that the nature of duty and responsibility and the prescribed procedure for sanction of loan of the respondent bank is such that the petitioner cannot be in any manner be saddled with the responsibility in the matter of proper pre-appraisal for sanctioning of loan. 7. It is also submitted that the nature of duty and responsibility and the prescribed procedure for sanction of loan of the respondent bank is such that the petitioner cannot be in any manner be saddled with the responsibility in the matter of proper pre-appraisal for sanctioning of loan. In the circumstances, the petitioner could by no stretch of imagination be awarded punishment graver than what has been awarded to the Second Officer, who was directly responsible under the prescribed procedure/norms and who had actually done the pre-appraisal, as all charges are in relation to the process of pre-appraisal. 8. Learned counsel for the bank has submitted that the petitioner who was in-charge of the branch and cannot escape his liability under the extant rules and norms of the bank. The petitioner has to take responsibility in the matter of sanction as well as disbursal of loans. Petitioner has failed to ensure proper pre-appraisal and sanction as per the bank circulars, and he cannot absolve himself by alleging that the responsibility was that of the Second Officer. It has also been submitted that in his response to the charge memo as well as appeal the petitioner has admitted that after recommendation of the Second Officer of the bank he had enquired the matter prior to sanction but in spite of that he has failed to ascertain the actual status of the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and Land Revenue Receipts (LRR) and eligibility of the loanee. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot escape the liability and punishment inflicted upon him after following the procedure in accordance with extant service regulation and the same does not require any interference in the matter. 9. The matter had earlier travelled to this Court when earlier order was challenged in CWJC No. 4563 of 2015. Writ petition was finally disposed of on 25.3.2015 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the memo of appeal and pass a fresh reasoned order after considering the issues raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. It is upon remand by this Court that the Appellate Board of the bank has again rejected the appeal of the petitioner and has reaffirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 14.9.2015. 10. It is upon remand by this Court that the Appellate Board of the bank has again rejected the appeal of the petitioner and has reaffirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 14.9.2015. 10. The Court has been taken through letters dated 31.12.2007 as well as 25.4.2006 of the bank which are relevant to the issues as the same provide the procedure, responsibility and requirement of sanction of loans under Kishan Credit Card. 11. The petitioner’s counsel has laid emphasis on Clause (6) of the circular dated 31.12.2007 issued by the General Manager of the bank as well as Clause ¼[k½ of letter dated 25.4.2006. Same are reproduced herein below:- Clause (6) of the circular dated 31.12.2007 ^^#- 50000@& rd ds d`f”k _.k gsrq ;n~;fi _.k cdk;k Áek.k&i= ÁkIr djus dh ck/;rk ugha gS] rFkkfi bl vk'k; dk _.kh dk 'kiFk&i= ÁkIr fd;k tk;sxkA** Clause ¼[k½ of letter dated 25.4.2006 ^^¼[k½ _.k ÁLrkoksa dh ÁkfIr@ Processing 1- 'kk[kk,sa _.k ÁLrko dks vius Lrj ij ÁkIr dj mudh leh{kk@tkap Áfrosnu@vuq'kalk 'kk[kk ds f}rh; inkf/kdkjh ls djk;saxsA blds fy;s os 'kk[kk ds _.k vkosnu ÁkfIr ,oa fu"iknu iath esa bls Áfo"V djrs gq;s f}rh; inkf/kdkjh dks ÁkIr djk;saxsA 2- 'kk[kk Áca/kd vius vf/kdkj lhek esa _.k dh Lohd`fr vafdr dj mldk forj.k djsaxsA 3- f}rh; inkf/kdkjh ds vuq'kalk mijkUr 'kk[kk,sa vius vf/kdkj lhek ls mij ds lHkh _.k ÁLrkoksa dks viuh vuq'kalk vafdr djrs gq, Lohd`fr gsrq vius fu;a=.k dk;kZy; dks Ásf”kr djsaxsA 4- fu;a=.k dk;kZy; lHkh ÁLrkoksa dks vius Lrj ij bldh leh{kk djsaxsa ,oa vius vf/kdkj lhek ds vUnj ds ÁLrko Lohd`r djsaxs ,oa egkÁca/kd ds Lohd`fr lhek ds mij ds ÁLrko egkÁca/kd dh vuq'kalk ds lkFk Á/kku dk;kZy; dks Lohd`fr gsrq Ásf"kr djsaxsA** 12. Referring to the aforesaid provisions governing the manner of pre-appraisal, sanction and disbursal of loan it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is apparent that it was the responsibility of the Second Officer of the bank to undertake the pre-appraisal and submit an enquiry report/recommendation for sanction of loans. 13. Sanction and disbursal thereafter is the responsibility of the Branch Manager (petitioner) as is evident from Clause ¼[k½4 of letter dated 25.4.2006. If the quantum of loan is beyond the limit of the branch, i.e, above Rs.50,000/-, then the proposal along with recommendation of Second Officer was to be sent to the controlling officer of the Branch. 13. Sanction and disbursal thereafter is the responsibility of the Branch Manager (petitioner) as is evident from Clause ¼[k½4 of letter dated 25.4.2006. If the quantum of loan is beyond the limit of the branch, i.e, above Rs.50,000/-, then the proposal along with recommendation of Second Officer was to be sent to the controlling officer of the Branch. If the quantum of loan was to be higher than the prescribed limit of the General Manager, then the same was to be recommended and forwarded by the General Manager to the Head Office of the bank for sanction. 14. From Clause (6) of circular dated 31.12.2007 (supra) it is also clear that in respect of loans of approximately 50 thousand it was open to the competent authority to accept an affidavit in lieu of a “No Dues Certificate” from the loanee. 15. The admitted position is that such affidavits had been submitted by all the loanees. However, a charge has been made out that no “No Dues Certificate” was not obtained from various loanees. 16. The scheme of communications laying down the procedure, relied upon by the petitioner in respect of pre-appraisal, sanction and disbursal of loan, is that the sanction/pre-appraisal/enquiry was to be undertaken by the Second Officer. His recommendation after pre-appraisal and enquiry was to be submitted to the Branch Manager for sanction and disbursal of loan. It is thereafter that Branch Manager was to accord sanction of loan within his pecuniary competence. 17. All these issues have been raised by the petitioner in his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority and in spite of the order dated 25.3.2015 passed on the petitioner’s earlier writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4563 of 2015 the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Appellate Board of the bank, has taken note of the said submissions but the same has been rejected by assigning following reasons:- “But in spite of that he miserably failed to assess the factual status of forged LPC/LRR and eligibility of loanee and therefore he cannot escape from his responsibility of financing the alleged loans on the basis of fake LPC/LRR taking shelter of DE-2 (Loan & Advance Circular 8/06 dated 25.04.2006 regarding System & Monitoring of Credit Management). Thus his contention that he sanctioned the loan on the recommendation of 2nd man and as such he is not responsible for the alleged charges has not merit.” 18. Thus his contention that he sanctioned the loan on the recommendation of 2nd man and as such he is not responsible for the alleged charges has not merit.” 18. Findings of the Appellate Board is contrary to the role assigned to the petitioner under the procedure/norms of the bank itself and therefore the fact that responsibility greater than the Second Officer of the bank, has been saddled upon the petitioner is unsustainable. Bare perusal of the prescribed norms/procedure under letter dated 25.04.2006 makes it abundantly clear that lapse in pre-appraisal, which forms the substance of charge, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner’s plea that the Second Officer who under the normal procedure had a direct responsibility of pre-appraisal of loan application, has been awarded lesser punishment than the petitioner, has not been considered. In fact decision to the extent that petitioner has been held responsible and has been awarded punishment greater than the Second Officer is clearly unsustainable, even if collective responsibility is to be attributed to the petitioner with the Second Officer. Under the prescribed norms/procedure for pre-appraisal, petitioner cannot be saddled with punishment greater than the Second Officer. 19. Having regard to the specific responsibility of the Second Officer in the pre-appraisal of loan, in relation to which the charges have been levelled against the petitioners, this Court would observe that punishment neither suits the misconduct alleged nor the delinquent, who was not the Second Officer, but the Branch Manager, at best sharing collective responsibility, by virtue of his role in the process after pre-appraisal. Punishment therefore is shocking to the conscience of this Court. Charges on which the petitioner has been proceeded against was in relation to pre-appraisal for which direct role and responsibility was cast upon the Second Officer by the norms of loan sanction prevailing in the bank. Petitioner being Branch Manager, under the procedure of loan sanction was having at best collective responsibility arising out of his overall administrative control over the branch. Under the prevalent norms, petitioner could not have been visited with a punishment greater than the Second Officer. Punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is therefore harsh and strikingly disproportionate and warrants interference. Petitioner being Branch Manager, under the procedure of loan sanction was having at best collective responsibility arising out of his overall administrative control over the branch. Under the prevalent norms, petitioner could not have been visited with a punishment greater than the Second Officer. Punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is therefore harsh and strikingly disproportionate and warrants interference. However, while doing so this Court is conscious of its limitation in substituting its own punishment in place of dismissal having regard to the legal position which has been discussed in detail by the Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 . 20. This Court would therefore direct the Appellate Authority/Appellate Board of the bank to reconsider the same and grant lower punishment to the petitioner considering punishment awarded to the Second Officer. 21. Let the respondent bank reconsider the matter in light of order of this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 22. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.