JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents No. 5 and 6. None appears for the other respondents. 2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 5.12.2012 issued by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent No. 5, whereby the appellant was imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation 39.1(b) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation"). 3. The appellant was employed as a Branch Manager of Paglahat Branch, Dhubri of the Respondent No. 5 Bank. Initially, a show cause notice dated 27.02.2010 was issued to him on the allegation that major irregularities were detected at Paglahat Branch during his tenure which were fraudulent in nature and which indicated manipulation and transfer of large sums of money from various amounts unauthorizedly to his individual amount, that too, by using two IDs. It was indicated that there were no physical vouchers in respect of some transfers and only computer entries were made. The appellant was asked to justify his such actions and to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action would not be initiated against him based on the allegations. 4. The appellant had responded through his letter dated 27.04.2010 denying the allegation of practicing fraud and manipulation of records, but admitting that there had been transfer of some amounts of different account holders in his own account. It was sought to be justified stating that the same were occasioned by reason of the fact that by this way he had recovered personal loans advanced to such account holders of the Bank. When the bank loan was sanctioned, the loan amount was credited to such loanees after transferring the personal loan amount to his account. 5. Not being satisfied with the reply, in terms of Regulation 38.1(b) of the Regulation, 'Articles of Charges' were framed against the appellant on the substance of the allegations that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence. 5. Not being satisfied with the reply, in terms of Regulation 38.1(b) of the Regulation, 'Articles of Charges' were framed against the appellant on the substance of the allegations that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence. Citing a good number of instances with specific details, it was alleged that though loan was sanctioned in respect of the persons named therein, the entire amount of such loan was not credited in the account of such loanees and that balance of the said amounts were directly transferred to the appellant's own account. It was stated that by such action of the appellant, the Bank had been defrauded. It was also alleged that the entries were made and authorized by him under the appellant's dual IDs. 6. The appellant filed his written statement admitting that there had been transfer of some amount of different accounts to his own account, but such transferred amounts were amount of temporary loans paid from his own account to different loanees. This is the positive stand taken by the appellant in the written statement. The imputation that the appellant had used two IDs was not denied, but, it is contended that he had done so for smooth and speedy functioning of the Branch. He acknowledged and admitted that some irregularities had been committed by him inadvertently and unintentionally, but the same has not caused loss to the Bank. 7. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Respondent Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting the enquiry, had submitted his report dated 30.06.2012 holding the charges to be proved. The appellant was asked to submit a representation against the aforesaid enquiry report and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on perusal of the materials on record, had imposed the order of compulsory retirement by order dated 5.12.2012. The appeal, preferred by the appellant, also came to be dismissed by the order dated 4.3.2013. 8. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, had held that the allegation that the appellant transferred customers' money from their accounts to his own account having been admitted by the appellant, gives rise to an inference that the appellant had misutilized his position by such unauthorized transfer of money from the customers' accounts to his personal account for his personal gain. Holding so, the learned Single Judge saw no justification for interfering with the order imposing penalty. 9. Holding so, the learned Single Judge saw no justification for interfering with the order imposing penalty. 9. During the course of argument, Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report would itself demonstrate that no loss was occasioned to the Bank and, therefore, the allegation that the Bank had been defrauded has not been substantiated. If that be the position, it is contended by him that penalty of compulsory retirement, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is grossly disproportionate. Reiterating the stand taken in the written statement, he had submitted that the appellant had advanced loans to various customers/constituents of the Bank in order to enable them to tide over their difficulties and, as and when loan amounts came to be sanctioned in their favour, the loan amounts advanced by him in his personal capacity, was deducted from the loan granted by the Bank and credited into his own account. It is a matter between the appellant and the constituents and when the account holders, whose accounts were credited less than the amount of loan sanctioned by the Bank, had admitted that indeed the appellant had advanced personal loan, this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the authorities of the Bank. According to him, for not scrupulously following banking norms, the penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate. 10. Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the number of transactions which had been indicated in the charge sheet goes to show that the appellant had thrown all banking norms to the winds and such action of the appellant has grossly eroded the confidence of the management and, it is submitted that, in fact, the management was lenient in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. Drawing attention of the Court to Regulation 27 of the Regulation, he contends that the very act on the part of the appellant to lend money in private capacity to constituents of the Bank is impermissible and on the admitted stand of the appellant that he had lent money to a large number of constituents of the Bank, who were subsequently granted loan, he has committed a gross misconduct. It is submitted by him that no interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is warranted. 11. It is submitted by him that no interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is warranted. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. At the outset, it must be placed on record that the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any issue pertaining to procedural infirmity in the enquiry proceeding or violation of principles of natural justice in such proceeding. 13. There can be no gain saying the fact that the position of the Manager of a Bank is crucial in the effective functioning of a Bank. The banking business is built on the edifice of trust and, therefore, it is imperative that the employees discharge their duties with absolute integrity and honesty. It will be significant in this context to note that in the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order imposing penalty, he had prayed for modification of the penalty to minor penalty or in the alternative, to allow him to go on voluntary retirement. 14. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant had made a travesty of the process of disbursement of loan and maintenance of accounts. Transferring money from customers' account by himself to his own account is a serious issue. When the Regulations had forbidden lending of money in private capacity to a constituent of the Bank, the appellant could not have granted any loan in his personal capacity and yet he had gone on to give personal loan to a large number of constituents, who were ultimately sanctioned loans by him as Manager. Whether or not the Bank ultimately suffered loss is not material inasmuch as on the basis of the admitted procedural impropriety of grave magnitude and modus operandi adopted by the appellant, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that in the instant case, the penalty imposed is just and appropriate. Taking that view, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.