Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 101 (GUJ)

Rajendra I Thakkar v. Bank Of Baroda

2020-01-20

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 15.04.2002 passed by the Deputy General Manager, South Gujarat Zone of Bank of Baroda, Surat, while exercising powers under the Regulations 4, 5 and 7 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 imposing penalty of “removal from Bank’s service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner had joined the service of the Bank of Baroda as a Clerk on 01.03.1976. In due course, the petitioner was promoted as an Officer in the Junior Management Grade (JMG) Scale – I on 22.03.1982. The petitioner was further promoted as an Officer in the Middle Management Grade (MMG) Scale – w.e.f. 26.05.1995. It was alleged against the petitioner that while working as a Branch Manager at Lajpore Branch, the petitioner did not act as per the rules and regulations of the Bank and he has committed irregularities/misconduct. For this reason, the petitioner was asked for preliminary explanation by the authorities on 06.08.1998, and the petitioner had responded on 03.09.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 26.10.1998. The Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, South Gujarat Zone, Surat issued a chargesheet to the petitioner on 13.01.2000 mentioning therein the omissions and irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. On receipt of the chargesheet, the petitioners first requested the authorities on 21.01.2000 to supply the documents, which were necessary for his defence. Thereafter, he submitted his defence statement on 07.02.2000 to the authorities. 2.2 One Shri S.P.N. Singh, an Officer from the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi was appointed as the Commissioner for holding the departmental inquiry. During the course of hearing before the Inquiring Authority also, the petitioner had asked for the documents for his defence from the authorities vide letters dated 13.06.2000 and 29.06.2000. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that his request vide above referred letters dated 13.06.2000 and 29.06.2000 were reciprocated by the authorities vide letters dated 06.07.2000 and 30.08.2000 respectively, by which few of the documents were supplied to the petitioner, while some of the documents were not supplied inter alia contending that the same were privileged. 2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement before the Inquiring Authority on 04.09.2000. 2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement before the Inquiring Authority on 04.09.2000. During the course of inquiry, the Presenting Officer had submitted his written brief dated 13.09.2000. The Inquiring Authority submitted its report dated 29.12.2000, holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The report was forwarded to the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager alongwith letter dated 14.03.2001. Against the said report, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities on 19.04.2001. Thereafter, the Deputy General Manager, South Gujarat Zone, Surat passed an order dated 15.04.2002, imposing punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service of the Bank. The said order was an appealable order before the Appellate Authority of the Bank and therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Executive Director of the respondent Bank on 18.05.2002. The petitioner had submitted further written representations to the Appellate Authority on 14.06.2002 and 18.06.2003. 2.5 The Appellate Authority issued the order on 04.07.2003, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from the service of the bank was upheld. 3. Learned senior counsel Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment is required to be set aside since the relevant documents as requested by the petitioner vide communication dated 13.06.2000 and 29.06.2000 are not supplied to him. 3.1 Learned senior counsel has further submitted that in fact no loss is caused to the Bank and hence, the impugned punishment order is required to be set aside. He has further submitted that the inquiry proceedings are based on the incorrect facts and is only initiated on the apprehension that further loss would be caused to the Bank. It is further submitted that in fact the aforesaid documents, which were requested by the petitioner would have helped the petitioner in taking effective defence for the charges levelled against him and hence, the same should have been supplied to him. He has submitted that the documents are not supplied only for the reason that they are irrelevant and privileged documents. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Anantrai L. Vadnagra Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., 1999 (3) GLR 1718. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Anantrai L. Vadnagra Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., 1999 (3) GLR 1718. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. No further submissions are advanced. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Darshan Parikh appearing for the respondent authority has submitted that the impugned order of removal, which does not create any bar for further disqualification can be said to be proportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, the same may not be interfered with. The petitioner is provided ample opportunity to defend his case in the departmental inquiry and hence, the same may not be set aside as it is not alleged that any regulations of the Bank or principles of natural justice are violated. 4.1 With regard to the issue of non-supply of the documents to the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Parikh has invited the attention of this court to the communication dated 21.01.2000 and has submitted that all the documents as requested by the petitioners were supplied to him except the audit report of 1996 and inspection report of 05.08.1996 and 13.08.1996 of Lajpore Branch since they are not relevant and not relied by the Inquiring Authority. It is submitted that the petitioner was charged with very serious misconduct, which resulted into the loss of reputation to the Bank as well as serious financial implication on the Bank. It is submitted by him that the proof of any loss to the Bank is not necessary and if it is proved that the Officer concerned is acting beyond his authority, the Bank can pass the appropriate order of punishment after holding the departmental inquiry. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tara chand Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 565 . 4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Parikh has further submitted that as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/S. Kinariwala respondent. J.K. Industries Vs. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tara chand Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 565 . 4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Parikh has further submitted that as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/S. Kinariwala respondent. J.K. Industries Vs. Mighty Labour Association, (1993) 1 GLR 306 , the petitioner has to show that prejudice is caused to him with regard to non-supply of the documents and he cannot demand the same for roving inquiry. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors. Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, (2006) 3 SCC 150 and has submitted that the non-supply of documents on which the inquiry officer does not rely during the course of inquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545 and has submitted that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer by going into the reliability and adequacy of evidence. He has submitted that in the present case it is not alleged by the petitioner that any legal procedure has been violated by the Disciplinary Authority or by the inquiry officer. Hence, the High Court, while exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence, thus he has submitted that the impugned order may not be disturbed. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The proceedings and report of the inquiry officer are also perused. 6. The petitioner was serving as a Branch Manager at Lajpore Branch and he was issued the Memorandum of Article of charges on 13.01.2000. The statement of allegations are reproduced hereasunder: “In terms of Sub-Regulation 6(3) of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline 7 Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The allegations upon which the Articles of Charge against Mr. R.I. Thakkar, as set out in Annexure I are Based, are as under : Mr.R.I. Thakkar was working as Br. Manager during the period from 24.08.95 to 16.5.98 at Lajpore branch of the Bank. The allegations upon which the Articles of Charge against Mr. R.I. Thakkar, as set out in Annexure I are Based, are as under : Mr.R.I. Thakkar was working as Br. Manager during the period from 24.08.95 to 16.5.98 at Lajpore branch of the Bank. During the said period, serious irregularities, lapsed and deviations from the laid down procedures and administrative norms of the bank have been reportedly committed by him in the opening of and operations on Fixed Deposit Accounts and/or Current Accounts of the following coop. societies/coop. Banks and also in sanctioning, documentation, disbursement, post disbursement supervision and follow up of Loans granted by him to the following Co.Op. Societies/Coop. Banks against the security of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) issued to them. Name of the Coop. Society/Coop. Bank Place of its Regd. Office Total Amt. Of FD Amount of Loans/OD facilities sanctioned 1. The Godhra Nagrik Coop. Soc. Ltd. Godhra 25,00,000 22,50,000 2. Dwarkesh Coop. Cr.Soc. Ltd. Dabhoi 15,00,000 11,25,000 3. The Sardar Patel Coop. Cr. Soc. Ltd. Dabhoi 10,00,000 7,50,000 4. The Dabhoi Sindhi Coop. Cr.Soc. Ltd. Dabhoi 27,00,000 23,75,000 5. The Kotyark Sarafi Sah. Mandli Ltd. Umreth 43,00,000 36,00,000 6. Shree Avdhoot Coop. Cr. Soc. Ltd. Nadiad 20,00,000 15,00,000 7. The Roshan Coop.Cr. Soc. Ltd. Dabhoi 12,00,000 9,00,000 8. The Kheda Peoples’ Coop. Cr. Soc. Ltd. Kheda 25,00,000 18,75,000 9. The Nadiad Mercantile Coop. Bank Ltd. Nadiad 100,00,000 59,00,000 277,00,000 202,75,000 6.1 The Memorandum of Article of charges as well as statement of allegations reveal that the petitioner was charged with serious lapses and irregularities and deviations from the procedure prescribed in the Book of instructions of the Bank. During a period, when he was working as a Branch Manager, from 24.08.1995 to 16.05.1998, serious irregularities and lapses were noticed with regard to opening and operations of Fixed Deposit Accounts and/or Current Accounts of the Cooperative Societies, which are referred hereinabove. It was noticed that he has sanctioned the aforesaid loans without the post disbursement supervision, which was required to be followed. 7. The inquiry officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the irregularities committed by the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove. There were at least nine (9) Cooperative Banks, which were involved and the amount stated hereinabove was also substantial. During the inquiry, the petitioner asked for certain documents in the aforenoted communications dated 13.06.2000 and 29.06.2000. 7. The inquiry officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the irregularities committed by the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove. There were at least nine (9) Cooperative Banks, which were involved and the amount stated hereinabove was also substantial. During the inquiry, the petitioner asked for certain documents in the aforenoted communications dated 13.06.2000 and 29.06.2000. From the record, it is established that the petitioner was supplied all the documents, which were demanded by him except the documents referred at Sr.Nos.27 and 29 of the letter dated 29.06.2000, which pertain to inspection report dated 13.08.1997 as well as letter dated 18.03.1998. The same were not supplied by the Disciplinary Authority for the reason that they are privileged documents. Thus, the petitioner requested for additional documents over and above, which were supplied to him along with the chargesheet. By the communication dated 06.07.2000, the petitioner was informed that the documents, which were requested by him by the letter dated 13.06.2000, were additional hence, the same were not supplied to him and it was urged that he may not again request for the aforesaid documents for inspection. Thus, the grievance with regard to the non-supply of the documents dated 13.08.1997 an 18.03.1998 pertain to some inspection report carried out by the Bank. Though, the petitioner in his defence statement has submitted that the prejudice is caused to him with non-supply of the aforesaid documents, the purpose for which he has demanded such documents is not stated by him. Be that as it may, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the inquiry officer has not placed reliance on the aforesaid two (2) documents, while arriving at the findings of the charges against the petitioner. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank(supra), while dealing with the non-supply of the documents in the departmental inquiry has held that if the document, on which no reliance is placed upon by the inquiry officer or Disciplinary Authority, and if the same are not supplied, then such action of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be prejudicial to the delinquent. The Apex Court has observed thus: “9. The sole question, therefore, to be determined is, whether non-supply of documents, which did not form part of chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the enquiry proceedings. 10. The Apex Court has observed thus: “9. The sole question, therefore, to be determined is, whether non-supply of documents, which did not form part of chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the enquiry proceedings. 10. During the proceeding the management has produced oral evidence of 24 witnesses and documentary evidence by producing 218 documents, the fact which is not denied by the delinquent officer. 11. It was the specific case of the appellants that the documents sought by the delinquent officer which were relevant for the purpose of enquiry and which were part of the charges were supplied to the delinquent officer, but the documents which were not supplied to the delinquent officer were those on which the prosecution either did not rely or which did not form part of the charges. 12. *** *** *** 13. *** *** *** 14. From the record, it appears that the delinquent officer sought for supply of certain documents. The twelve documents, which formed part of the charges and were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, were supplied to him by a letter dated 11th August, 1987. Two documents were produced during the enquiry for cross-examination of the witnesses. This fact was admitted by the counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing. Rest of the documents were not supplied to the delinquent officer stating that they had no relevancy to the enquiry, meaning thereby that neither they form part of the charges nor were relied upon by the prosecution during the course of enquiry. 15. Apart, from this the delinquent officer did not deny that the prosecution relied upon 218 documents and also 24 witnesses and the delinquent officer had an opportunity to cross examine them and also examine the documents on basis of which the witnesses were cross-examined in the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer as stated earlier submitted a detailed report in which the delinquent officer did not deny at all, either by oral or written arguments, that he did not receive the cash from the cashier which was meant for the loanee. The Enquiry Officer as stated earlier submitted a detailed report in which the delinquent officer did not deny at all, either by oral or written arguments, that he did not receive the cash from the cashier which was meant for the loanee. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that although the documents may not form part of the charges or be relied upon by the prosecution in the course of enquiry, denial of the same would prejudice the delinquent's case because denial of contemporary documents deprive the right of the delinquent to set up an effective defence. We are unable to countenance such submissions at all, that the documents which do not form part of the charges or are relied upon by the prosecution during the course of enquiry, non-supply of which would cause any prejudice to the delinquent officer. 16. *** *** *** 17. *** *** *** 18. In our view, non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would cause prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for nonobservance of principles of natural justice. 8.1 Thus, the Apex Court has held that violation of principles of natural justice arise only when the documents, which are relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority are not supplied to the delinquent. It is specifically held that it is only those documents, which are relied upon by the inquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of the same would cause prejudice, and such action would be violative of principles of natural justice. It is further observed that even then, the prejudice allegedly caused by the non-supply of those documents must be established by the delinquent. It is further observed that even then, the prejudice allegedly caused by the non-supply of those documents must be established by the delinquent. The Apex Court, while dealing with the contentions raised by the delinquent about the prejudice caused with regard to the non-supply of such document, which would deprive the right of effective defence, has held that the document, which does not form the part of charges or are not relied upon by the prosecution during the course of inquiry, the on supply of it would not cause any prejudice to the delinquent officer. Thus, in the preset case, in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh Gururao Kurati(supra); the observations made by this court in the case of Anantrai L. Vadnagra(supra) would not rescue the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has not pointed out any Regulation or Rule, which stipulates supplying of the such documents, which are not relied by the inquiry officer. 9. This court, while perusing the entire record of the disciplinary inquiry as well as the defence and contentions raised in the petition, has found that the petitioner neither in this writ petition, nor before the Disciplinary Authority or before the inquiry officer has alleged violation of Banking Regulation under which the departmental inquiry was held. The proceedings were held under the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thus, in absence of any such allegations about non-observation of the Regulations, the judicial review with regard to the findings of the inquiry officer and the imposition of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority gets very restricted. 10. The Apex Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran(supra) has laid down the parameters with regard to the reappreciation of the evidence and interference in the punishment order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Apex Court has held thus: “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). reappreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 10.1 It is specifically held by the Apex Court that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the conclusions of the inquiry and cannot go into the adequacy of the evidence or reliability of the evidence and interfere with the legal evidence on which findings can be based and correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be, and the High Court cannot go into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 11. 11. In the present case, the inquiry officer has very meticulously prepared the comprehensive inquiry report dealing with all the documents as well as irregularities committed by the petitioner, while disbursing the FDRs, Bank Cheques, Demand Drafts etc. The inquiry officer has dealt with irregularity branchwise, which are committed by the petitioner, where he was working as a Branch Manager. This court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the veracity of the findings of the inquiry officer except if it as tainted with mala fide or is held in violation of the Regulations, under which the inquiry was held or the same is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner would not fall under the parameters, which are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran(supra). 12. The punishment, which is imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. As per the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik(supra), it is not necessary that the Bank should suffer actual loss because of the irregularities committed by its Officers/employees and if any officer/employee has acted beyond his authority in allowing the over drafts and it has become sticky to recover such amount, then such action of the officer/employee is liable to the departmental inquiry. The Apex Court has observed thus: “It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a Bank for that matter, in the case of any other organization every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organization, more particularly, a Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. No organization, more particularly, a Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organization and more particularly, a Bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit huge profit, as the High Court characterizes it they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterize them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge No.9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge No.8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge No.8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterized as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24.” 12.1 The Apex Court in the irregularities committed by the officers of the Bank has observed that just because the similar acts have fetched some profit or huge profit, it is wrong to characterize them as errors of judgment. It is held that very act of going beyond the authority that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances, is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses and such adventures are not given to the employees of the Banks, which deal with the public funds. The facts are almost similar to the facts of the present case. It is the case of the petitioner that huge amount of FDR’s are disbursed by him, which resulted into huge profit to the Bank at the relevant time. 13. The finding of the inquiry officer reveals that the petitioner has acted beyond the authority in blatant disregard to the norms and Regulations of the Bank, which ultimately jeopardized the public funds. Thus, the actual loss to the Bank is not required to be appreciated since because of such irregularities or functioning of the officer, the funds of the Bank and its reputation is jeopardized. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. On the conspectus of the aforesaid findings as well as allegations, which are proved against the petitioner, it would reveal that the punishment of removal inflicted on the petitioner without any disqualification for future employment cannot be said to be disproportionate. 14. The writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. On the conspectus of the aforesaid findings as well as allegations, which are proved against the petitioner, it would reveal that the punishment of removal inflicted on the petitioner without any disqualification for future employment cannot be said to be disproportionate. 14. The writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.