ORDER : The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question an order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of Rs.1,93,200/-being 15% of the assessed financial loss of Rs.12,88,014/- in terms of Regulation No.39(1)(a)(iv)of the Service Regulation, 2010, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.05.2014. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition as borne out from pleadings are as follows : The petitioner was appointed on 02.02.1983 as an officer in Middle Management Scale-I of the respondent Bank which was then called Kalpataru Grameena Bank. When the petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013, on 28.02.2013 a charge sheet was issued two days prior to his retirement alleging that the petitioner had granted certain loans for the purpose of purchase of a tractor and for the purpose of maintenance of Banana crop and along with other crops on 27.06.2005, alleging that the petitioner had committed irregularity in granting loan to one Siddabasappa and his father. Notwithstanding the fact that the father of the said loanee had died on 15.05.2005 long before the grant of loan on 27.06.2005 making it appear as if the father of Siddabasappa was alive. 3. The charge sheet though alleges another charge against the petitioner that charge having not been proved in the departmental enquiry, the proceedings was restricted only to charge No.1. In reply to the charge sheet issued against the petitioner on 09.04.2013, the petitioner accepts the fact that the loan was granted to Siddabasappa and justified the same on the ground that Siddabasappa was not bound to him before the grant of loan and since the other two who were regular customers of the Bank had represented a particular person as Siddabasappa, he had no reason to disbelieve that it was not the person to whom the loan was granted. 4. During pendency of the charge sheet, on eve of the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013 an order was passed by respondent No.2 continuing the service of the petitioner only for the purpose of misconduct in terms of the regulations of the Bank. The enquiry proceedings were conducted and the petitioner was held guilty of not adhering to the norms of the Bank, which requires adherence to KYC while granting a loan or opening an account. The enquiry proceedings were conducted and the petitioner was held guilty of not adhering to the norms of the Bank, which requires adherence to KYC while granting a loan or opening an account. The allegation that was proved against the petitioner was he did not adhere to know your customer norms, which required proper identification of the parties prior by the grant of loan to the Bank and on the loan becoming sticky to the tune of Rs.12,88,014/-, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner was proved. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the reply given by the petitioner to the second show cause notice enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer and not being satisfied with the same, imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.1,93,200/-, which being the 15% loss assessed which is likely to be cost as the loan granted by him had become sticky on account of act of the petitioner and the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority only to be rejected by its order dated 16.05.2005. It is these orders that are called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Shankar S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no loss caused to the Bank by the act of the petitioner as the petitioner had taken a land measuring 10 acres as collateral security for the loan that was granted and also had hypothecated the tractor to which the loan was granted and would submit that penalty of recovery of Rs.1,93,200/-could not have been imposed against the petitioner on the likelihood of loss without assessment or quantification of loss. 7. On the other hand, Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioner had infact indulged in fraud by accepting a person by name Siddabasappa who impersonated himself to be the father of the loanee and had signed the documents. 7. On the other hand, Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioner had infact indulged in fraud by accepting a person by name Siddabasappa who impersonated himself to be the father of the loanee and had signed the documents. It this act of the petitioner that left the Bank without any security as collateral that had been taken 10 acres of land is denied by the son of Siddabasappa on the ground that the father had died long before the loan was extended and he has not signed on any document which would give a collateral security of a land belonging to him. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The charge against the petitioner was that he has accepted impersonation of the father of one Siddabasappa who appeared before him on 24.06.2005 which resulted in a grant of a loan on 27.06.2005 notwithstanding the fact that the father of Siddabasappa had died on 15.05.2005. The allegation is that the signatures in all the loan papers were of the applicants, one Revanna and Siddabasappa, which was long after the death of Siddabasappa by the time the loan documents were signed. The petitioner in reply to the charge sheet submits as follows: “I have obtained all the loan papers from the applicants Revanna and Siddabasappa. Even the mortgage was recommended to be executed by said Revanna and Siddabasappa. The Bank as also obtained mortgage deed from Mahadevappa S/o Revanna (as 1st applicant) the loan was availed to Sri. Mahadevappa by Revanna and Siddabsappa. The property originally belongs to Revanna and Siddabasappa. The original owners Revanna and Siddabasappa along with Mahadevappa have been jointly executed the registered mortgage deed in favour of Bank. Said Revanna and Siddabasappa have offered the property as collateral security for the intended loan in favour of Mahadevappa S/o Revanna. Hence said Mahadevappa S/o Revanna has furnished the NDC. Since the owners of the property offered security are Revanna and Siddabasappa, the mortgage is rightly created by them. The person who appeared before me along with Revanna and applicant Mahadevappa was represented by them to me that he is Siddabasappa. Hence, the mortgage was obtained from said Revanna and Siddabasappa. Hence said Mahadevappa S/o Revanna has furnished the NDC. Since the owners of the property offered security are Revanna and Siddabasappa, the mortgage is rightly created by them. The person who appeared before me along with Revanna and applicant Mahadevappa was represented by them to me that he is Siddabasappa. Hence, the mortgage was obtained from said Revanna and Siddabasappa. I could not have known that the person appeared before me was not the concerned Siddabasappa and consequently I could not know also as to when he died.” 10. Not being satisfied with the reply, enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and continued after his retirement and which resulted in the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the charge. The enquiry proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer by placing all the records that would bring home the guilt of the petitioner and also the fact of the loan that was disbursed to the loanee as indicated in the charge No.1 became sticky to an extent of Rs.12,88,014/-as the collateral security that the petitioner had taken could not be executed since the signatures that Siddabasappa is alleged to have been made before the petitioner in the loan documents was long after the death of Siddabasappa. 11. The petitioner in fact in his reply at every point in time even while submitting his defence accepted the fact that the borrowers might have indulged in certain foul play with regard to signatures and impersonation of Siddabasappa and he is not responsible for those acts. 12. That the proceeding for a loan of the year 2005 is instituted in the years 2013 on the verge of retirement of the petitioner after about 8 years of the grant of loan. It is when the account became sticky, the Bank realized that the documents that were taken by the petitioner as collateral was infact a fraud as Siddabasappa according to the son was not even alive when the documents were executed on 27.06.2005 at the time when the loan was released as the signatory to the mortgage deed and the hypothecation documents was father of one Siddabasappa, who had died on 15.05.2005. The death certificate of the father of Siddabasappa was also produced before the enquiry dated 30.06.2005 which evidenced death of the father of Siddabasappa on 15.05.2005. 13. The death certificate of the father of Siddabasappa was also produced before the enquiry dated 30.06.2005 which evidenced death of the father of Siddabasappa on 15.05.2005. 13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, two instances which would vitiate the proceedings are not accepted one being delay of 8 years in issuance of the charge sheet against the petitioner and the other being quantification of loss on the acts of the petitioner, purely on the replies given by the petitioner at every stage. In reply to the charge sheet, the petitioner accepts that the loan documents were signed in his presence on 27.06.2005, but justifies the action on the ground that he did not know whether Siddabasappa was alive or dead when the documents were signed on 27.06.2005. 14. Therefore, taking the reply of the petitioner into consideration, though the charge sheet is issued after 8 years, the same is not interfered with on the ground of delay. The other ground that the petitioner urges is with regard to non-quantification of loss that is caused to the Bank for proceedings of recovery of Rs.1,93,200/-is also not accepted on the ground that the total likelihood of loss was Rs.12,88,014/-loss that has caused as on the date when the disciplinary authority, what is recovered is not Rs.12,88,014/-but 15% of the amount of Rs.12,88,014/-which would be Rs.1,93,200/-from out of the terminal benefits of the petitioner. 15. Therefore, the ground that without quantification of loss the recovery of amount could not have been made is also unacceptable as the entire amount as stated hereinabove is not recovered from the hands of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not show due diligence in the execution of the loan by taking proper signatures from proper parties and accepts that the loanees have played fraud or foul play while granting the loan would not be a ground to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the order of penalty that is imposed against the petitioner. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.