JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 10.10.2014, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order dated 04.04.2015, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 3. The fact as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was working on the post of Staff Clerk-cum-CTO under the respondent-bank. While the petitioner was posted at Kalikapur branch, Jamshedpur, certain irregularities were found in opening of KCC accounts (Kissan Credit Card) and the relevant years were 2009-2011. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner has opened few loan accounts which were sanctioned by one C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar during their tenure as second line officials in the branch and since the said two officers were not the Branch Manager and were not having any authority to sanction these loans; still the loan accounts were opened. The charge No. 2 as it appears is almost same and similar except for the fact that in charge No. 2; there is a reference that the said accounts was found to be fictitious later on. Pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet; an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted enquiry report on 1.4.2014. Upon submission of the enquiry report, show-cause notice was issued to this petitioner to which he duly replied and finally the impugned order of dismissal has been passed against this petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was also rejected. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charges as indicated in the charge-sheet has not been proved in true letter and spirit. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the delinquent knew that the branch manager was the only competent authority. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8 to the writ petition and submits that this document stipulates the delegation of powers for the person who is holding the temporary charge. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the delinquent knew that the branch manager was the only competent authority. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8 to the writ petition and submits that this document stipulates the delegation of powers for the person who is holding the temporary charge. According to that as per guidelines pertaining to sanction of credit proposals under Government, sponsored schemes including KCC and Crop Loan; the official holding temporary charge of the branch during the absence of the branch manager is authorized to exercise lending powers as per his Grade/Scale for sanctioning loan. By referring this document, learned senior counsel submits that there is no finding in the enquiry report that the petitioner knew that the sanctioning authority namely: C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar were not having power. He further submits that there is no finding in the enquiry report as to whether which branch officers were on leave or as to whether in the presence of any branch manager; the loans were sanctioned by the respective two persons namely: C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar with some ulterior motive. He further draws attention of this Court towards the Inquiry report and submits that at one place after dealing with the factual aspect and evidence; the Inquiry Officer held that the charge No. 1 could not be proved. However, at the concluding portion he proved the charges. He contended that though in departmental proceeding punishment is based on preponderance of probabilities, but in no case it should be in absence of any evidence. Since there is no evidence of fraud or misappropriation as against this petitioner; punishment of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further draws attention of this Court towards the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank dated 04.06.2021 and submits that admittedly; more serious charge was inflicted on two persons who sanctioned 74 loan accounts without being any authority, and among these two persons; one has been dismissed from service but the other has been imposed compulsory retirement. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, he submits that admittedly; the charge against this petitioner was lesser and therefore imposition of punishment of termination is highly excessive, inasmuch as, the person who has been punished for compulsory retirement was also charged for sanctioning the KCC loan accounts without having any power. Mr. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, he submits that admittedly; the charge against this petitioner was lesser and therefore imposition of punishment of termination is highly excessive, inasmuch as, the person who has been punished for compulsory retirement was also charged for sanctioning the KCC loan accounts without having any power. Mr. Sinha further submits that there is no loss to the bank. In this regard he tries to impress this Court by referring the deposition of MW-1 (Annexure-10) and submits that this witness has not said anything about fraud or misappropriation or any loss to the bank. Learned senior counsel concluded his argument by submitting as under: (i) The charges have not been proved. (ii) The punishment cannot be on assumption and presumption. (iii) There cannot be a selective punishment. (iv) There is no loss to the bank. (v) The Inquiry Officer has not acted in independent manner and has become the mouth piece of disciplinary authority and his conclusion is perverse. (vi) No charge of fraud or misappropriation has been alleged. (vii) The petitioner has been dismissed from service only with regard to opening of loan account in the system which was sanctioned by other two officers and opening of loan account in system does not mean sanctioning of loan account as such the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not commensurate with the charge. Mr. Sinha relied upon the following judgments which are as under: (i) (2008) 12 SCC 331 (ii) (2014) 6 Supreme Today 747 (iii) (2016) 1 JBCJ 343 SC (iv) (2010) 2 SCC 772 (v) (2010) 10 SCC 539 5. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-bank vehemently opposed the contentions and prayer of the petitioner and submits that the arguments of the petitioner is misconceived to the extent that the charges are not proved. Both the charges have been duly proved after dealing with the evidence and there are no procedural irregularities on the part of the bank. He further submits that charge no. 1 and 2 cannot be equated in a sense that in charge no. 2 there is one corollary charge that the said loan account subsequently becomes fictitious. Both the charges have been duly proved after dealing with the evidence and there are no procedural irregularities on the part of the bank. He further submits that charge no. 1 and 2 cannot be equated in a sense that in charge no. 2 there is one corollary charge that the said loan account subsequently becomes fictitious. He further submits that the argument as laid down by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was never raised in the memo of appeal or in the writ application; rather it is an afterthought that charge has not been proved. Neither in the appeal nor in any averment in the writ application; there is allegation of biasness or mala-fide as against this petitioner. Had there been any averment in the writ application; the bank would have certainly replied to the same. He further contended that this is not a case of general organization rather it is a case of bank which only work on trust; as such if there is any loss of confidence towards any employee; the bank cannot retain him. The facts remains that no sanction was accorded by the competent authority to open the 74 loan accounts and the petitioner being an official of the bank and working since 2001 in the said branch; it cannot be assumed that he was not knowing the basic rule that the sanctioning authority is none other than the branch manager, as such this plea of the petitioner that he was unaware of the fact cannot be entertained. Mr. Allam further submits that the disciplinary authority after dealing with the evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as by the management came to specific conclusion that there is loss to the bank to the tune of approximately Rs. 20 lacs as such; this would be incorrect to say that no loss has occurred to the bank. He fairly submits that the law is well settled that this Court under writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence; rather it can only see the procedure and the decision making process. He controverted the argument of the petitioner that punishment has been imposed on the basis of assumption and submits that the entire enquiry report and the order of punishment speak about the reason for imposing punishment of termination. He concluded his argument by submitting as follows: (i) Both the charges have been proved. He controverted the argument of the petitioner that punishment has been imposed on the basis of assumption and submits that the entire enquiry report and the order of punishment speak about the reason for imposing punishment of termination. He concluded his argument by submitting as follows: (i) Both the charges have been proved. (ii) No sanction was accorded by the competent authority which the petitioner ought to know being a regular employee of the bank. (iii) No allegation of biasness or mala-fide has been raised by the petitioner either in the memo of appeal or in the writ application. (iv) This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence rather can only see the decision making process. In departmental proceeding charges cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt rather punishment is imposed on preponderance of probability. (v) The instant case is clear example of loss of confidence by the bank, inasmuch as, the bank has also incurred loss of about 20 lacs due to the wrong opening of accounts without sanction of competent authority. In this view of the matter, the instant writ application should be dismissed as no error has been committed by the disciplinary authority. In support of his contention he relied upon the several judgments which are as follows: (i) (2016) 1 JLJR 457 (ii) (1998) 4 SCC 310 (iii) AIR (2015) SC 545 (iv) (2021) 2 SCC 612 (v) W.P. (S) No. 231 of 2002 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that the petitioner has been charged for opening 74 KCC loan accounts in the system. The charges are as follows: Charge No. I You opened 74 KCC loan accounts in the system, as mentioned herein-below, which were sanctioned by Shri C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar respectively during their tenure as 2nd line officials in the Branch. You were aware that neither Shri Biswas nor Shri Sardar were having any authority to sanction these loan accounts, inasmuch as only the Branch Manager was having the delegated power to sanction such loans, still you opened the loan accounts in the system. Charge No. II You opened KCC loan A/c No. 453032110000321 of one Shri Ajay Bhakat in the system on 10.06.2010, without ensuring that the proposal was sanctioned by the competent authority. Charge No. II You opened KCC loan A/c No. 453032110000321 of one Shri Ajay Bhakat in the system on 10.06.2010, without ensuring that the proposal was sanctioned by the competent authority. Subsequently, the account was found to be a fictitious one. Thus, it appears that the petitioner being a Staff Clerk-cum-CTO opened 74 loan accounts in the system (Computer) in which the sanctioning authority was not the branch manager; rather two other delinquent employees who have also been punished, sanctioned the loan accounts. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that one of the delinquent has been punished for compulsory retirement and the other was terminated. 7. In the instant case, some perversity appears to be in the enquiry report, inasmuch as, at one part of the enquiry report where the Inquiry Officer has dealt with the evidences and evaluated the same, he has stated that the charges are not proved, however, in the concluding portion he held that charges are proved. Relevant portion of the enquiry report is quoted herein-below: “EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT & DEFENCE EVIDENCES: 1. ME-150 to ME-156, ME-1 to ME-3, ME-68 to ME-77 and ME-144, ME-161: (a) It was evident from these documents that the loan proposals were duly sanctioned by an officer Sri. C.S. Biswas who was in charge of the branch in the absence of the Branch Manager Sri. P.P. Toppo who was on leave w.e.f. 13-05-2010 (as per DE-1) and also the accounts were duly verified by Sri. P.P. Toppo in the system despite his absence. This also proved that the CSE did not open the loan accounts or make entry of the data in respect of the these loan proposals in the system on his own but at the instructions of Sri. C.S. Biswas and on the basis of sanctioned proposals. The clerical staff, for that matter, the CSE had no role to play in the whole process of sanction of loan proposals right from the receiving of applications, preparation of proposals, bona fide of borrowers to final sanction of the proposals which were done at the sole discretion of the officers. MW-1, in cross-examination, deposed “The applications for KCC are received from Block/ Kisan Mitra/generated at branch level also. After receipt of applications, compliance of KYC norms are ensured and upon pre-sanction inspection if everything is found OK loan is sanctioned. Independent KYC compliance is done at branch level. MW-1, in cross-examination, deposed “The applications for KCC are received from Block/ Kisan Mitra/generated at branch level also. After receipt of applications, compliance of KYC norms are ensured and upon pre-sanction inspection if everything is found OK loan is sanctioned. Independent KYC compliance is done at branch level. Pre-sanction and post-sanction inspection are done by officers/agricultural assistants.” These accounts were authorised in the system by the officer after being satisfied with the opening of the account as per sanctioned proposals. It was evident from ME-161 which was an IOM from the Zonal Manager addressed to the Chief Manager, AIE Branch dated 30-06-2010 that Sri. D.K. Dubey was made Branch Manager of Kalikapur Branch. He reported at Kalikapur Branch on 22.07.2010 as per ME-144 but he never took charge of the branch. Documents related to handing over/taking over of charge were not produced by the PO despite demanded by the Defence. As per DE-1 (attendance register for January 2010 to December 2010), it was evident that Sri. P.P. Toppo who was the Branch Manager was on leave from 13-05-2010 and resumed duties only on 26-08-2010 and continued as Branch Manager. Sri. D.K. Dubey went on leave from 25-10-2010, resumed duties for a single day on 03-11-2010 and again went on leave. Sri. Dubey was relieved while he was still on leave (in absentia) for Gua Branch by Sri. P.P. Toppo himself being the Branch Manager. Thus, during this intervening period right from 13-05-2010, the day Sri. P.P. Toppo went on leave, Sri. C.S. Biswas was holding charge of the Branch till Sri. P.P. Toppo resumed duties and was empowered to sanction government sponsored loan application/proposals in terms of a circular letter issued by the Zonal Office, Jamshedpur zone (DE-2). MW-1, in cross-examination, deposed that he could not say who was holding charge of the branch on 29-07-2010 although both Sri. C.S. Biswas and Sri. D.K. Dubey were present in the Branch. MW-1 also deposed that as per DE-2, in case the regular Manager is on leave other than casual leave the official holding charge is competent to sanction government sponsored loan as per delegation of his scale. C.S. Biswas and Sri. D.K. Dubey were present in the Branch. MW-1 also deposed that as per DE-2, in case the regular Manager is on leave other than casual leave the official holding charge is competent to sanction government sponsored loan as per delegation of his scale. On DE-2, the PO argued that the instruction contained in this circular letter was not applicable as it was issued in the year 2008 and the loan accounts under question were opened in 2010 as MW-2, in examination-in-chief deposed “Guidelines mentioned in DE-2 is not applicable in sanction of ME-150 to ME-157. But, in cross-examination, MW-2 deposed “the period of validity of the instructions is not mentioned in DE-2” thus vindicating the contention of the Defence. Thus, the CSE did not violate any guidelines of the Bank but simply abided by the instruction of the superior authority and opened the loan accounts in the system. 2. ME-4 to ME-13 and ME-66: These loan proposals were sanctioned by Sri. C.S. Biswas and the date mentioned on the face of the proposals was 06-12-2010 and 09-12-2010. The relevant accounts were opened in the system on 06-12-2010 and all these were authorised and verified by Sri. S.K. Sardar. It was evident from DE-1 that Sri. C.S. Biswas was transferred from the Branch at the close of business hours of 01-10-2010. Since the proposals bore the sanction of Sri. C.S. Biswas with a date (06-12-2010 and 09-12-2010) on which Sri. Biswas was not in the muster roll of the Branch, it could be said that these proposals were received and sanctioned by Sri. C.S. Biswas during the period prior to his transfer from the branch i.e. 01-10-2010 when he was holding the charge of the branch in the absence of the permanent Manager Sri. P.P. Toppo. He was empowered to sanction the proposals in the light of DE-2. The CSE was instructed to open the accounts in the system on 06-12-2010 and 09-12-2010 only which were verified and authorised by Sri. S.K. Sardar, officer of the Branch. It was evident from DE-1 that Sri. P.K. Ash was the Branch Manager as on 06-12-2010 to 09-12-2010. It was also evident from the AG-100 enclosed with ME-4 to ME 13 and ME 66 that these bore the signature of none other than Sri. S.K. Sardar, officer of the Branch. It was evident from DE-1 that Sri. P.K. Ash was the Branch Manager as on 06-12-2010 to 09-12-2010. It was also evident from the AG-100 enclosed with ME-4 to ME 13 and ME 66 that these bore the signature of none other than Sri. P.K. Ash, Branch Manager who permitted opening of the loan accounts in the system by the CSE. Thus, the CSE did not violate any guidelines of the Bank but simply abided by the instruction of the superior authority and opened the loan accounts in the system. 3. ME-17 to ME-42 and DE-2, DE-4: It was evident from these documents that the loan proposals bearing dates of 26-04-2011 and 27-04-2011 were duly sanctioned by an officer S.K. Sardar who was in charge of the branch in the absence of the Branch Manager Sri. P.K. Ash (as per DE-3) who was on leave w.e.f. 18-04-2011 and was subsequently relieved upon transfer as per deposition of MW-1 in cross-examination. The accounts were duly verified by Sri. S.K. Sardar in the system (as per ME-91 to ME-116). DE-2 was a circular letter issued by the Zonal Office, Jamshedpur Zone, giving power and authority to second line officers in the branches under its jurisdiction to sanction loans under government sponsored schemes like KCC in the absence of the Branch Manager in view of hardships faced by the intending borrowers who were generally turned away by the branch officials citing absence of the Branch Manager. Sri. S.K. Sardar, an officer in second line who was in charge of the branch w.e.f 16-04-2011 while the permanent Br. Manager Sri. P.K. Ash was on leave (also relieved in absentia for Ranchi Zone as per (DE-3), was empowered to sanction loan proposals under government scheme (ME-17 to ME-42) on the strength of DE-2. Accordingly, he sanctioned loan proposals (ME-17 to ME-42) and the accounts were opened in the system by the CSE. DE-4 was an IOM dated 29-04-2011 from the Zonal Office, Jamshedpur Zone, re-designating Sri. S.K. Sardar as Assistant Manager (Department Administration and Services) with immediate effect but the same was received by Sri. Sardar on 30-04-2011. He was re-designated after the new Branch Manager, Sri. Asim Banerjee reported at the branch. Thus, on the strength of DE-2 and as there was no communication to the contrary till 27-04-2011, Sri. S.K. Sardar as Assistant Manager (Department Administration and Services) with immediate effect but the same was received by Sri. Sardar on 30-04-2011. He was re-designated after the new Branch Manager, Sri. Asim Banerjee reported at the branch. Thus, on the strength of DE-2 and as there was no communication to the contrary till 27-04-2011, Sri. Sardar used lending powers on his own for loan proposals under the Government sponsored scheme. The loan proposals (Me-17 to ME-42) must have been received and processed prior to 26-04-2011 as because it was not possible to receive and process such a large number of loan proposals on the same day and also open the accounts on the same day. This also proved that the CSE did not open the loan accounts or make entry of the data in respect of the loan proposals (ME-17 to ME-42) in the system on his own but at the instructions of Sri. S.K. Sardar and on the basis of sanctioned proposals. 4. ME-43 to ME-58 and ME-117 to ME-132: It was evident from these documents (except ME-58) that loan proposals and applications were either dated 03-05-2011 or 05-05-2011 or 11-05-2011 and were bearing the signatures/initials of both Sri. S.K. Sardar and Sri. Asim Banerjee. Sri. Asim Banerjee was the Branch Manager at Kalikapur Branch on these days and by putting his signature on the loan proposals/applications, he consciously approved the sanction of loan proposals and opening of accounts in the system by the CSE. These loan accounts were verified and authorised in the system by Sri. S.K. Sardar. As per ME-143, almost 12 loan accounts were identified to have been opened on 11-05-2011 all having signature/initial of the Branch Manager on the proposals/ applications except only one i.e. ME-58. Thus, the CSE did not violate any guidelines of the Bank but simply abided by the instruction of the superior authority and opened the loan accounts in the system. 5. ME-59 to ME-65 and ME-133 to 140: It was evident from these documents that the loan proposals/applications were duly sanctioned by an officer of the branch Sri. S.K. Sardar and on his instruction, the loan accounts were opened in the system on 18-05-2011 by the CSE at Ullyan Branch. DE-3 (Attendance register for May 2011) proved that Sri. Asim Banerjee was the Branch Manager reporting at the Branch only on 25-04-2011. S.K. Sardar and on his instruction, the loan accounts were opened in the system on 18-05-2011 by the CSE at Ullyan Branch. DE-3 (Attendance register for May 2011) proved that Sri. Asim Banerjee was the Branch Manager reporting at the Branch only on 25-04-2011. DE-4 (IOM from Zonal office, Jamshedpur) proved that Sri. S.K. Sardar was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Department Administration and Services) receipt of which he acknowledged on 30-04-2011 The CSE was sent on deputation to Ullyan Branch, Jamshedpur for two days to open these loan accounts in the system among other loan accounts. DE-3 proved that on 18-05-2011 and 19-05-2011, the CSE was marked 0/D-Ullyan Branch instead of initial of the CSE as mark of attendance. Further, it was impossible that such a large number of loan accounts could have been processed by the officer on the same day these were opened in the system and as such it could be said that these loan applications were received before hand and were processed in lots. The Branch Manager had the knowledge of this. Otherwise, how was it possible that loan proposals/applications processed and accounts opened on 03-05-2011, 05-05-2011 and 11-05-2011 were bearing the signatures/initials of both the Branch Manager, Sri. Asim Banerjee and the Officer Sri. S.K. Sardar but the loan proposals/applications processed and accounts opened on 18-05-2011 after 11-05-2011 were bearing the signature of Sri. S.K. Sardar only. The Security documents DE-5 to DE-14 which were defaced by the Branch Manager (only officer authorised to deface loan security documents) also proved that the Branch Manager, even though he did not put his signature on loan proposals as mark of sanction, was in full knowledge of the loan proposals being sanctioned by his sub ordinate officer. Thus, the CSE only abided by the instructions of the superior authorities of the branch while opening the loan accounts in the system, the proposals of which were duly sanctioned by the branch officials. Therefore, the Charge No. I could not be proved. CHARGE NO. II EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT & DEFENCE EVIDENCES: 1. ME-67, ME-142 & ME-143: (a) The PO sought to prove the charge by producing ME-67, ME-142 and ME-143 and also the witness MW-1 and MW-2. It was evident from ME-67 that the loan proposal/application was sanctioned by Sri. C.S. Biswas on 10-06-2010 while he was holding the charge of the branch in the absence of Sri. ME-67, ME-142 & ME-143: (a) The PO sought to prove the charge by producing ME-67, ME-142 and ME-143 and also the witness MW-1 and MW-2. It was evident from ME-67 that the loan proposal/application was sanctioned by Sri. C.S. Biswas on 10-06-2010 while he was holding the charge of the branch in the absence of Sri. P.P. Toppo, the permanent Branch Manager. Sri. C.S. Biswas himself filled in the loan proposal/application in his own hand writing and signed it and got the signature of the borrower. He also filled in attached documents (DE-28) and defaced the documents. The loan account was opened by the CSE on the basis of the sanctioned proposal in the system which was authorised and verified by User ID “SH 165698” (ME-142). The signatures of Sri. C.S. Biswas on the proposal/ application/ documents were tried to be erased by overwriting on the signatures but one signature on the top right corner of the document (DE-28) could not be erased. MW 1 refused to identify the signatures on the proposal/ application/documents (ME-67 and DE-28) but MW-2, in cross-examination, could identify as that of Sri. C.S. Biswas. Who could have the interest in erasing the signatures on the loan proposal/application? How could the borrower turn out to be fictitious as per ME-143? (b) ME-143: This was the investigation report on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued. It incorporated the names of alleged fictitious borrowers including those in the charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer had come to the conclusions simply by visiting the villages to which the alleged borrowers belonged and also by so called interaction with the Mukhiyas/Pradhans etc. But he did not consider it prudent to get the statements in writing of Mukhiyas/ Pradhans in relation to those borrowers. Even he did not send letters through postal medium to the borrowers to their last recorded address to find out bona fide of the borrowers or existence of the alleged borrowers. Nothing was there with the Investigation Report to prove that these simple steps were undertaken before coming to the conclusion that these borrowers were non-existent and fictitious. DE-15 (account statement of 453032110000321)/DE-25 (OFTI for 453032110000321) confirmed that the account was restructured on 19-01-2011, restructured account number being 453076410000101. Nothing was there with the Investigation Report to prove that these simple steps were undertaken before coming to the conclusion that these borrowers were non-existent and fictitious. DE-15 (account statement of 453032110000321)/DE-25 (OFTI for 453032110000321) confirmed that the account was restructured on 19-01-2011, restructured account number being 453076410000101. DE-27 (HOBC 102/131 on guidelines on restructuring of advances) a Defence Document which was a Head Office Branch Circular on guidelines on restructuring of loan accounts clearly directed in Para 2, Para 5 and Para 8 that: “Para 5: Normally, restructuring should not take place unless alteration/changes in the original loan agreement are made with the formal consent/application of the debtor. However, in deserving cases, the process of restructuring can be initiated by the branches subject to the customer agreeing to the terms and conditions thereof.” “Para 2: Accounts classified under standard, substandard and doubtful categories can be restructured. Accounts classified as ‘loss assets’ will be ineligible for restructuring.” “Para 8: Borrowers indulging in frauds and malfeasance will continue to remain ineligible for restructuring.” These being the guidelines for restructuring of accounts, when the accounts under head 453032110000321 was restructured, the conditions under Para 5 must have been fulfilled and accordingly, formal consent/application from the borrower must have been obtained. This being the case, the borrower could not have been fictitious as had been made out in the charge sheet. Further, the account having been categorised as “NPA or loss asset” had become ineligible for restructuring as per conditions under Para 2. Again, as per Para 8 of the guidelines, this account could not have been identified as fictitious as on 19-01-2011 i.e. the day the account was restructured. MW-2, in cross-examination, deposed “As per ME-143, it appears that the said loan account was restructured. As per the norms restructuring of account is done after obtaining written request from the borrower. If the application for restructuring has been obtained from the borrower then the original loan account cannot be called fictitious.” DE-15 being the statement of account for account number 453032110000321 and OFTI for 453132110000321 (DE-25), the outstanding balance shown as on 19-01-2011 was zero in the account after the restructuring. As such, there was no loss of money to the Bank existing in account number 453032110000321. DE-22 (2 sheets) OFTI for 453132110000321/OFTI for 4530SUNCR099 on 18-08-2010 confirmed debit of Rs. As such, there was no loss of money to the Bank existing in account number 453032110000321. DE-22 (2 sheets) OFTI for 453132110000321/OFTI for 4530SUNCR099 on 18-08-2010 confirmed debit of Rs. 562/- as insurance premium under transaction number M374515 (transaction Serial No. 6) and credited (Rs. 18,773/-) to account number 4530SUNCR099- MISC ITEMS. DE-20 (2 sheets) OFTI for 4530SUNCR099-MISC. ITEMS/OFTI for 453076410000101 on 26-06-2013 confirmed debit of Rs.293491.80 as amount received from Insurance company and Rs. 4734.23 credited to 453076410000101 under transaction number BI 463734. DE-24 Transaction inquiry of A/C No. 4530764100000101) also confirmed that insurance compensation was received. This confirmed further that the account number 453032110000321 could not be identified as fictitious one because of claim of compensation from insurance company. DE-18 confirmed that the restructured account number 453076410000101 was opened, authorised and verified on 19-01-2011 at Zonal Office Level under User ID “MS172073” identified as Sri. Manish Kumar Singh who was on deputation to Zonal Office from Circuit House Branch. The PO's argument that the CSE being a Banker for more than 8 years in the Branch ought to have the knowledge as to the authority to sanction loan proposals is misplaced and without substantiated by any document because of the fact that the guidelines on delegation of power issued by the controlling office are not brought to the notice of general staff members and are kept within the confines of officers. This fact was corroborated by the MW-1 in his deposition in cross-examination only those communications are circulated in which it is written to circulate amongst the staff members. An officer is expected to know his authority and delegation better than anybody else and is also expected to work within his jurisdiction. The onus cannot be forced upon a clerk or a sub-ordinate who is bound to act on instruction of the officer or superior which is prima facie not illegal. Thus the Charge No. II stands not proved. My Analysis of Evidence P.O. has presented loan proposal of 74 KCC accounts i.e. ME-1 to ME-67 and ME-150 to ME-157. Which shows the authorities who have sanctioned the loan proposal. Thus the Charge No. II stands not proved. My Analysis of Evidence P.O. has presented loan proposal of 74 KCC accounts i.e. ME-1 to ME-67 and ME-150 to ME-157. Which shows the authorities who have sanctioned the loan proposal. MW-1 who is the present Branch Manager of Kalikapur branch has confirmed that ME-1 to ME-5 and ME-7 to ME-13 and ME-66, ME 150 to ME156 have been sanctioned by Shri C.S .Biswas then Officer posted at Kalikapur Branch ME-14 to ME-65 and ME-157 have been sanctioned by Shri S.K. Sardar. He has deposed that both of them were posted as Officer in 2nd line in the branch. Shri C.S. Biswas has sanctioned the KCCs on 29-07-2010, 06-12-2010, 09-12-2010 and 06-12-2011. As per ME-144 Shri D.K. Dubey was Branch Manager on 29-07-2010. As per ME-145 Shri P.K. Ash was Branch Manager on 06-12-2010 and 09-12-2010 and as per DE-3 Sri. Ashim Banerjee was Branch Manager on 06-12-2011. On all these days they were not on leave. Shri S. Sardar has sanctioned the KCCS on 21-01-2011, 26-04-2011, 27-04-2011, 03-05-2011, 05-05-2011, 11-05-2011, 18-05-2011 and 02-12-2010. As per ME-146, Shri P.K. Ash was Branch Manager on 21-01-2011. As per ME-147 and ME-148 Shri Ashim Banerjee was Branch Manager on 26-04-2011, 27-04-2011, 03-05-2011, 05-05-2011, 11-05-2011, 18-05-2011 and as per DE-1 Shri P.P. Toppo was Branch Manager on 02-12-2010. These Branch Managers were not on leave (other than CL) on these days. It is well known that the credit related delegated authority is vested in the Branch Manager only and nobody else is empowered to sanction loan. ME-68 to ME-141 show that the above loan accounts were opened in the system by User ID AG-148907. ME-149 show that User ID AG-148907 belongs to the CSE which has also been confirmed by MW-1. The defence during the cross-examination of MW-1 has tried to show that MW-1 is not able to recognize the signature of the sanctioning authority on the proposals but it is a fact that barring few exception he was able to tell the name of sanctioning Authority by recognizing the signature. The defence has also tried to show that since the KCC accounts opened by CSE in the system have been authorized by Officer so there is no irregularity in opening of the account. The defence has mentioned in his brief that the CSE has got no role in sanction/disbursement of KCCS. The defence has also tried to show that since the KCC accounts opened by CSE in the system have been authorized by Officer so there is no irregularity in opening of the account. The defence has mentioned in his brief that the CSE has got no role in sanction/disbursement of KCCS. He has just opened the A/Cs on the instructions of Shri C.S. Biswas and Shri S.K. Sardar. As per DE-2 the officers in second line were empowered to sanction KCC loan during the leave except CL and due to training etc of the Branch Manager but on the dates these KCCS were sanctioned the Designated Branch Managers were present in the branch. In view of this position the KCCS were not sanctioned by the competent authority. The argument of the defence that the security documents of some of the KCC A/Cs were defaced by the Branch Manager do not make the sanction of the KCC by 2nd line officer valid. Hence the PO was successful in proving that the KCC A/Cs opened by the CSE which were sanctioned by Shri C.S. Biswas and Shri S.K. Sardar was not proper. The defence although tried to put arguments to rebut the charge but failed. Hence Charge No. 1 is found proved. Charge No. 2: ME-67 which is the proposal of loan Account No. 4530321100000321 does not contain any sanction. This has been confirmed by MW-1, ME-143 which is the investigation report of MW-2 show that the said account have been found to be fictitious. ME-142 confirms that the said account was opened by the user ID AG148907 and as per ME-149 AG-148907 belong to the CSE. It is amply clear without sanction of a proposal of a loan account is opened in the systems the same will not be treated as per bank's norms. The defence has described since this A/C has been restructured and for restructuring consent of borrower is required hence this KCC cannot be called fictitious. Technically speaking without sanction of the proposal opening of any A/C is not valid. As far as restructuring of this account is concerned, request for restructuring and security documents could not be produced by the PO even though the same were demanded by the defence. This shows that the KCC was restructured without any request from the borrower. Technically speaking without sanction of the proposal opening of any A/C is not valid. As far as restructuring of this account is concerned, request for restructuring and security documents could not be produced by the PO even though the same were demanded by the defence. This shows that the KCC was restructured without any request from the borrower. MW-2 has in his investigation report (ME-143) has mentioned about fictitious nature of the A/C. Hence I am of the view that PO has been successful in leading adequate evidence to prove the charge. Defence although tried to bring out the circumstances in their favour but technically they could not challenge the evidence in favour of the charge. Hence this charge is found proved. Findings: In view of the above analysis it is concluded that the CSE has committed acts of misconduct in terms of Para 5(j) of bipartite settlement as mentioned in Charge No. I, II. Hence the Charges as mentioned in Charge-Sheet No. ZO:JSR:IR:2013-131 dated 15-11-2013 are found proved in the departmental enquiry conducted against him by the undersigned.” (Emphasis Supplied) From perusal of the aforesaid relevant part of the enquiry report, it appears that the evaluation was made by the Inquiry Officer after discussing with the management and defence witnesses and the documents and it was observed that “charge no. 1 could not be proved.” Thereafter, again after evaluation of management and defence evidence the Inquiry Officer stated that the “charge no. 2 stands not proved.” However, in the concluding part he has given its finding that “both the charges are proved.” This contradictory statement somehow appears that the finding of Inquiry Officer is perverse. 8. However, without going into the aforesaid controversy; this Court is of the view that neither there is any charge of misappropriation or fraud, nor it has been proved as such. So far as charge no. 2 is concerned; it is only said that the said individual account was subsequently found fictitious. However, the final conclusion of the Inquiry Officer revolves around the fact that the opening of bank account in the system was not valid. For brevity, the concluding part of the enquiry report is reproduced wherein it has been categorically stated that sanction of the proposal opening of any account is not valid: “Technically speaking without sanction of the proposal opening of any A/C is not valid. For brevity, the concluding part of the enquiry report is reproduced wherein it has been categorically stated that sanction of the proposal opening of any account is not valid: “Technically speaking without sanction of the proposal opening of any A/C is not valid. As far as restructuring of this account is concerned, request for restructuring and security documents could not be produced by the PO even though the same were demanded by the defence. This shows that the KCC was restructured without any request from the borrower. MW-2 has in his investigation report (ME-143) has mentioned about fictitious nature of the A/C. Hence I am of the view that PO has been successful in leading adequate evidence to prove the charge. Defence although tried to bring out the circumstances in their favour but technically they could not challenge the evidence in favour of the charge. Hence this charge is found proved.” It further transpires that though for charge no. 2 it has been stated that this KCC accounts was restructured without any request from the borrower; however, this finding of the Inquiry Officer appears to be without any evidence, inasmuch as, Annexure-14 is the document which has been annexed by the petitioner, and not controverted by the Respondent, in which it appears that borrower has put his signature at few places and the officer has also put their signature at different places and in some places there is cutting in the signature. However there is no finding of fact by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the management witnesses that petitioner was involved in cutting of the signatures or misappropriation. In other words, there is neither any allegation of fraud or misappropriation nor there is any such finding. 9. The Disciplinary Authority after accepting the enquiry report terminated this petitioner by holding that the petitioner was found to be grossly negligent in view of the fact that he had opened such accounts knowingly well that the said second line officers had no authority. Thus, main reason for terminating the petitioner was only for gross negligent as he had opened such account knowingly well that the said second line officers had no authority. In other words, the procedural lapses have been highlighted by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, main reason for terminating the petitioner was only for gross negligent as he had opened such account knowingly well that the said second line officers had no authority. In other words, the procedural lapses have been highlighted by the Disciplinary Authority. At this stage it is also pertinent to mention here that there is also a finding of the Disciplinary Authority with regard to loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs and odd; though no such finding of fact was there in the enquiry report. 10. In the case of Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer, (2003) 9 SCC 480 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriate any money or committed any act of fraud and if any loss have been caused to the bank that can be recovered from the appellant. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein-below: 11. In the background of what has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject-matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been caused to the Bank (which he quantifies at about Rs. 46,000) that can be recovered from the appellant. As the reading of the various articles of charges go to show, at the most there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. At the cost of repetition, in the instant case also neither there is any allegation of fraud or misappropriation nor has the same been proved by any of the document. Admittedly; the petitioner was a Clerk-cum-CTO who has just opened of 74 KCC loan accounts in the system (computer). At the cost of repetition, in the instant case also neither there is any allegation of fraud or misappropriation nor has the same been proved by any of the document. Admittedly; the petitioner was a Clerk-cum-CTO who has just opened of 74 KCC loan accounts in the system (computer). Further, with regard to loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakh and odd; no such finding of fact was there in the enquiry report as such; said observation of the Disciplinary Authority appears to be beyond any documents. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings the next issue arises is as to whether the termination of the petitioner can be termed as excessive punishment. This Court is of the firm view that opening of the accounts in computer cannot be considered as sanctioning of the loan. Even the charge itself says that the allegation only reflects that the sanction was not done by the competent authority. After going through the two charges it clearly transpires that, at the most, there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Had there been a case that the charge would have been for any monetary involvement of the petitioner or any misappropriation, the case would have been different but in the instant case charge itself says that the petitioner ought to know the sanctioning authority who cannot be any other person than the Branch Manager. Even, the Inquiry Officer has held “Technically speaking without sanction of the proposal opening of any A/C is not valid.” This clearly goes to show that the allegation was only procedural and as there is no allegation/charge of misappropriation and fraud as such, this Court holds that the termination of this petitioner is excessively harsh. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow, (1994) 2 SCC 537 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para-14 as follows: 14. Now coming to the facts of this case it would appear that the main charge against the respondent is putting forward a false claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for transporting his belongings from Phek to Amarpur. So far as charge-5 is concerned there is no finding that the account become irregular or that any loss was incurred by the bank on account of the irregularity committed by the respondent. So far as charge-5 is concerned there is no finding that the account become irregular or that any loss was incurred by the bank on account of the irregularity committed by the respondent. In the circumstances it may be that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent is harsh but this is a matter which the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority should consider and not the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal. In our opinion, the proper course to be adopted in such situations would be to send the matter either to the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to impose appropriate punishment. In the instant case also there is no charge that any loss has been occurred to the bank. At the cost of repetition, though in the enquiry report there is no discussion with regard to loss occurred to the bank; however, the Disciplinary Authority has stated that about 20 lacs and odd loss has been occurred to the bank. This conclusion is somehow beyond the enquiry report and beyond any document. 12. Be that as it may. Admittedly; the petitioner was a Clerk-cum-CTO and opened the 74 KCC loan accounts after it was sanctioned by two Superior Officers/Second line officers and certainly this petitioner being a clerk-cum-CTO has just open the accounts in the system and since there is no charge about fraud or misappropriation of money and this Court already held that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh but this is a matter which the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority should reconsider and not High Court and the proper course should be to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh order. Before parting, it is necessary to deal with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the Bank that it is a case of a bank employee and the Bank only work on trust; as such if there is any loss of confidence towards any employee; the bank cannot retain him. In this regard, it is observed that there are several types of punishment in the service regulation of the Bank and even in this case, the Bank has punished one of the officers for compulsory retirement and not termination. In this regard, it is observed that there are several types of punishment in the service regulation of the Bank and even in this case, the Bank has punished one of the officers for compulsory retirement and not termination. As such, this argument that since there is loss of confidence towards the petitioner; the bank cannot retain him; is not accepted by this Court. The judgments relied upon by the Bank is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and further, the impugned order has been held to be illegal only on the quantum of punishment being highly excessive and not commensurate with the charge. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the judicial pronouncements the impugned order dated 10.10.2014, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also the appellate order dated 04.04.2015, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected, are quashed and set-aside. 14. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner has already retired; even then this Court is of the view that the case should be remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to decide on the quantum of punishment as I hold that the punishment of termination imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and highly excessive and does not commensurate with the charge. 15. It is made clear that since the petitioner has already retired; as such, fresh order of punishment must be passed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for all back wages. It is also made clear that when the fresh order will be passed within the aforesaid stipulated period; natural consequential benefits will be extended to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks. 16. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands partly allowed and disposed of.