JUDGMENT : Civil Application (For Amendment) i.e. Civil Application No.2 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No.27488 of 2007 is allowed as prayed for. Amendment to be carried out accordingly. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief: “7(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1.11.2004, passed by the respondent No.1, holding that the order dated 19.8.2003 passed by the respondent No.3, be illegal and unlawful.” 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Head Clerk in the year 1977. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Manager in the Branch Office. At the time of incident, for which the charge-sheet was issued the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of Savli Branch of Vadodara District. 2.2. A charge-sheet came to be issued on 19.2.2001. In brief, it was imputed that while working as a Manager, the petitioner had failed to protect the interest of the Bank, did not discharge the duties with utmost integrity and honesty, did not perform duties with utmost care and diligence etc. 2.3. A departmental proceeding was held and after regular departmental inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted on 20.10.2001. Copy of the inquiry report was given to the petitioner to which he responded. By an order dated 19.8.2003, the petitioner was removed from service of the Bank with an observation that such removal shall not be a disqualification for future employment. 2.4. The petitioner filed an appeal and by an appellate order dated 1.11.2004, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions: 3.1. Mr. Singh submitted that the departmental inquiry was vitiated, inasmuch as, no material documents were supplied. 3.2. He further submitted that the inquiry was carried out by an officer of the same rank i.e. an officer of Scale-II which was in violation of the Circular of 2013 which provided that the inquiry officer should be senior in rank to the officer inquired against. 3.3. 3.2. He further submitted that the inquiry was carried out by an officer of the same rank i.e. an officer of Scale-II which was in violation of the Circular of 2013 which provided that the inquiry officer should be senior in rank to the officer inquired against. 3.3. He further submitted that though the appeal was made to the Executive Director, the decision on the appeal was rendered by the Chairman, denying the petitioner an opportunity of mercy petition. 3.4. Mr. Singh further submitted that his act of advancing loans was with a view to promote the financial interest of the Bank and if ultimately some of the accounts had turned NPA, the petitioner could not be blamed. 3.5. Mr. Singh further submitted that the exercise of issuing a charge-sheet and removing him from service was vindictive as he had entered into an argument with one Senior Officer Mr. Naik. 3.6. Mr. Singh took the Court through the order of dismissal, the order of the appellate authority and also to the written submissions that the petitioner had filed and the findings of the inquiry authority and he would draw the attention of the Court especially to certain allegations and justify his stand. He would, for example to prove that the allegation No.6 was unjustified, submit that the borrower had promised to settle the earlier loan shortly, and therefore the crop loan was sanctioned. The crop loan was a regular account and recoveries were made. 3.7. With respect to allegation No.8, Mr. Singh invited the attention of the Court to the Written Submissions at page No. 140. Similarly, drawing the attention of the Court to allegation No.18, he would submit in defense that the two Cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- which were purchased for Vijay Sinh, Proprietor of Target Seizing Agency were upon telephonic instructions of the Regional Manager. This matter was already known to the Regional Officers of the Branch at Baroda. 3.8. Similarly, with regard to the allegation No.19, he would submit that there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the examination in chief of the witness, was written by the Inquiry Officer after he left the inquiry. 3.9. Mr. Singh would further submit that the entire proceeding of inquiry is in violation of principles of natural justice as documents demanded were never supplied. 3.9. Mr. Singh would further submit that the entire proceeding of inquiry is in violation of principles of natural justice as documents demanded were never supplied. In fact, there was no complaint that the petitioner had extended the loans with a view to favour any borrower or with a corrupt motive. 3.10. Mr. Singh has relied on the following decisions: (a) Assistant General Manager v. Thomas Jose and another reported in 2000 (10) SCC 280 (Para No.4) (b) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in 2011 (4) SCC 584 (Para No.11) (c) S.R. Tewari v. Union of India reported in 2013 (6) SCC 602 (Para No.34) (d) D.M. Parmar v. Panchamahal Vadodara Grahmin Bank reported in 2004 GLHEL–SC 202658 (Para No.11.2.) (e) Vinodbhai V. Gujarati v. G.S. Dothre reported in 2000 (0) GLHEL-HC 213771 (Para No.25) (f) Rajinder Lal Capoor v. UCO Bank and another reported in 2006 (3) Law Herlad 2063 (Para Nos.20 and 21) (g) Antony Gnanamuthu v. Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority (Industrial Relations Division), Union Bank of India reported in 2011 (8) MLJ 1 (Para No.28) 4. Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned counsel has appeared for respondent No.3 – Bank of Baroda. He made following submissions: 4.1. Mr. Parikh would submit that it was not necessary for the petitioner to have been responsible or shown any corrupt motive. The act of the causing loss to the Bank itself was a misconduct. He would submit that the reading of the order of removal from service and the contents thereof would indicate that the petitioner had caused substantive loss to the Bank. 4.2. He would further submit that the inquiry was conducted in consonance with the procedural Rules and, there was no violation of principle of natural justice. Inviting the Court’s attention to Certificate dated 20.7.2001, Shri Parikh would submit that in-fact it was evident that all the documents that the petitioner had asked for, were offered for inspection, the petitioner had inspected the same and had signed on Certificate of having so inspected the document. 4.3. Inviting the Court’s attention to Certificate dated 20.7.2001, Shri Parikh would submit that in-fact it was evident that all the documents that the petitioner had asked for, were offered for inspection, the petitioner had inspected the same and had signed on Certificate of having so inspected the document. 4.3. Shri Parikh in support of his submission would rely on the following decisions: (a) Disciplinary Authority v. Nikunja Biharipatnaik reported in 1996 (9) SCC 69 (b) Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and others reported in 1997(4) SCC 565 (c) General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank and others reported in Daya Singh (d) Union of India v. P. Gimaselaram reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 (e) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. R.K. Uppal reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5779 (f) SCA No.17251 of 2013 dated 22.2.2016 in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited v. Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act and another of Gujarat High Court. (g) Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Souther Command reported in AIR 2010 SC 2462 . 4.4. He would submit that the aforesaid decisions would show that if the conduct of a Branch Manager results in major financial loss to the Bank, no other punishment except removal is warranted, inasmuch as, no leniency can be shown. 4.5. Mr. Parikh would further submit that the order of removal was with a clause that it shall not disqualify the petitioner from future employment. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, firstly dealing with the contention that there was violation of principles of natural justice, the same needs to be nipped in bud. 6. On record, is a Certificate signed by the petitioner dated 20.7.2001 wherein the petitioner has categorically stated that he has inspected the documents that were offered to him. In view of this categorical acceptance of procedural formalities having been complied with, it is not open for the petitioner now to turn around and cry foul. 7. As far as the question with regard to the procedural lapse of the statement of one Shri R.B. Prajapati being given in the language which the petitioner did not understand is concerned, one needs to examine the order of removal from service and the reasons assigned therein. 7. As far as the question with regard to the procedural lapse of the statement of one Shri R.B. Prajapati being given in the language which the petitioner did not understand is concerned, one needs to examine the order of removal from service and the reasons assigned therein. Reading of the order indicates that the evidence sheet of the Management Witness Shri R.B. Prajapati was in Gujarati language and was duly read and accepted by the witness and signed by him. The deposition therefore clearly was in Gujarati language which the petitioner understand. 8. With regard to the argument of Shri Ramnandan Singh that there was no imputation of any financial loss or that the loans were advanced with an oblique motive or corrupt intention cannot stand in context of the nature of duties of the Branch Manager, what has come on record is that the petitioner advanced crop loans without assessing crop wise cost of cultivation. Shri Singh’s argument that he could not fill in the form No.116(B) is also not accepted and rightly so because the format of such form could have been prepared on a simple sheet which he did not. 9. Assessing the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the order of removal and that of the appellate authority would indicate that while working as Branch Manager, the petitioner granted crop loans to 10 borrowers though there were over-dues and those whose accounts were NPA. In similar cases, some of the borrowers had not settled their earlier crop loans and had not even paid the single installment of earlier outstanding loans. Despite this factual position being easily available as a Branch Manager, the petitioner sanctioned and renewed crop loans or enhanced the limits of the existing loans without prior verification and, therefore, if in the perception of Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was negligent, the same cannot be faulted with. In certain cases, on perusal of the order of removal, it would be evident that the petitioner never demanded documents while extending or enhancing the limit for disbursement of loans which accounts ultimately became NPA. 10. The petitioner purchased two Cheques aggregating Rs.1,20,000/- under Clean Bill Purchase Facility payable to one Vijay Singh who was not maintaining any account with the Bank. No documents were obtained from beneficiary. 10. The petitioner purchased two Cheques aggregating Rs.1,20,000/- under Clean Bill Purchase Facility payable to one Vijay Singh who was not maintaining any account with the Bank. No documents were obtained from beneficiary. The advance of Shri Patel that he did so on instructions passed on by higher authorities cannot stand to defend him as he did nothing to obtain confirmation from the Regional Officer or Dispatching the documents to the Office on very next date. This defense therefore is clearly an after thought. 11. Reading of the order of dismissal and the order of the Appellate Authority would indicate that sufficient substantial reasons sustainable in law have been given by the authority which make out a case where the petitioner has acted in a manner exhibiting negligence in extending loans. As a employee of the Bank, it is his duty to act diligently as he holds a position of trust. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court when on record, it is proved that an employee has failed to stand upto the trust that is wanted of him as a Bank employee, the findings of Disciplinary Authority cannot be found faulty or perverse. 12. In view of above, this Court would not interfere with the order of penalty. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.