ORDER Javed Iqbal Wani, J. – In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in granting the following reliefs:- “I. By a writ of Certiorari The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners may be declared null and void and the impugned penalty imposed vide order dated 13.10.2017 contained in Annexure –F to the writ petition may be quashed. As a corollary, the order of Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal vide order dated 28.03.2018 forming Annexure-G to the writ petition may also be quashed in the interest of justice. II. By a writ of Mandamus (a) The respondents be directed to determine all retirement benefits including gratuity, leave salary without any deduction corresponding the grade and status of Regional Manager (MMGS III) held by the petitioner at the time of retirement untrammeled by the impugned order and disburse differential payment along with interest @ 18 % from the date of accrual till its final realization. (b) The respondents be further directed to pay exemplary costs and damages for the loss and agony suffered by the petitioner as a result of malicious action of the respondents.” 2. The petitioner in the instant petition fundamentally alleges that his retirement benefits have been reduced in consequence of a disciplinary enquiry conducted after his retirement. 3. The factual matrix propounded by the petitioner would reveal that a charge-sheet came to be framed by the respondents against the petitioner and served upon him on 22.03.2017, when he had completed 60 years of age of superannuation in the service of the respondent-Bank as on 18.03.2017, notwithstanding the assumed service upto the end of calendar month. The charge-sheet is stated to have been responded to by the petitioner on 14.04.2017 and had been followed by a communication dated 07.06.2017, of the respondent-Bank nominating an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry against the petitioner. 4. A notice dated 07.06.2017 is stated to have been issued by the respondents proposing major penalty contemplated under Regulation 39 (1) (b) (ii) of the Ellaquai Dehati Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter for short ‘the Regulation of 2010’) for reduction of grade having been confirmed by order dated 13.10.2017 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. 5. An appeal is stated to have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.10.2017, before the appellate authority having been dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2018. 6. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the impugned order of imposition of penalty dated 13.10.2017 as also the impugned order dated 28.03.2018, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. 7. The instant petition has been maintained, inter alia, on the grounds that in terms of the Regulation of 2010, the age of retirement under Regulation (11) is 60 years, which had been attained by the petitioner before the communication of the charge sheet dated 23.03.2017, as such, holding of an enquiry against him being a retired officer is contended to be impermissible more so, when he had been permitted to retire without any rider. 8. It is also urged that the Regulation (45) of the Regulation of 2010 which provide for the holding of an enquiry against the suspended employee of the Bank beyond the age of superannuation has not been applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent-Bank as employee and employer had come to an end on the date of initiation of enquiry/ framing of charge sheet. 9. It is being next urged that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner retrospectively by relegating him to the pay scale, which was drawn by him in the year 2005 at the time of entry in the initial scale-(II), when infact at the time of the retirement the petitioner was working in scale (III) and that such imposition of penalty is constitutionally invalid. 10. It is being next urged that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in the enquiry are based on no evidence and none of the charges are proved in the inquiry against the petitioner. 11. It is also urged that the inquiry attributed a potential loss likely to be suffered by the respondent-Bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner without establishing actual or determined loss sustained by the respondent-Bank and that the punishment imposed, thus, in terms of the impugned order against a retired officer is absurd and unwarranted under law. 12. It is also urged that the inquiry attributed a potential loss likely to be suffered by the respondent-Bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner without establishing actual or determined loss sustained by the respondent-Bank and that the punishment imposed, thus, in terms of the impugned order against a retired officer is absurd and unwarranted under law. 12. It is being as well urged that the penalty imposed in terms of the impugned order upon the petitioners is based on mere speculations and conjectures and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are alleged to be accentuated by malice and bias. 13. It is being urged as well that the events incorporated in the charge sheet have been stale pertaining to the years 2009- 2011 and since then no exercise had been undertaken by the respondents against the allegations pertaining to the said year within a reasonable period against the petitioner. 14. It is being further urged that the enquiry officer while conducting enquiry has been unmindful of significant facts and the material on record and instead proceeded to establish the charges against the petitioner, though it has been established that neither the disbursement of the loan amount nor the documentation alleged to be forged had been undertaken or executed during the tenure of the petitioner’s service as Branch Manager of the Bank at Pulwama, but subsequent to his transfer, and that the component of potential loss on account of KCC loan of Rs. 1.00 lacs, had also not been established against the petitioner during the course of enquiry which is stated to have been malicious and motivated to impair the credibility and integrity of the petitioner. 15. It is further urged that the respondent No. 2 has been judge of his own cause while deciding the appeal of the petitioner as being the Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The respondent No. 2 is contended to have exercised his persuasive control over the decision on the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner also denied to have been afforded a personal hearing during the course of hearing of the appeal. 16. It is further urged that the petitioner has been subjected to cumulative loss of Rs. The respondent No. 2 is contended to have exercised his persuasive control over the decision on the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner also denied to have been afforded a personal hearing during the course of hearing of the appeal. 16. It is further urged that the petitioner has been subjected to cumulative loss of Rs. 07.56 lacs on account of deductions from his gratuity and leave salary besides having been subjected to severe prejudice, agony and harassment on account of wrongful retention of his money, thus, violating Articles 14, 19 and 21of the Constitution. 17. Per contra, respondents have filed objections to the petition opposing and controverting therein the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition. 18. It is being, inter alia, stated in the objections that the petitioner in the matter of imposition of punishment vide order dated 13.10.2017 read with order dated 23.03.2018 has been dealt with strictly in accordance with the rules as governed his services as also the principles of natural justice. 19. The charge sheet dated 22.03.2017 is stated to have been issued to the petitioner well before the attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017 followed by the order of holding of departmental inquiry dated 06.06.2017 after the receipt of reply from the petitioner on 14.04.2017. 20. An adequate opportunity to defend him and to explain his conduct vis-à-vis charges leveled against him is stated to have been given to the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings are eventually stated to have resulted in the report of guilt dated 29.08.2017 followed by a show cause notice dated 07.09.2017. 21. A personal hearing is also stated to have been provided to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority whereupon the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 is stated to have been issued against him. 22. It is being also stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been duly considered by the appellate authority causing issuance of order dated 28.03.2018, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 23. It is being further stated that it is permissible for the Court to sit in appeal over the conclusions of facts drawn by the disciplinary/appellate authority and that the petitioner has no cause to approach this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. 23. It is being further stated that it is permissible for the Court to sit in appeal over the conclusions of facts drawn by the disciplinary/appellate authority and that the petitioner has no cause to approach this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions in line and tune with the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition would further contend that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that even if assumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioner has committed the alleged misconduct, the nature of the same did not warrant the punishment imposed upon him by the respondents same being shockingly disproportionate. 25. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised in the objections filed to the petition and would controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 26. The first issue that arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner are legally valid, in view of the plea raised by the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him upon issuance of charge sheet dated 22.03.2017 after his superannuation on 18.03.2017, notwithstanding his permitted retirement on 30.03.2017. 27. Admittedly, the service conditions of the petitioner were regulated in terms of the Regulation of 2010. Regulation (11) of the said Regulations being relevant herein provides for superannuation and retirement and reads as under:- Regulation 11: Superannuation and Retirement. 1) An officer or employee shall retire on completion of sixty years of age; 2) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Explanation: For the purpose of this Regulation, the officer or employee whose date of birth is first day of month will retire on superannuation on the last day of previous month on which he completes the age of superannuation. The officer or employee who attains the age of superannuation on a day other then the first day during a calendar month, shall retire on the last day of that month.” Regulation (45) also being germane herein provide for disciplinary proceedings after retirement and reads as under:- “Regulation-45: Disciplinary proceedings after retirement 1) An officer or employee under suspension on a charge of misconduct who attains the age of superannuation shall be deemed to be I n service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Such suspended officer or employee shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation. 2) The officer or employee against whom the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer or employee will not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF.” 28. A perusal of the Regulation 11 (supra) manifestly demonstrates that even though an officer on attaining 60 years of age would ordinarily retire from service, yet in the event of last date of 60 years of his age falling on any date, other than the first day of the relevant month, shall superannuate on the last date of such month. 29. By application of the aforesaid Regulation, even though the petitioner have had retired on 18.03.2017 being his date of birth, yet he had actually to retire on 31.03.2017. The petitioner has had to continue and remain in service, as such, by deeming fiction without there being termination of his relationship as an employee with the respondent-Bank his employer. 29. By application of the aforesaid Regulation, even though the petitioner have had retired on 18.03.2017 being his date of birth, yet he had actually to retire on 31.03.2017. The petitioner has had to continue and remain in service, as such, by deeming fiction without there being termination of his relationship as an employee with the respondent-Bank his employer. In this view of the matter, the petitioner in acceptance of the aforesaid legal consequence became subject to the provisions of Regulations (supra) for the purposes of initiation and conduct of disciplinary proceedings after his retirement, in that, the said proceedings commenced on 22.03.2017 upon framing and serving of charge sheet by the disciplinary authority on the petitioner before his actual date of retirement on 31.03.2017. The issue raised in this regard by the petitioner that he was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement, in view of above, thus, is not legally tenable. 30. The next issue involved in the petition which begs consideration of this Court is as to whether the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner has been held in accordance with law and as to whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been validly imposed and is commensurate to the nature of charges framed against petitioner and further as to whether the appellate authority has dealt with the appeal of the petitioner in line with the principles of law. 31. In law the purpose of holding a departmental enquiry against a delinquent is not only with a view to establish the charges leveled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also with the object of recording the truth of the matter, therefore, there should be a fair action on the part of the concerned in holding disciplinary enquiry for the misconduct, if any, being committed by a employee in discharge of his duty, even if, retired from service during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings after adopting the procedure under the relevant rules. The object of enquiry is to enable the disciplinary authority to hold an investigation into the charges framed against a delinquent, so that disciplinary authority can in due course consider the evidence adduced and decide whether the said charges are proved or not. The object of enquiry is to enable the disciplinary authority to hold an investigation into the charges framed against a delinquent, so that disciplinary authority can in due course consider the evidence adduced and decide whether the said charges are proved or not. The enquiry officer holds an enquiry against a delinquent as a delegate of the disciplinary authority and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are intended merely to supply appropriate material for consideration of the disciplinary authority. The tentative view/recommendation expressed by the enquiry officer may or may not be accepted by the disciplinary authority and it is the disciplinary authority that takes a decision on the basis of the enquiry report and reaches to a conclusion, whether or not the delinquent is guilty. A disciplinary enquiry is not an empty formality, it is a serious proceeding intended to give the delinquent a chance to meet the charges and to prove his innocence. 32. This Court is not oblivious to the ambit and scope of a judicial review in the matter of a departmental enquiry in a service matter. There has been a long line of judgments of the Constitutional Courts passed in this regard wherein the consistent view is that the power of judicial review discharged by a Constitutional Court under Articles 226, 32 and 136 of the Constitution is distinct from appellate power exercised by a departmental/ appellate authority. A reference in this behalf to the judgment of Apex Court passed in case titled as Parvin Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2020 (9) SCC 471 , would be relevant and germane herein, where in paras 26, following has been laid down:- “26…………..Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. …….. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.” 33. Reverting back in the case in hand, six charges have had been drawn against the petitioner in terms of the charge sheet dated 22.03.2017.The said charges are extracted and reproduced here under:- “Charge No. 1: You have sanctioned and disbursed the following loans and advances at the branch and violated the Banks laid down instructions by; a) Not conducting pre sanction/post disbursement Inspections, b) Not ensuring end use of funds advanced, as a result units in respect of following a/c’s have not been established and lead to misappropriation of Banks’ funds, S. No. Account No. Name/date of sanction Limit Outstanding 1. 88000190541 M/s International Mobile Care 5.00 Lakh 534898.00 2 88000106478 Shabir Ahmad Bhat 2.00 Lakh 230488.00 3 88000147948 Zahoor Electronic Store Prop. Zahoor Ul Islam Bhat 2.00 Lakh 240028.00 4 Charge No. 2: The pre-sanction survey has been carried in a quite perfunctory manner without establishing the genuineness of the borrower/mortgagor. Charge No. 3: The documents are allegedly executed under impersonated signatures by Sh. Mohd Maqbool Sheikh posing himself as Abdul Rashid Sheikh. The principal documents viz Loan Agreement, Arrangement letter, Mortgage Deed signed with forged signatures resulting in misappropriation and embezzlement of Banks funds. Charge No. 4: You have sanctioned and disbursed a K.C.C Loan bearing Account No. 88000146648 of Rs. 1.00 lac 13.09.2011 in favour of Sh. Gh. Nabi Hajam who rejected the disbursement/withdrawals and reported to police for not having availed the loan thereby made misappropriation of Bank funds. Charge No. 5 You have recommended and sanctioned a personal loan of Rs. 1.60 lac on 12.05.2010 bearing account No. 11002022307. Charge No. 6. 1.00 lac 13.09.2011 in favour of Sh. Gh. Nabi Hajam who rejected the disbursement/withdrawals and reported to police for not having availed the loan thereby made misappropriation of Bank funds. Charge No. 5 You have recommended and sanctioned a personal loan of Rs. 1.60 lac on 12.05.2010 bearing account No. 11002022307. Charge No. 6. You have recommended a personal loan of Rs. 1.80 lac on 26.11.2009 favoring Sh. Nisar Ahmed Dar s/o Mohd Akbar R/o Kurso Rajbagh, Srinagar bearing account No. 11002020820 and Rs. 1.00 lac on 09.05.2011 favoring Sh. Hilal Ahmad Wani S/oGh. Qadir Wani R/o Kachgari Masjid Srinagar bearing account No. 11002024188 during your incumbency as Branch Manager Srinagar Main Branch without proper pre-sanction and assessment on the eligibility of the Borrowers. The borrowers were having no past relationship with the Bank and salary accounts were maintained with other Banks. There is no post disbursement follow up in these accounts to recover the disbursed amount. These disbursed loans suffered quick mortality and slipped to NPA category after disbursement. Your acts of negligence have upt the Bank at a pecuniary loss up to the extent of outstanding in these accounts. You may, in case you prefer, respond to the charges within a period of 5 days from the receipt of this letter. In case of no response from you, the charges shall stand automatically proved and the Bank shall proceed further as per service regulations.” 34. The petitioner to the charges (supra) contained in the charge-sheet dated 22.03.2017 has submitted his response on 14.07.2017, wherein the allegations being the basis of the charges had been denied being baseless. Besides it has been the contention of the petitioner that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer are based on no evidence and none of the charges are proved in the enquiry against the petitioner. 35. A perusal of the enquiry report produced by the respondents would demonstrate that the enquiry officer upon concluding the enquiry held charges (1), (2) (4) and (5) proved, and charge (6) partially proved against the petitioner, whereas charge (3) had not proved. The conclusions drawn in respect of the said charges by the enquiry officer are extracted hereunder:- Findings on charge No. 1. The arguments of the Banks presenting officer and defense by the CSO have been placed on record. The conclusions drawn in respect of the said charges by the enquiry officer are extracted hereunder:- Findings on charge No. 1. The arguments of the Banks presenting officer and defense by the CSO have been placed on record. The CSO failed to defend the charge during the proceeding and could not present any specific and valid document in its favour may be that proper presentation survey, post disbursement follow up end use of funds. Although CSO made an attempt that in the recommendation no remark about presentation has been written and no specific format has not been prescribed by the Bank yet meaningful pre-sanction is prerequisite for the sanctioning of a loan. Further in a CC loan cash payments are restricted only to the extent of personal requirements of the business establishment and other payments are to be made directly to suppliers etc. Keeping all these in mind, I have no reason, but to hold the charge as proved. Hence charged is “proved”. Findings on charge No. 2 The arguments of the Bank’s presenting officer and defense made by the CSO have been placed on record. The tractor loan has been recommended and appraised by CSO on the basis of which it got sanctioned. The CSO has not use due diligence in interviewing, appraising and assessing the loan application which resulted in that Sh. Mohd Maqbool Sheikh getting loan sanction posing as Sh. Ab. Raswhid Sheikh. Keeping all these in mind, I have no reason but to hold the charge as proved. Hence charge 2 is “proved”. Findings on charge No. 3. In respect of charge No. 3 having heard the arguments of the PO and CSO and the documents made available it appears that CSO has been relieved from the bank when documentation, disbursement was made, hence CSO is not involved in the same. Hence I hold that charge as “not proved”. Findings on charge No. 4. The arguments of the Banks presenting officer and defense made by the CSO have been placed on record. The CSO failed to defend the charge during the proceedings although he has presented some documents in his support however, it cannot be denied that the borrowed has categorically denied of availing of loan and CSO could not provide any argument to defend this. The CSO failed to defend the charge during the proceedings although he has presented some documents in his support however, it cannot be denied that the borrowed has categorically denied of availing of loan and CSO could not provide any argument to defend this. The case is still with the police and the borrower has not deposited anything in the account from disbursement and could be prove any confirmation from the borrower that he has taken loan from Bank. I have no reason but to hold the charge as proved partially. Hence charge No. 4 is “proved”. Findings on charge No. 5 The arguments of the Banks presenting Officer and defence made by the CSO have been placed on record. The PO had argued that the loan was sanctioned beyond discretionary powers citing references to this affect and no control report is on record. The CSO has contended that the case was sanctioned by the RO like other cases but could not provide the sanction of the competent authority to this affect. Neither post facto has been obtained nor control submitted to the competent authority. Hence, charge 5 stands “proved”. Findings on charge No. 6 The arguments of the Banks presenting Officer and defense made by the CSO have been placed on record. The PO made the argument that presented documents in his favour for supporting his arguments that no proper presentation, appraisal and follow up was made. The CS also made his arguments supporting his arguments that no requirement of having past relations or having salary account with our bank. Further at the time of the disbursement of loan of Hilal Ahmed Wani he had been relieved from the Branch Hence, I hold the charge as “partially proved”. 36. However notwithstanding the proving of charges (1), (2), (4), (5) and partially (6) the disciplinary authority in order to impose major penalty upon the petitioner while issuing show cause notice dated 07.09.2017 to the petitioner, after conclusion of the inquiry had made the following as basis therein for proceeding further against the petitioner in the matter:- “1. That tractor loan of Rs. 6.15 lacs recommended by the OPA to Sh. Abdul Rashid Sheikh on 15th Oct, 2012 is a case of impersonation. The loan was recommended on the basis of fake KYC documents without establishing the genuineness of the borrower. That tractor loan of Rs. 6.15 lacs recommended by the OPA to Sh. Abdul Rashid Sheikh on 15th Oct, 2012 is a case of impersonation. The loan was recommended on the basis of fake KYC documents without establishing the genuineness of the borrower. The loan has suffered a quick mortality and has turned non-performing asset. The present outstanding of Rs. 6,74,923.00 plus interest not booked so far I the loan account is a potential loss to the Bank. 2. That K.C.C Loan of Rs. 1.00 lacs has been granted by the OPA to Sh. Gh. Nabi Hajam on 13.09.2011. The borrower has disowned availment of loan amount and reported it to police. There was not a single repayment in the loan since its disbursement and has suffered a quick mortality. The present outstanding of Rs. 1,23,861.00 plus interest not booked so far in the loan amount is a potential loss to the Bank.” 37. Since the aforesaid two transactions attributed to the petitioner are having the effect of likely causing potential loss to the respondent-Bank as such, the findings of the enquiry officer coupled with the basis laid by the disciplinary authority become significant and relevant in determining as to whether the conclusions drawn by both the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority against the petitioner are based on some evidence or else the conclusions and findings are such as no reasonable person would have every reached. Thus, the aforesaid conclusions and findings need to be looked into having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 38. The perusal of the inquiry report insofar as, the aforesaid two conclusions and findings are concerned would reveal that the petitioner herein had specifically denied the sanction of loan, documentation done, security obtained, disbursement made and use of the funds by him. So much so, the petitioner had also denied that the loan application form, YC attached with the application form had been verified by him, but by the then Branch Manager after the transfer of the petitioner. Regarding the case of KCC Loan granted to Gh. So much so, the petitioner had also denied that the loan application form, YC attached with the application form had been verified by him, but by the then Branch Manager after the transfer of the petitioner. Regarding the case of KCC Loan granted to Gh. Nabi Hajam, the petitioner have had in response thereto specifically stated that the loan was sanctioned on the recommendation of the designated field officer after executing all requisite documents and that the said amount of loan had been transferred to the saving bank account of the borrower wherefrom he had withdrawn the said loan amount and had even repaid an amount of Rs. 56,000/- through a cheque. 39. Both the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority seemingly has overlooked the aforesaid fundamental defense set up by the petitioner in this regard and seemingly have not dealt with the same appropriately. In both the said cases, there has been conflicting nature of evidence before the inquiry officer as well the disciplinary authority rather evidence has been perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the petitioner. There was thus, no occasion or reason either for the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to draw the conclusions against the petitioner on the basis of the said conflicting nature of evidence. The guilt the petitioner has been found with, thus, does not sustain law. 40. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner upon farming of the charge sheet on 22.03.2017 in respect of the events relating to the year 2010 to 2014 after a lapse of considerable period of time. No explanation worth the name or reason thereof has been expressed by the respondents in their pleadings nor has been same forthcoming from the perusal of the record as to why the respondents did not initiate such an enquiry against the petitioner at the relevant point of time, but proceeded to initiate the same at the fag end of his service, to be precise a few days before this actual retirement. The said delay has not even been attributed against the petitioner by the respondents. It cannot, but be said that the respondents had been unfair to the petitioner for proceeding against him on the basis of stale charges. 41. The said delay has not even been attributed against the petitioner by the respondents. It cannot, but be said that the respondents had been unfair to the petitioner for proceeding against him on the basis of stale charges. 41. It is significant to note here that superannuation as is well known means discharge from a post on account of age fixed there for and is kind of retirement. Service rules relating to public servants invariably provide that on attaining a specified age, a public servant has to demit the office and retire from service. After reaching at a particular age it is generally felt that a public servant becomes incapable to discharge his duties and, therefore, need to be replaced. When a public servant reaches the age of superannuation and waits to have an exist from his service, initiation of disciplinary proceedings concerning old events generally would be unreasonable and unfair, more so when there is no justified reason for initiating such an enquiry at such belated stage and in the instant case a few days before the actual retirement of the petitioner. 42. Ironically it is also not forthcoming to why the other officers involved in the alleged misconduct had not been proceeded against by the respondents and had been even let of on account of superannuation. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has committed the alleged misconduct and the said misconduct is likely to cause potential loss to the respondent-Bank, yet the loss likely to be suffered by the respondent-Bank is merely speculative without there being anything on record suggesting that the respondent-Bank suffered an actual monitory loss. 43. Risking repetition, it is reiterated that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority are based on conflicting nature of evidence thus, never warranted imposition of a major penalty upon the petitioner, as no reasonable person would have reached to such conclusions and impose such a major penalty having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case. 44. Here again a reference to the judgment of Apex Court passed in Parvin Kumar (supra) becomes imperative wherein at para 36 following has been laid down in regard to the punishment and proportionality. “36. ……………. 44. Here again a reference to the judgment of Apex Court passed in Parvin Kumar (supra) becomes imperative wherein at para 36 following has been laid down in regard to the punishment and proportionality. “36. ……………. It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject of course to principles of proportionality and fair play. Such requirements emanate from Article 14 itself, which prohibits State authorities from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with the same broad stroke. Determination of such proportionality is a function of not only the action or intention of the delinquent, but must also factor the financial effect and societal implication of such misconduct. But unlike in criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts only interfere on grounds of proportionality when they find that the punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of the Court itself is shocked. Thus, whereas imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave offences there is a need to send a clear message of deterrence to the society. Charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are prime examples of the latter category, and ought to be dealt with strictly”. 45. The conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have undoubtedly led to manifest injustice to the petitioner. Furthermore it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not held involved by the respondents in an offence of corruption or else embezzlement of the Banks’ money. The imposition of major penalty against the petitioner as well cannot but said to be unfair, unreasonable inasmuch as, shockingly disproportionate having regard to above principle of law as the misconduct alleged against the petitioner even if considered on the basis of the allegations /charges drawn against the petitioner at the most would amount to procedural lapses committed by the petitioner in discharge of his duties while processing and granting loans to the customers of the Bank, in no case warranting the imposition of a major penalty as the consequence of a procedural lapse should not be undoubtedly harsh. 46. 46. The next issue raised with regard to the functioning of respondent No. 2 as the disciplinary authority as well as Chairman of the Board/ Appellate Authority may also have some significance having regard to the facts of the case. In terms of the Regulation of 2010 indisputably Board is the appellate authority and the perusal of the order of appellate authority whereby the appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed would reveal that even though the respondent No. 2 had not been part of the Board/appellate authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner yet the full quorum of the Board/appellate authority admittedly had not been in place, having only four members as against nine. The appeal of the petitioner therefore, in this view of the matter, seems not to have received appropriated consideration by the appellate authority. Be that as it may, it is evident that the defence set up by the respondents in opposition to the case set up by the petitioner has not been potent enough to dislodge the case set of by the petitioner, so much so the judgments referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the respondents also did not lend any support to the case of the respondents. 47. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, by issuance of a writ of certiorari, impugned order dated 13.10.2017 along with the order dated 28.03.2018 are quashed and further by issuance of a writ of mandamus, respondents are commanded to process, determine and release all retiral benefits to the petitioner along with an interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accrual till its final realization. 48. Disposed of along with all connected applications/petitions. 49. Registry to return back the record forthwith to the counsel for the respondents.