JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the penalty order dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure-12), passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby he has been imposed major penalty of “Removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-15), passed by the respondent no. 2 as also the Review Order dated 29.03.2021 (Annexure-16) passed by the respondent no.1. Petitioner has further prayed for consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. According to the petitioner, after his selection, he joined the service in Canara Bank on 22.04.1996 as a Clerk and in view of his performance, was granted promotion to Junior Management Grade-I in May, 2009. He was further granted promotion to Junior Management Grade-II in May, 2014. Petitioner worked with utmost devotion and sincerity and there was no complaint against him from any quarter. Petitioner was relieved from the post of Branch Incharge, Pithoria Branch on 04.10.2018 and he was transferred and posted as a Manager at MIPD Section, Ranchi Regional Office, Ranchi Circle. After his transfer, petitioner handed over entire records of Pithoria Branch of the Bank to his successor Manish Kumar Singh. On 09.11.2018, the allegations of taking bribe in granting KCC/ KMCC loans at Pithoria Branch had been made and petitioner was asked for explanation which was duly replied by him on 22.11.2018. 4. On 16.08.2019, the Disciplinary Authority issued Article of Charges, list of documents, list of witnesses, statement of allegations, which inter-alia relates to alleged lapses on part of the petitioner by pressurizing the AEO (Agriculture Extension Officer) of the Branch to do those KCC/ KMCC loan proposals which were rooted through the middleman by taking bribe from the loanee/customers for sanctioning KCC/KMCC loan proposals, for which video clip shows that he was accepting bribe from the middleman. The said memorandum dated 16.08.2019 was duly replied by the petitioner vide his written statement dated 23.08.2019 clearly refuting the charges levelled against him. It was also stated that he was unaware about any audio/video clip. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 29.08.2019, the Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Ranchi issued letter appointing Sri Kabindra Kumar Sahu, Divisional Manager, Circle Office, Ranchi as Inquiry Authority and Mrs. It was also stated that he was unaware about any audio/video clip. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 29.08.2019, the Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Ranchi issued letter appointing Sri Kabindra Kumar Sahu, Divisional Manager, Circle Office, Ranchi as Inquiry Authority and Mrs. Rekha Sharma, Manager, Ormanjhi Branch, Ranchi Circle as Presenting Officer. On 03.09.2019, the preliminary inquiry was made. Petitioner denied all the charges and thereafter regular inquiry was fixed on 13.09.2019 and documents were placed by the presenting officer. After completion of inquiry, the report was submitted vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition and thereafter show-cause was asked by the disciplinary authority on 21.03.2020. Petitioner filed his representation dated 30.03.2020 pointing out the erroneous and cryptic finding of the inquiry authority and highlighted his unblemished service record. However, the disciplinary authority, vide his order dated 31.03.2020 imposed the penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment as envisaged under regulation 4(i) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, he preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected vide order dated 30.12.2020 which was subject matter of challenge before Review Appeal. However, the said Review Petition was also rejected vide order dated 29.03.2021. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 7. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. No question was ever raised by the successor-in-office regarding any short-comings in the loan account of any borrower who had been sanctioned loan by the petitioner as KCC/ KMCC but after one month of his transfer i.e. on 09.11.2018, with ill-motive of local persons, allegations of taking bribe in granting KCC/ KMCC loans at Pithoria Branch had been made for which due explanation was called for from the petitioner, which was duly replied by him. Pithoria village is a very wide agriculture-based area and in order to put pressure upon the Bank officials, the ineligible claimants of loan used to lodge complaints in many forms and the bank officials becomes the escape goat of such miscreants. Pithoria village is a very wide agriculture-based area and in order to put pressure upon the Bank officials, the ineligible claimants of loan used to lodge complaints in many forms and the bank officials becomes the escape goat of such miscreants. Petitioner was very sincere and diligent in duties towards Bank and as such used to take proper care to save bank from fraud. Prior to his joining, the Pithoria Branch was having 1222 KCC/ KMCC/ other loans, out of which 30 loans became NPA and more than 449 accounts were under special watch list. Petitioner did not allow any loan without proper verification which is the reasons for lodging false complaints against him. 8. Learned counsel further argues that the Kissan Credit Card Scheme is a Government of India Scheme and the same is generated through the Circle Officer of the Area with the help of Agriculture Extension Officer of the Branch. The Banking business are governed by the extent rules and the Branch In-charge is vested with discretion to take decision on case basis. While sanctioning KCC/ KMCC loan, the petitioner always followed the norms, practice and procedure as per the standard form Since petitioner did not compromise with the interest of the Bank, the local mafia and middleman targeted him in order to put pressure upon him. It is an example where planned conspiracy has been made against the innocent petitioner by the villagers including one Nasim Ansari only because he has discharged his duties diligently with utmost honesty and integrity and always tried to safeguard interest of the Bank. While imposing harsh punishment against the petitioner, the Bank totally ignored the fact that petitioner has always taken steps to safeguard interest of the Bank whereas Sarfaraz Ansari was in the habit of making false complaint. Further, said Nasim Ansari is the relative of one of the Bank Staff and was engaged in cleaning and coolie work and sometimes also helps in recovery, if required, but was removed from the Bank because he was working against interest of the bank. Learned counsel further argues that the villagers used to handover money to Nasim Ansari for depositing the defaulted amount and there is every possibility that said Nasim Ansari intentionally made audio/video clips while giving the money meant for depositing in borrowers NPA Account or overdue account in order to take revenge from him or to blackmail him. Learned counsel further argues that the villagers used to handover money to Nasim Ansari for depositing the defaulted amount and there is every possibility that said Nasim Ansari intentionally made audio/video clips while giving the money meant for depositing in borrowers NPA Account or overdue account in order to take revenge from him or to blackmail him. 9. Drawing attention towards evidence of DW-1 – Nasim Ansari, learned counsel submits that said witness has clearly stated that petitioner had not taken bribe for sanction of loan through him and he further stated that the alleged video was prepared in order to tarnish image of the petitioner due to his anger and verbal as well as written statement was given before the inquiry authority because petitioner had removed him from the coolie work. The alleged money shown in the video clips was the money earlier taken by him from the petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish any of the charges of misconduct and petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed with stigma. How can an officer of the Bank be removed from the Bank on the alleged complaint of a person who used to do casual work in the Bank time to time, that too, who clearly said in his deposition that out of anger and in order to take revenge and malign career of the petitioner, had made such clips. 10. Learned counsel further argues that respondents should have taken care of the fact that petitioner had rendered 25 long years of unblemished service and had taken care of interest of the Bank and minimized NPA. Learned counsel further argues that even the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority have not considered the prayer of the petitioner and mechanically affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel further argues that it is a case of no evidence since the material witnesses have not been examined on the basis of whom the entire episode has arisen. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside and direction be issued to reinstate the petitioner into services with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel further argues that there is no allegation that petitioner was in any way connected with the video clips and the omission or commission, if any. Learned counsel further argues that there is no allegation that petitioner was in any way connected with the video clips and the omission or commission, if any. Even the author of the Video Clips has clearly stated that he had taken some money from the petitioner and while returning the same, had prepared the clips in order to take revenge. Petitioner has been given harsh punishment though no loss has been incurred to the Bank nor it is a case where confidence in an employee has been lost or loyalty of the petitioner towards the Bank is questionable because the complainant has not come forward. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is fit to be quashed and direction may be given to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits. 11. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Suresh Kumar Singh passed in Civil Appeal No. 4410 of 2012 reported in JT 2022(6) SC 1 and quoting para-11 of the said Judgment submits that the Hon’ble Court has clearly held that in absence of examination of these three vital witnesses, the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent were not fully proved and taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and the Division Bench affirmed the same. Learned counsel further submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Court has clearly held that there is a serious lacuna in the conduct of the departmental proceedings in not examining the vital witnesses. In the instant case, the similar lacuna is apparent and in absence of examination of vital witness, the petitioner could not have been punished, that too with such a harsh punishment of removal from the service. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS - BANK 12. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 13. Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents -Bank, justifying the impugned orders submits that rightly the order of dismissal was issued which was later on affirmed by the Appellate Authority and reviewing authority. Departmental proceeding was duly initiated against the petitioner in which he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority issued order of dismissal. Proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case and documents were also provided to him. Departmental proceeding was duly initiated against the petitioner in which he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority issued order of dismissal. Proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case and documents were also provided to him. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and the Appellate Authority as also the reviewing authority were of the view that petitioner was neither deprived of natural justice nor any prejudice was caused to him and keeping in view the gravity of misconduct, findings of the Enquiry Officer, records and other facts of the case, found no merit in the appeal as also the review preferred by the petitioner and the same were rejected. Learned counsel accordingly submits that there are no purported questions of law which are germane in the instant case to be decided by this Court and the writ petition being devoid of any merit is fit to be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has failed to make out any procedural illegality or arbitrariness in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. This Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-examine, re-appreciate or examine the adequacy, sufficiency or reliability or relevancy of evidence adduced in disciplinary proceeding. The adequacy or inadequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. High Court is not an appellate authority over the factual finding recorded during the departmental proceeding. While exercising the power of review, the High Court cannot substitute its own conclusion with regard to guilt of the delinquent for that of the departmental authorities. 15. Learned counsel further argues that a Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/ employee of the Bank are required to take all possible steps to protect interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/ employee of the Bank. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment, which are as under: i. Karnataka SRTC V. M.G. Vittal Rao, Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 ; ii. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal V. Gwalior Sugar Co. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/ employee of the Bank. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment, which are as under: i. Karnataka SRTC V. M.G. Vittal Rao, Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 ; ii. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal V. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., Reported in (2001) 9 SCC 609 ; iii. SBI V. Bela Bagchi, Reported in (2005) 7 SCC 435 . FINDINGS OF THE COURT 16. From the facts, submission and legal proposition brought before this Court by both the sides, the important points to be discussed in this writ petition are: (I) Admittedly, the complainant was never examined and in absence of same the harsh punishment awarded against the petitioner, that too removal from the service is not sustainable in the eyes of law. (II) Petitioner had an unblemished service career of 25 long years but the same was not considered by the respondents while inflicting harsh punishment to him. The respondents ought to have considered his unblemished service career of 25 long years. (III) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Managing Director, ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held that: “26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the enquiry officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the enquiry officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the enquiry officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer’s findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it.” Further in case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “10. …………. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it.” Further in case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “10. …………. The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show-cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect.” The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , relevant paras of which is reproduced herein below: “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. ……… 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” (IV) It is settled legal propositions that issuance of 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report is sine qua non and inflicting the punishment that also of removal without seeking reply by way of 2nd show-cause notice is not tenable in the eyes of law. (V) The Bank has not been able to prove that any loss has been caused to them. It is not a case that the petitioner had defalcated any amount rather entire case is based on the so-called video clips and transaction of some amount, which itself is questionable and no justifiable answer has been brought on record by the Bank. (VI) The High Court of Delhi in the case of Chaman Lal Vs. State Bank of India, reported in 2003 (71) DRJ 133 , wherein, the Court taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC held that “normally the Court would not substitute a punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, but the Court while coming to the conclusion that no loss has been caused to the Bank, directed the disciplinary authority to modify the punishment order”. Relevant para-7 is under:- “In view of the law laid down in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [ 1988 (1) L.L.N. 42 ], normally this Court would not substitute a punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. However, in this case from the perusal of the order of appellate authority while coming to a conclusion that no loss has been caused to the bank still appellate authority has not stated that why dismissal be not substituted. 30 years of services rendered by the petitioner from 1955 to 1985 when show-cause notice was issued has been washed away. Said order shows complete non-application of mind whereby denying the terminal benefits to the petitioner. This writ petition is pending in this Court since last 14 years. Petitioner, I have been told is quite old. No useful purpose will be served if case is remanded back to disciplinary authority. Even otherwise during the course of hearing on the last date of hearing, I had directed the respondent to take instructions as to whether the respondent was prepared to take a fresh decision in view of what has been stated above. Sri Arora has informed that he has received instructions that the decision cannot be reviewed and in this regard has placed a letter, dated 21 August, 2003, on record. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served to remit the case again to the respondent. The penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. Sri Arora has informed that he has received instructions that the decision cannot be reviewed and in this regard has placed a letter, dated 21 August, 2003, on record. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served to remit the case again to the respondent. The penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. The order, dated 17 September, 1986, passed by disciplinary authority order, dated 8 September, 1987, passed by appellate authority and order, dated 4 February, 1989, passed by reviewing authority are hereby quashed. The order of dismissal is hereby quashed.” (VII) It also appears that the main complainant Sarfaraj Ansari was never examined. The three independent witnesses who had been examined, are the neighbourers of Nasim Ansari who had not applied for any loan. Secondly, the main witness i.e. Nasim Ansari, on whose statement the allegation has been made that petitioner had taken bribe while sanctioning KCC Loan, but during the regular inquiry, he clearly stated that he had not taken any money and the video clips were prepared only in order to take revenge. He has clearly deposed that in anger and to take revenge and tarnish image of the petitioner, video clips were prepared. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582 has clearly observed that failure to examine material witness would vitiate the entire departmental proceeding, as the same would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under: “3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the nonobservance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant. 4. However, Shri Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that there was other material which was sufficient to come to the conclusion one way or the other and he has taken us through the same. But while appreciating the evidence on record the impact of the testimony of the complainant cannot be visualised. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Ram would also bear upon the state of inebriation, if any, of the appellant.” (VIII) The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. Vs. Jai Bhagwan, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376 that non-examination of the complainant during the departmental proceeding has denied the delinquent of his valuable right to cross-examine and is thus nullity in the eyes of law. (IX) Merely on the basis of some video clips, petitioner should not have been made guilty of an offence unless the same corroborates with other facts. There is no evidence of bribe. (X) The arguments advance by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappreciate evidence is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in a situation where the important witness i.e. the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution. This is not the case where the evidence of a witness is being examined rather it is a case where case fails because of serious lacuna on part of the prosecution. In the instant case, the punishment and penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is impermissible and shocks conscience of the Court and as such the same needs interference and fit to be quashed. This Court is aware of the fact that as has been held in the case of Union of India Vs. In the instant case, the punishment and penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is impermissible and shocks conscience of the Court and as such the same needs interference and fit to be quashed. This Court is aware of the fact that as has been held in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran (Supra) and is not re-appreciating the evidence nor interfering with the conclusion in the enquiry but cannot close its eyes towards a serious lacuna of non-examination of complainant and as such the punishment imposed against the petitioner shocks the conscience. (XI) Insofar as the Judgment relied upon and arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the Bank is concerned, the same is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case has a specific finding that there is a serious lacuna in conduct of departmental proceeding in not examining the vital witness. Further, the author of the video clips has clearly deposed that entire episode has been created by him because of anger against the petitioner and in order to take revenge from him. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that punishment of removal from the service is disproportionate and too harsh. As a sequitur thereto, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure-12), 30.12.2020 (Annexure-15) and 29.03.2021 (Annexure-16), are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the same are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner on the point of quantum of punishment and/or grant of lesser punishment, if any, other than dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank, in light of discussions and observations made hereinabove. It is further directed to conclude entire exercise after giving proper hearing to the petitioner and after following cardinal principles of natural justice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.