JUDGMENT : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, above-numbered SBCWP No.15731/2021, is being tagged in the present batch of petitions (above-numbered SBCWP No.3832/2020 & 2269/2020). Arguments in all the three petitions were therefore, heard together and the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The prayer clauses of the present petitions read as under: SBCWP No.3832/2020: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by the petitioner before your Lordships that, this writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof; (a) The impugned departmental enquiry proceedings, being carried out by the respondent Bank, against petitioner pursuance to the impugned Charge-sheet dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure-5), may kindly be held to be without jurisdiction, in view of bar contained under the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation-2010 and same may kindly be ordered to be dropped, until the final outcome of criminal case, lodged by the respondent Bank, against petitioner, pending trial before the learned Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana (Nagaur) in Criminal Case titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned order dated 15.10.2018 (Annex 7), passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent bank for holding department inquiry against petitioner may kindly be declared without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequently same may kindly be quashed and set aside. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned order dated 15.10.2018 (Annex 7), passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent bank for holding department inquiry against petitioner may kindly be declared without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequently same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” SBCWP No.2269/2020: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by the petitioner before your Lordships that, this writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof; (a) The impugned punishment order dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure-1), passed by the respondent Chairman of the Bank, being disciplinary authority and the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure-2), passed by the Appellate Authority, of the respondent Bank, whereby imposing too harsh penalty against petitioner, may kindly be declared without jurisdiction and illegal in the eye of law and same may kindly be quashed and set aside, with direction to the respondent bank, to restore original post and status of petitioner, with all consequential service benefits. (b) the impugned departmental enquiry proceedings, being carried out by the respondent Bank, against petitioner pursuance to the impugned Charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-19), may very kindly be held to be unsustainable, being barred under principle of “Double Jeopardy”, and also due to bar contained under Regulation 43 of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation-2010 and consequently the same may kindly be ordered to be dropped, with direction to the respondent Bank, to treat the petitioner fairly and not to victimize him in relation to loan transaction issues, which are subject matter of criminal case, lodged by CBI, Jodhpur. (c) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to treat suspension period of petitioner, as on duty and petitioner may kindly be held entitled for all service benefits, attached to his post including full salary and whatever amount of salary has been forfeited/recovered by the respondent Bank from petitioner, in pursuance to impugned disciplinary enquiry and impugned punishment orders passed thereunder or on account of lodging of criminal case, lodged by CBI, the same may kindly be ordered to be refunded back to petitioner, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and cost of Rs.1,00,000/-also may kindly be awarded to petitioner, against arbitrary and illegal action of respondent Bank. (d) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” SBCWP No. 15731/2021: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by the petitioner before your Lordships that, this writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof; (a) The impugned departmental enquiry proceedings, being carried out by the respondent Bank, against petitioner pursuance to the impugned memorandum of charge-sheet dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure-4), may very kindly be held to be without jurisdiction, in view of bar contained under the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation-2010 and same may kindly be ordered to be dropped, until the final outcome of criminal case, lodged by the respondent Bank, against petitioner in FIR No.0094/2020 lodged at P.S. Kotara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-5), passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent bank for holding department inquiry against petitioner may kindly be declared without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequently same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. (c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. For the purpose of the present adjudication, notwithstanding the mere marginal variation in the factual matrix of the present cases, the factual matrix pertaining to SBCWP Nos.3832/2020 & 15731/2021 (wherein challenge is being laid to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners therein), is being taken from SBCWP No.3832/2020, while treating the same as a lead case, in regard thereto; however, the factual matrix of SBCWP No.2269/2020, owing to the challenge laid therein with regard to culmination of the disciplinary proceedings into award of punishment to the petitioner), is being taken separately. 3.1 Brief facts of the lead case (CW No.3832/2020), as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank on the post of Officer Scale-I on 02.01.2012. Thereafter, on 27.03.2017, he was promoted on the post of Officer Scale-II and posted at R.M.G.B. Branch Toshina (Deedwana), Distt. Nagaur. While, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, in that branch, few of the office assistants deputed to discharge duties has withdrawn certain amounts of bank customers by using code & ID of branch manager, through ATM. 3.1.1 Thereafter, the respondent-Bank on 21.12.2017, lodged an FIR bearing registered no.0183/2017 before Police Station Khunkhuna, Distt. Nagaur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 379 IPC against Ajay Kumar, Sunil Singh, and Mota Ram, employees of respondent-Bank at Toshina Branch. Thereafter, the police proceed with the investigation and found that total amount of Rs. 11,08,000/-has been inappropriately withdrawn by cashiers and other employees of the Bank; the police further proceeded to investigate the petitioner, and three other branch managers also arrested and they were granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. 3.1.2 Thereafter, police filed charge-sheet (CR No. 82/2018) on 31.12.2018 against the petitioner and other persons under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 379 and 201 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana vide order dated 11.01.2019 registered criminal case no. 789/2018 and took cognizance under the aforesaid offences. 3.1.2 Thereafter, police filed charge-sheet (CR No. 82/2018) on 31.12.2018 against the petitioner and other persons under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 379 and 201 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana vide order dated 11.01.2019 registered criminal case no. 789/2018 and took cognizance under the aforesaid offences. 3.1.3 Thereafter, the respondent-Bank issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2018 seeking explanation in regard to the alleged withdrawal of the amount, and the petitioner submitted reply to the same, while denying the allegations against him. The respondent-Bank proceeded to issue a memo of impugned charge-sheet along with articles of charge on 16.08.2018 and the petitioner filed the reply to the said charges. 3.2. The respondent-Bank vide order dated 15.10.2018 proceeded to hold departmental enquiry; consequent whereupon, the petitioner was placed under suspension, but and he his services were reinstated, so as to enable him to participate in the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know in regard to the alleged withdrawal of money, a written complaint was also submitted by the then Branch Manager Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena on 31.01.2019. 3.3 However, the above petitions have been preferred challenging initiation of the departmental enquiry and other related proceedings against the petitioners. 4. Facts in brief, of CW No.2269/2020, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner therein, are that the petitioner was working as Officer Scale I on 22.01.2013 with the respondent-Bank at Jaisinghar Branch, Barmer. Thereafter, respondent-Bank found that the petitioner sanctioning loan to certain farmers/villagers, but he did not take adequate precaution, as required, and thus, on that ground, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 14.11.2017. The respondent- Bank issued show cause notice on 17.01.2018 and the petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 29.01.2018. 4.1. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank lodged an FIR bearing registration no. RCJDH 2017 A 0014 against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jodhpur on 18.12.2017, and alleged that the petitioner without taking any the required precautions and assessing financial capacity of borrowers in regard to loans to the tune of Rs.50,000/-to each of the 241 persons (borrowers), thereby, putting the bank to financial risk of a huge amount of Rs.1,43,19,578.86/-. 4.1.1 In the meantime, the respondent-Bank also proceeded to hold the departmental enquiry and issue the memorandum of charge-sheet dated 12.09.2018 along with articles of charges; the petitioner filed reply to the said charge-sheet on 29.09.2018; the authority vide order dated 04.12.2018, appointed an enquiry officer to hold such enquiry. 4.2. The aforesaid charge-sheet was further amended vide dated 15.12.2018, but after such amendment, the nature of allegation and details of transactions were not changed. Thereafter, respondent-Bank issued another show cause notice on 16.02.2019 levelling the same allegations, and the petitioner filed to the same also. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank vide order dated 18.04.2019 revoked the suspension of the petitioner and reinstated him on duty. The Disciplinary Authority however, proceeded to propose penalty against the petitioner and passed order dated 24.04.2019, whereby it, amongst others, was proposed to demote the petitioner from the post of Officer Scale-I to that of Office Assistant. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 23.05.2019, whereby by the petitioner has been penalized with demotion from the post of Officer Scale-I to Office Assistant and was put to lowest pay scale. The petitioner preferred, against the said order, an appeal before the Appellant Authority, but the same was dismissed by Appellant Authority vide order dated 22.10.2019. 4.3. The Disciplinary Authority issued another impugned charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019 alleging therein that the petitioner received illegal gratification in relation to sanctioning of the certain 24 loans and the consequential transactions, as alleged. The petitioner filed reply to the same on 29.05.2019; whereafter, the respondent-Bank proceeded to initiate disciplinary proceedings and appointed the enquiry officer vide order dated 24.06.2019; the enquiry officer issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to participate in the proceedings on 20.11.2019. Thereafter, the Criminal Case was registered against the petitioner before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jodhpur and the CBI Team carried out search of the petitioner’s house, and search memo has been prepared on 19.12.2017; whereupon the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge-sheet under Section 420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 08.01.2020 against the petitioner and on the same day, he was enlarged on bail. However, the petitioner in the said petition assails the impugned punishment order dated 23.05.2019 as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019. 5. However, the petitioner in the said petition assails the impugned punishment order dated 23.05.2019 as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent-Bank, while taking the impugned disciplinary actions, has not made due compliance of the mandatory provision as contained in Regulation 43 of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010, wherein it was provided as under: For ready reference, the said Regulation 43 is reproduced as hereunder: “43. Corrupt Practices – Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the following provisions shall apply where it is alleged that an officer or employee has been guilty of corrupt practices, namely.- (a) where it is alleged that an officer or employee is possessed of disproportionate assets or that he has committed an act of criminal misconduct or where the investigation and proof of the allegation would require the evidence of persons who are not officers or employees of the Bank or where, in the opinion of the Chairman, the investigation into the allegations cannot be conveniently undertaken by the Bank, the investigation into the allegations may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Central Vigilance Commission or such other Authority, as may be approved by the Chairman, (b) if after considering the report on the investigation, the Competent Authority is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the officer or employee, he may send the investigation report to the Central Vigilance Commission or such other authority as may be decided by the Chairman from time to time in this behalf, for its advice whether disciplinary proceeding should be taken up against the officer or employee concerned, (c) if after considering the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission or such other Authority, as the case may be, the Competent Authority is of the opinion that disciplinary proceeding may be instituted against the employee concerned, then, the enquiry under this regulation may be entrusted to a Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries or any other person who may be nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission for this purpose; (d) The Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries or any other person nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission shall submit his report to the Competent Authority. (e) The Competent Authority shall forward such report to the Central Vigilance Commission for its advise as to whether the charge or charges, as the case may be, to be framed and the penalty or penalties to be imposed under regulation 39. (f) The Competent Authority shall, after considering the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, impose the penalty. Explanation: For the purpose of this regulation, an officer or employee shall be deemed to be guilty of corrupt practices if he has committed an act of criminal misconduct as defined in sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) or he has acted for an improper purpose, or in a corrupt manner or had exercised or refrained from exercising his powers with an improper or corrupt motive.” 5.1 In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunny Abraham Vs. Union of India and Anr. AIR 2022 SC 336 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that both the criminal case as well as the departmental proceeding pertained to the same set of allegations, and thus, if both the proceedings are allowed to run simultaneously, then the same would be violative of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that on a similar and identical issue, which is pending before this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2881/2019, the Hon’ble Court passed an interim order dated 01.04.2019. 7. Particularly in regard to the above-numbered Petition no. 2269/20, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner rendered the unblemished services, but despite the same, he is being victimized on the basis of a false story, prepared by Management of the respondent-Bank; during the first enquiry the petitioner admitted the charges against him. He however, submitted that the copy of the enquiry report as well as opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner; the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular department proceeding, wherein no opportunity of cross-examination is given to him. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 1513 . 8. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 1513 . 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, prior to taking the impugned action, has taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the complete material placed before it. 8.1 In regard to petitioner in petition No.2269/2020, he submitted that after service of the charge sheet dated 12.09.2018, it was noticed by the Vigilance Department of the Bank that certain loan accounts relating to Jaisinghar Branch, District Barmer, have turned into NPA and in certain accounts, not a single installment had been paid by the borrowers, and therefore, two responsible officers of the Bank, namely, Sh. Jalam Singh Charan and Sh. Amitabh Chatterjee were appointed to investigate into the matter and to submit their report by 20.11.2018; pursuant whereto, the officers visited the branch and conducted a detailed investigation into the matter and submitted their report dated 05.12.2018; however, such investigation was made in regard to the remaining 50 amounts, in regard whereto, the CBI did not conduct investigation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2003’), an enquiry or an investigation may be caused to be conducted, against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2). In exercise of the power under Section 8 Sub Section (2) Clause (b) of the Act of 2003, the Government of India has issued notifications dated 18.03.2004 and 12.09.2007, specifying as under: “MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel Training) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 18th March, 2004 S.O.371(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003), the Central Government hereby include all the officers of Scale V and above of all Public Sector Banks in the category of officials for the purpose of clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act. {No.418/2/2004-AVD. IV} KESHAV DESIRAJU, Jt. {No.418/2/2004-AVD. IV} KESHAV DESIRAJU, Jt. Secy.” “MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 12th September, 2007 S.O. 1538(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003), the Central Government hereby specifies the following level of officers mentioned in column (3) of the table below of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, the Government companies, societies and other local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government mentioned in column (2) of the said Table for the purpose of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act:- TABLE S.No. Name and categories of corporation/Government companies/ societies and other local authorities Level of officers (1) (2) (3) 1. Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ Public Sector Undertakings Chief Executive and Executives on the Board and other officers of E-8 and above. 2. Schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ Public Sector Undertaking Chief Executive and Executives on the Board and other officers of E-7 and above. 3. Reserves Bank of India, NABARD and SIDBI Officers in Grade ‘D’ and above. 4. General Insurance Companies Managers and above. 5. Life Insurance Corporations Senior Divisional Manager and above. 6. Societies and other Local Authorities Officers drawing salar of Rs.8700/-p.m. and above on Central Government D.A. pattern as on the date of notification and as may be revised from time to time. {No.418/2/2004-A.V.D. IV} P. K. Tripathi, Jt. Secy.” 9.1 Section 8 of the Act of 2003 is also reproduced as hereunder: “8. 6. Societies and other Local Authorities Officers drawing salar of Rs.8700/-p.m. and above on Central Government D.A. pattern as on the date of notification and as may be revised from time to time. {No.418/2/2004-A.V.D. IV} P. K. Tripathi, Jt. Secy.” 9.1 Section 8 of the Act of 2003 is also reproduced as hereunder: “8. Functions and powers of Central Vigilance Commission.-(1) The functions and powers of the Commission shall be to— (a) exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial; (b) give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause (a) or giving directions under this clause, the Commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner; (c) inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference made by the Central Government wherein it is alleged that a public servant being an employee of the Central Government or a corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government company, society and any local authority owned or controlled by that Government, has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial; (d) inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2) wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial; (e) review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or the public servant may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial; (f) review the progress of applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (g) tender advice to the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by that Government, said Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government or otherwise; (h) exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the Central Government or corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to authorise the Commission to exercise superintendence over the Vigilance administration in a manner not consistent with the directions relating to vigilance matters issued by the Government and to confer power upon the Government and to confer power upon the Commission to issue directions relating to any policy matters; (2) The persons referred to in clause (d) of subsection (1) are as follows:— (a) members of All-India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and Group ‘A’ officers of the Central Government; (b) such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: Provided that till such time a notification is issued under this clause, all officers of the said corporations, companies, societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1). (c) on a reference made by the Lokpal under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014), the persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall also include— (i) members of Group B, Group C and Group D services of the Central Government; (ii) such level of officials or staff of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: Provided that till such time a notification is issued under this clause, all officials or staff of the said corporations, companies, societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the persons referred in clause (d) of sub-section (1).” 9.2 Learned counsel thus submitted that the post(s) on which the petitioners were working do not fall within the ambit of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents (in regard to petition No.2269/2020) also submitted that the Central Vigilance Commission, in its supervisory and advisory jurisdiction, issued an office order No.20/08/2009 dated 03.08.2009, regarding Vigilance Administration in all the Regional Rural Banks (RRB); thereafter, Sponsor Bank i.e. the State Bank of India (SBI) vide order dated 28.02.2018 appointed one Senior Officer as the CVO of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the provisions of Section 43 of the Regulation of 2010 are not attracted in this case, because the matter was placed firstly before the Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) for its opinion, after its concurrence, the matter was placed before CVO along with charge-sheet; after receiving the approval/ concurrence from CVO on 11.09.2018, the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2018 was issued against the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is no legal bar to conduct the disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding simultaneously, in view of the fact that the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioners both in the departmental proceeding as well as in the charge-sheets were different. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that during the course of enquiry, the petitioners did not raise any objection against the initiation and culmination of the proceedings on the ground of non-compliance of Regulation 43 of the Regulation 2010, which as per the petitioners, was a mandatory provision. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that during the course of enquiry, the petitioners did not raise any objection against the initiation and culmination of the proceedings on the ground of non-compliance of Regulation 43 of the Regulation 2010, which as per the petitioners, was a mandatory provision. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners cannot raise such an issue before this Court. He further submitted that the scope and interference into the disciplinary/departmental proceeding is very limited, and thus, the Court ought make judicial review on merits of the decision itself. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the similar issue is pending in another petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13077/2019, wherein the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.02.2020, vacated the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner in that petition. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 15. This Court finds that the petitioners found to have involved in a serious crime, wherein the illegal transfer of bank amounts has been done, thereby putting the bank to a huge financial loss, while sanctioning, amongst others, the loan amounts, without due verification of the relevant documents, as required. This Court further finds that as per the Clause (b) of Regulation 43 of the Regulation, 2010 stated that if, after considering the report on the investigation, the Competent Authority is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the officer or employee, he may send the investigation report to the Central Vigilance Commission or such other authority as may be decided by the Chairman from time to time in this behalf, for its advice whether disciplinary proceeding should be taken up against the officer or employee concerned; therefore, it is clear that the respondent-Bank obtained prior approval of the CVO concerned before initiating the impugned departmental proceedings. Moreover, owing to the posts held by the petitioners, at the relevant time, such approval was not at all mandatory to be obtained. 16. Moreover, owing to the posts held by the petitioners, at the relevant time, such approval was not at all mandatory to be obtained. 16. This Court observes that Regulation 43 of the Regulation, 2010 is not attracted in the present cases, because as per Section 8 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) of the Act of 2003, inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation is to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials as specified in sub-section (2), wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged with the same trial; the same is the prescription of Notifications dated 18.03.2004 (Annexure R/10) and 12.09.2007 (Annexure R/11), wherein amongst others, the class of posts is specified, for the purpose of inquiry or investigation by the Central Vigilance Commission; apparently, the present petitioners, were not holding the post of Scale V or above, and thus, would not fall within the ambit of Section 8 of the Act of 2003 and the other relevant provisions. 17. This Court further observes that the public servant is a responsible person; such responsibility commensurate with the post, that is to post, that is to say, higher is the post, higher would be the responsibility. This is more so when the public at large reposed much trust in the Bank as well as its officers and employees; therefore it was the duty of the bank employees, in particular, not to act in such a manner, which is unbecoming of a public servant or an officer / employee of the bank. This Court also observes that for good administration, the honesty of a public servant is a pre requisite. 17.1 Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009) decided on 15.12.2022, observed as under: Before we conclude, we hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption. State (Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009) decided on 15.12.2022, observed as under: Before we conclude, we hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption. In this regard, we would like to reiterate what has been stated by this Court in Swatantar Singh vs. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 14 : “6. ………..Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corruption would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke”. 18. This Court further observes the judgments cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. 19. Thus, as an upshot of the above discussion, and looking into the factual matrix of the present cases especially the petitioners being the public servants and found involved in the offence against public as well as respondent-Bank, the present petitions do not merit acceptance, as in the firm opinion of this Court none of the impugned actions as taken by the respondent-Bank against the petitioners herein call for any interference by this Court. 20. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.