ORDER : Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 13.06.2011 in proceedings no.Rc.4987/2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the order dated 02.01.2012 vide letter no. 237 of 2012 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal and arbitrary. 3. The case of the Petitioner as per the Writ Affidavit, is as follows: a) Petitioner had been appointed as CEO of Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Karimnagar on 25.02.1999. A charge memo dated 11.05.2009 had been issued by the 3rd respondent, on the petitioner bearing no. 4074 of 2009, levelling 16 charges for alleged irregularity in sanction and disbursement of gold loans, lack of supervision among others. b) Petitioner had submitted explanation to the charge memo dated 15.06.2009 and the 4th respondent had been appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry into the charges framed and vide Letter no. Rc.4/2009/DE, dated 19.12.2009 submitted report holding, 13 out of 16 charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. c) On the perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 3rd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 12.03.2010 vide proceedings no. Rc-5209/2010 holding 16 charges against the petitioner. d) Out of the 16 charges, 13 charges were held proved against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent vide impugned order dated 02.01.2012 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as Chief Executive Officer of the bank vide order dated 13.06.2011. e) Aggrieved, petitioner filed Statutory Appeal before the appellate authority (Respondent no.1) on 27.06.2011 and the 1st respondent confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 02.01.2012. f) The punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and in many of the charges, it wasn’t just the petitioner, who was responsible but several other officers/clerks were also responsible and none of them were subjected to any disciplinary enquiry and hence the impugned order is arbitrary and unconstitutional. g) Moreover, the Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent herein is below the rank of Deputy Registrar/Chief Executive Officer of the respondent bank and therefore the enquiry conducted is vitiated and domestic enquiry was not conducted as per bye law no.19 of the Special Bye Laws governing the service conditions/regulations of the employees of the respondent bank. g) Moreover, the Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent herein is below the rank of Deputy Registrar/Chief Executive Officer of the respondent bank and therefore the enquiry conducted is vitiated and domestic enquiry was not conducted as per bye law no.19 of the Special Bye Laws governing the service conditions/regulations of the employees of the respondent bank. h) Moreso, the charges framed against the petitioner pertains to series of acts over a period of 7 years during which the petitioner had acted as Chief Executive Officer and during these 7 years, 2 (Two) Managing Committees and 3 Chairmans have changed and it is unfair on part of respondent to consolidate all charges without pointing out any of those at the appropriate time and this was only done to magnify the case out of proportion with the objective to punish the petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition. 4. The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th Respondent, in particular, at Paras 16, 19, 21, 27, 29 read as under : “16. In reply to Para 5 (f) it is submitted that as per model service rules of the Bank clause f(ii) of Rule 22, "No employee shall proceed on leave without prior sanction of such leave by the competent authority". For cadre-I of the Bank Staff, the casual leave sanctioning authority is the Chairman of the Bank. The petitioner has violated the service rules of the bank and behaved on his own accord and he stated that there is no need to obtain prior permission of the President of the Bank for applying casual leave and therefore it does not tantamount to indiscipline. This shows that he is not aware of service rules of the Bank. 19. In reply to Para 5 (i) it is submitted that as per the Bank Bye-laws No. 31, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank is held responsible for every consequence. The Chief Executive Officer is the guardian of the Bank. If any employee misutilizes his powers the Chief Executive Officer shall initiate action, otherwise be will be held responsible for all consequences. The petitioner has not performed his legitimate responsibilities in the Bank. The Chief Executive Officer and the concerned Clerk are responsible for recovery of assets. The cost of CPUs are to be recovered from both the Chief Executive Officer and the concerned Clerk besides taking disciplinary action. The petitioner has not performed his legitimate responsibilities in the Bank. The Chief Executive Officer and the concerned Clerk are responsible for recovery of assets. The cost of CPUs are to be recovered from both the Chief Executive Officer and the concerned Clerk besides taking disciplinary action. The contention of the petitioner that night watchman of the Bank has been placed under suspension in this issue is not true as the bank has not placed the night watchman under suspension. 21. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that 12 charges (i.e. Charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and 16) are proved against the petitioner. As per the Bank Bye-law No.28 (XXV) the managing Committee of the Bank is competent authority to take action with the approval of the Registrar. The Managing Committee has gone through the relevant material available on record, Domestic enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice issued to the individual and replies of the charged officer and observed that 12 charges are held proved against the charged officer, which are of grave nature. It attracts service rule SI. No. 19 of Employees Service Rules of the Bank. Hence, the managing Committee has proposed punishment under Sub-Rule-II (a) of Rule 19 i.e., Dismissal from service. The C.C. & R.C.S. A.P., Hyderabad vide proc. Rc. No. 26666/2010-UT-1, dated 02.06.2011 accorded permission to the Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar for dismissal from service as required as per Bye-law No.28(XXV) of the Bye-laws of the Bank. The Managing Committee of the Bank in its meeting held on 13.06.2011 perused the proceedings, dated 02.06.2011 of the C.C. & R.C.S. A.P. Hyderabad and passed a resolution confirming the punishment of Dismissal from service passed in the managing Committee meeting held on 01.02.2010. Accordingly, the President, Staff Disciplinary Committee, Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar, vide Rc. No. 4987/10, dated 13.06.2011 issued orders imposing a punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. It is a fact that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (ie., Managing Committee) on 27.06.2011 and the Appellate Authority examined his appeal and after hearing him in person on 26.12.2011 rejected his appeal and the President of the Bank vide Lr. No. 237/2012, dated 02.01.2012 intimated the same to the petitioner. 27. It is a fact that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (ie., Managing Committee) on 27.06.2011 and the Appellate Authority examined his appeal and after hearing him in person on 26.12.2011 rejected his appeal and the President of the Bank vide Lr. No. 237/2012, dated 02.01.2012 intimated the same to the petitioner. 27. In reply to Para 7 (f) it is submitted that the enquiry officer who conducted domestic enquiry has opined that the Chief Executive Officer has signed in the gold applications of the following to loanees: 1. Cherukupalli Ravi, S/o Ramaswamy Rs. 50,000.00 2. Cherukupalli Uma, W/o Shiva Rs. 50,000.00 The Enquiry Officer made the Chief Executive Officer/Petitioner liable to restore Rs. 1,00,000.00 with interest to the Bank. The Enquiry Officer has stated that the other 3 loan applications amounting Rs. 1,07,000.00 were processed and signed by the Chief Executive Officer and the Accountant and as such they were found responsible jointly and severally to restore the amount with interest proportionately in the event of non-recovery of loan amounts in full from the loanees by initiating disciplinary action against both of them as per registered bye-laws of the Bank. The Deputy Registrar/ Divisional Cooperative Officer, Jagtial/Enquiry Officer who conducted statutory enquiry U/s. 51 of the APCS Act, 1964, has made all the concerned officials including the Chief Executive Officer/Petitioner, jointly and severally responsible for recovery of five gold loans amounting Rs. 2,07,000.00 and findings of the statutory enquiry are binding on the concerned. Disciplinary action has been initiated against the Accountant also by way of issuing charge memo to the Accountant who involved in this issue. As such the contention of the petitioners that no action is initiated against the Accountant is not correct. 29. In reply to Para 7 (h) it is submitted that the petitioner stated in his reply dated 15.06.2009, to the President, that he placed his leave application in tappals of the Bank for a period from 09.09.2008 to 14.09.2008 and he has further extended his leave up to 22.09.2008. As per the Bank service rules every employee must obtain prior permission from competent authority to proceed on leave and the petitioner is a high ranking officer. He ought to have obtained prior permission from the authority before proceeding on leave. No other officer is higher than the petitioner in the bank. As per the Bank service rules every employee must obtain prior permission from competent authority to proceed on leave and the petitioner is a high ranking officer. He ought to have obtained prior permission from the authority before proceeding on leave. No other officer is higher than the petitioner in the bank. Being an officer in high rank he has violated service rules of the Bank. 5. The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1, 2 and 6, in particular, Para No.8 reads as under : “Para No.8: It is respectfully submitted that as stated above, out of to charges framed against the petitioner, 12 charges were proved in the domestic enquiry conducted which are of grave in nature. The staff Disciplinary committee of the Bank. imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner in accordance with service rules of the Bank and issued order vide Re.No.4987/10,D: 13.6.2011 and on an. appeal preferred by the petitioner, the 34 Respondent ie, appellate authority vide Lr.Re.No.237/2012, Dated:2.1.2012 confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner from service of the 4 respondent Bank as per its byelaws. The orders impugned in the present writ petition are well considered and does not warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It is submitted that no relief is sought against the respondents I and 2 herein and there is no valid cause of action against them. PERUSED THE RECORD : DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 6. A bare perusal of the material on record indicates that a show cause notice dt. 12.03.2010 vide Rc No.5209/2010, had been issued against the Petitioner Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent Bank i.e., Karimnagar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar, alleging that certain grave illegalities had been committed in sanction and disbursement of gold loan and lack of supervision and poor performance resulting in financial loss to the bank, framing a set of 16 charges against the Petitioner. A charge Memo has been issued to the Petitioner framing 16 charges, and out of the said 16 charges framed against the Petitioner, 12 charges have been proved against the Petitioner by the 6th Respondent who had been appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry on the charges levelled against the Petitioner and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his enquiry report and based on the findings of the domestic enquiry report disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In response to letter dated 16.09.2008 to order an enquiry U/s.51 of the APCS Act, 1964, the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Karimnagar, vide Proceedings dated 07.05.2009 appointed the 6th Respondent herein as Enquiry Officer and the said Enquiry Officer conducted statutory enquiry and submitted enquiry report to Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Karimnagar and adequate opportunity had been provided by the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner herein and the deposition of the Petitioner on the charges framed were recorded and the domestic enquiry conducted duly examining the record furnished by the Bank. The Enquiry officer in his statutory enquiry report under Gold Loan Advancement on fake gold observed that the staff who performed the duties of joint custodians of the gold in KCUB Ltd., Karimnagar H.O., on the date of hypothecation of the gold of the 5 loanees (mentioned therein) and the CEO of the bank are equally responsible for the loss caused to the bank and that the loan amounts of Rs.2,07,000/- advanced to 5 loanees on fake gold is recoverable from the Petitioner and staff who discharged the duties of the joint custodian on the date of hypothecation including the appraiser besides initiating disciplinary action against them as per the service rules of the bank. 7. Based on the findings of the Domestic Enquiry Officer disciplinary action has been initiated and dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner. The Domestic Enquiry officer in his report observed that the disciplinary action against the CEO be initiated and accordingly disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner herein and the order of dismissal dt. 13.06.2011 in Proceedings No.Rc.4987/ 2010, is passed by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner. 8. The Domestic Enquiry officer in his report observed that the disciplinary action against the CEO be initiated and accordingly disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner herein and the order of dismissal dt. 13.06.2011 in Proceedings No.Rc.4987/ 2010, is passed by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner. 8. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned order dated 02.01.2012 vide Letter No.237/2012 passed by the 3rd Respondent is the proceedings rejecting the Appeal of the Petitioner preferred against the order of dismissal dated 13.06.2011 it is observed as under : i. Based on the findings of the Domestic Officer disciplinary action has been initiated against the Petitioner. ii. The Petitioner failed to implement the banking Rules. iii. The Petitioner failed to protect the assets of the bank. iv. As CEO Petitioner failed to exercise proper supervision and to get requisite formalities of furnishing of security by appraiser of gold ornaments at Karimnagar Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., Jagityal Branch and as CEO the Petitioner is responsible for all the fake gold loans sanctioned by the bank. v. The Petitioner had a role in waiving the loan interest and had no power to do so and thereby violated RBI guidelines. vi. The Petitioner failed to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to proceed on leave. vii. Petitioner failed to perform the legitimate responsibilities in the bank as guardian of the bank by initiating appropriate action against employees who misutilized his powers. 9. This Court opines that the Petitioner having accepted the Notice issued by the Enquiry Officer and having submitted his deposition cannot at this stage question the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, as not proper, having subjected himself before the 6th Respondent in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the plea of the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer is below the rank of Dy. Registrar/ Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent Bank and therefore the enquiry conducted by him vide letter No.Rc.4/2009/DE, dt. 19.12.2009 is vitiated is not sustainable and the same is rejected. 10. The Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 22.03.2022, reported in (2022) Livelaw (SC) 304, in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos.1763 – 1764 of 2022, at para 17 observed as under : “17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos.1763 – 1764 of 2022, at para 17 observed as under : “17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 11 However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. 11. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. 11. This Court opines that none of the tests 1 to 4 as referred to at para 17 of the recent judgment of the Apex Court dated 22.03.2022 reported in 2022 Live Law SC 304 in State of Karnataka and others v Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 have been attracted warranting interference of the High Court in the present case except the 5th test that the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct and taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the charges framed against the Petitioner do not pertain to a single act and pertain to several acts of mismanagement, negligence, dereliction of duty as pointed out under various charges which admittedly had not been pointed out against the Petitioner instantly from time to time and they pertain to series of acts over a period of 7 years during the tenure of Petitioner as CEO of the 5th Respondent Bank and consolidating all the charges the punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed against the Petitioner which is unfair and further duly considering the fact that when allegations against two or more persons are made disciplinary proceedings against all should be initiated, but in the present case the Petitioner is alone targeted and is held liable without initiating disciplinary proceedings against all concerned. This Court opines that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 and also as held by Rajasthan High Court in Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2000) SCC Online Raj 434 and in Saral Kumar Sharma vs. Canara Bank reported in (2008) SCC Online Raj. 901. This Court for the above said reasons finds reason to direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein to reconsider the punishment of dismissal from service of the K.C.U.B. Ltd., Karimnagar, vide order dt. 13.06.2011 in Proceedings No.Rc.4987/ 2010, passed by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner and also the order dt. 901. This Court for the above said reasons finds reason to direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein to reconsider the punishment of dismissal from service of the K.C.U.B. Ltd., Karimnagar, vide order dt. 13.06.2011 in Proceedings No.Rc.4987/ 2010, passed by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner and also the order dt. 02.01.2012 vide Letter No.237/2012 passed by 3rd Respondent, confirming the same within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to in this paragraph No.5, and also the observations of this Court in the present order and pass appropriate orders duly communicating the decision to the Petitioner. 12. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.