JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. By way of present writ-application, the writ-applicant herein, a former Chief Manager at the Jamnagar Branch of the Central Bank of India has challenged the order dated 6.5.1994 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ-applicant from service and subsequent order dated 19.1.1995 by the appellate authority confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and order of the Chairman and Managing Director dated 24.7.2003. It is further prayed that respondent bank be directed to consider the writ-applicant as having been regularly superannuated on 31.10.1993 and to pay to the writ-applicant all consequential retiral benefits considering the writ-applicant’s superannuation as regular retirement alongwith the interest. 2. The writ-applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs :- “(a) Be pleased to allow this writ petition. (b) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 6/5/1994 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service and subsequent order dated 19/1/1995 by the appellate authority confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and order of the Chairman and Managing Director dated 24/7/2003. (c) Be pleased to declare that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the present petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondent bank to consider the petitioner as having been regularly superannuated on 31/10/1993 and to pay to the petitioner all consequential retiral benefits on account of his regular superannuation. (d) Be pleased to direct the respondent bank to pay to the petitioner all outstanding amounts due to the petitioner with rate of interest as deemed fit by this Honourable Court. (e) Be pleased to grant exemplary cost of this writ petition. (f) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Brief facts germane for adjudication of the dispute in question read thus :- 3.1 The writ-applicant had originally joined the services of the respondent bank on 1.7.1952 as a Clerk and thereafter had been promoted to the post of officer in the year 1971. The writ-applicant thereafter became Branch Manager in the year 1973 and was promoted to scale B in the year 1975 and scale A in the year 1977, to scale III in the year 1980 and scale IV in the year 1986. The writ-applicant thereafter became Branch Manager in the year 1973 and was promoted to scale B in the year 1975 and scale A in the year 1977, to scale III in the year 1980 and scale IV in the year 1986. The writ-applicant has rendered 41 years of service with the bank and in these years except for the inquiry which led to his dismissal of the writ-applicant from the bank the writ-applicant has never been served with any memo or notice. 3.2 The writ-applicant assumed charge as Chief Manager, Jamnagar main office on 19.7.1986. The writ-applicant was transferred from Jamnagar main office on 19.2.1990 and on 20.2.1990 the writ-applicant joined as Chief Internal Auditor at Ahmedabad. The writ-applicant states that the period in question during which the alleged irregularities had taken place was between 19.7.1986 to 19.2.1990. 3.3 The writ-applicant states that while at Ahmedabad, the writ-applicant was served with a memo dated 14.7.1993 alleging procedural lapses committed by the writ-applicant during the writ-applicant’s tenure as Chief Manager at Jamnagar main office. The writ-applicant initially requested the Zonal Manager to inspect records of the case in question and after being permitted to examine the records the writ-applicant had filed the reply to the memo on 23.7.1993. The Zonal Manager by a confidential communication dated 19.3.1993 to the General Manager of the bank submitted that upon going through the draft article of charges and submission of imputation of misconduct it appears that the lapses alleged against the writ-applicant were procedural in nature. It was further stated that it was advisable that a memo be issued to the writ-applicant calling for explanation and thereafter if necessary to proceed against the writ-applicant, keeping in mind the fact that the present writ-applicant was to retire on 31.10.1993. Before issuing the charge sheet to the writ-applicant the Zonal Office had requested the approval of the Central Office, the Central Office vide telex message dated 25.6.1993 stated that as regards the charges leveled against the writ-applicant they were of non vigilance matter and therefore no approval was required. 3.4 The writ-applicant was thereafter served with the charge sheet on 12.8.1993 for the alleged procedural irregularity that had occurred for the period between 19.7.1986 to 19.2.1990. 4. The writ-application came to be dismissed by order dated 12.8.2006. 3.4 The writ-applicant was thereafter served with the charge sheet on 12.8.1993 for the alleged procedural irregularity that had occurred for the period between 19.7.1986 to 19.2.1990. 4. The writ-application came to be dismissed by order dated 12.8.2006. The writ-applicant herein filed a review application seeking review of the order dated 12.8.2006 dismissing the present writ-application on the ground to challenge the impugned order by filing LPA No.2164 of 2017 wherein the said Appeal came to be disposed of with a liberty in favour of the appellant – writ-applicant file LPA in case Misc. Civil Application is dismissed and/or subject to ultimate outcome of the MCA. The said MCA No.1 of 2016 came to be allowed and the order dated 12.8.2016 passed in the present writ-application came to be recalled and the SCA came to be restored to its original file. It is under the aforesaid, the present writ-application is taken up for final hearing. 5. Heard Mr. B. P. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Tanna Associate, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Bharat Jani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :- 6. Mr. B. P. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on grounds/submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant in the course of hearing which are on record. 6.1 Mr. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations as levelled in the charge sheet against the writ-applicant are all of procedural nature and there is no allegation against the present writ-applicant that due to such procedural lapses the bank has suffered any monetary loss or the writ-applicant had gained any undue advantage from the concerned party. In these circumstances, when the alleged number of charges against the writ-applicant refer to procedural aspects only without any adverse impact on the bank then in such circumstances in the humble submission of the present writ-applicant the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the present writ-applicant is grossly disproportionate. 6.2 It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time before issuance of charge sheet even the Central Office had stated that the inquiry against the writ-applicant was non vigilance matter meaning thereby that the charges may not be extremely serious. 6.2 It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time before issuance of charge sheet even the Central Office had stated that the inquiry against the writ-applicant was non vigilance matter meaning thereby that the charges may not be extremely serious. This aspect has also not been considered by the authorities deciding the fate of the present writ-applicant at the relevant point of time. 6.3 It is submitted that while imposing penalty the respondent authorities also ought to have considered the fact that the writ-applicant had put in 41 years of exemplary service with the bank. As stated herein above in all of these 41 years, there was not even a memo issued against the writ-applicant much less a charge sheet or any adverse order. As also stated herein above, the writ-applicant has received innumerable recommendation letters and prizes for the exemplary service rendered by him to the bank. 6.4 It is further submitted that the original disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had failed to consider this relevant issue and even the Chairman & Managing Director vide order dated 24.7.2003 pursuant to the order of this Honourable Court has also not considered this relevant issue and therefore in the humble submission of the present writ-applicant this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of dismissal imposed against the present writ-applicant and may be pleased to direct the respondent bank to impose any other penalty upon the present writ-applicant than the penalty of dismissal from service. 6.5 It is submitted that the respondent authorities also should have considered another relevant aspect which is related to the present issue i.e. in case of a person who has started his service and who is half way through his service life though imposition of penalty of dismissal/removal from service would result into economic death penalty for him and his family. 6.6 It is submitted that all the concerned authorities including the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the Chairman & Managing Director who passed order dated 24.7.2003 all have failed to consider the most relevant aspects of this issue i.e. even after the writ-applicant had left the Jamnagar main office of the bank where the alleged procedural lapses had taken place, for the same account where the procedural lapses had taken place the successors of the present writ-applicant with express consent from the Zonal Office had sanctioned Rs.2.75 crores to the same account where the procedural lapses had taken place. 6.7 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the writ- applicant herein is grossly disproportionate and not consumerate with the charges levelled against the writ-applicant herein and that the same be reduced and the writ-applicant herein be paid all the consequential retiral benefits treating the writ-applicant’s superannuation as regular retirement. Submissions on behalf of the respondent Bank :- 7. Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank relied on the charges levelled against the writ-applicant herein. Placing reliance on the same she submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present writ-application may not be granted, the respondent Bank having conducted departmental inquiry in legal, fair and proper manner in due consonance with the principles of natural justice. 7.1 She submitted that the impugned orders which are subject matter of challenge are concurrent in nature which require no interference. It is submitted that there is no error of law or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. There is no infirmity in the decision making process. In view thereof, the present writ-application deserves to be dismissed. 7.2 It is submitted that the writ-applicant on his own volition in para-2 of the writ-application has stated as under :- “After regular departmental inquiry the writ-applicant has been dismissed from the service.” The aforesaid admission is sufficient to dismiss the writ-applicant. She submitted that the punishment imposed on the writ-applicant is legal, just and proper. 7.2 It is submitted that the writ-applicant on his own volition in para-2 of the writ-application has stated as under :- “After regular departmental inquiry the writ-applicant has been dismissed from the service.” The aforesaid admission is sufficient to dismiss the writ-applicant. She submitted that the punishment imposed on the writ-applicant is legal, just and proper. 7.3 It is submitted that the seriousness of the charges having been proved, it is not in the interest of the Bank to retain the writ-applicant in service, therefore after following due process of law and conducting inquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice the writ-applicant was dismissed from the service. 7.4 It is submitted that the action of the respondent Bank is bonafide and legal. It is denied that the lapses on the part of the writ-applicant were of procedural nature only and that the Bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss. 7.5 It is submitted that the letters of appreciation relied upon by the writ-applicant herein are irrelevant in view of the charges levelled against the writ-applicant in the departmental inquiry. 7.6 It is submitted that the respondent Bank has taken into consideration all the relevant factors, therefore the so called suggestions and observations of the Zonal Manager is misconceived and irrelevant in view of the serious charges having been proved against the writ-applicant. The reference to inter-departmental correspondence is misconceived since the Bank has taken into consideration all the materials and relevant facts in the departmental inquiry which has to be read as a whole and not in distorted manner. 7.7 It is submitted that dealing with the averments made in the writ-application in para-3.14 wherein it is averred that the Special Civil Application No.10096 of 1995 was withdrawn with a liberty to approach appropriate authority of Bank way of representation. The remedy of filing writ-application is erroneously invoked and the same is analogous to the resjudicata, the present writ-application deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. 7.8 It is submitted that CMD has taken into consideration the relevant materials with respect to the disciplinary inquiry and passed appropriate order. It is submitted that the contention of the writ-applicant that no vigilance matters are irrelevant considering the serious charges which are proved against the writ-applicant. 7.8 It is submitted that CMD has taken into consideration the relevant materials with respect to the disciplinary inquiry and passed appropriate order. It is submitted that the contention of the writ-applicant that no vigilance matters are irrelevant considering the serious charges which are proved against the writ-applicant. 7.9 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders are passed upon granting opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant. Considering the documents on record and gravity of charges levelled against the writ-applicant which require no interference. Analysis :- 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge :- 9. The writ-applicant herein was served with a departmental charge-sheet for the following charges which read thus :- “(1) During the tenure of Shri Kotecha as Chief Manager of Jamnagar Branch, the party was sanctioned credit facilities as mentioned in Appendix A. As per the set rules of the Bank Shri Kotecha was supposed to monitor various accounts of the party and to conduct/arrange for the inspection of goods hypothecated to the Bank, periodically, in order to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. However, before allowing export packing credit advance to the party as also subsequently during the currency of the Export Packing Credit Advances, Shri Kotecha during his entire tenure, neither conducted the inspection of the goods hypothecated to the Bank himself nor arranged for the inspection through responsible officer of the Bank, except on 8.8.1989. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to report/disclose the stock higher than what they were actually holding as also to report/disclose old stock, through their stock statement and enabled the party to avail finance from the Bank against such inflated stock and old stock for which they were not entitled to. Thus, Shri Kotecha has failed to ensure end-use of Bank’s funds and jeopardised in the interest of the bank. (2) The party was being allowed Export Packing Credit Advance from time to time during the tenure of Shri Kotecha against the Stock hypothecated to the Bank through the statement of stock submitted by the party. Drawing power was being calculated on the basis of the stock statement. (2) The party was being allowed Export Packing Credit Advance from time to time during the tenure of Shri Kotecha against the Stock hypothecated to the Bank through the statement of stock submitted by the party. Drawing power was being calculated on the basis of the stock statement. Before allowing the advance against the stocks so hypothecated to the Bank, Shri Kotecha did not ask for the proof regarding the rate of various items mentioned in the stock statement and failed to ascertain the correct value of the stocks. Shri Kotecha not only failed to undertake this important job himself but also failed to ensure that this task of verification of the correct value of the stocks disclosed by the party was undertaken by the officers working in advances/cash credit/ Foreign Exchange Department, of the Branch. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to report/disclose the value of the stocks on higher side and enabled the party to avail advance against such over valued/inflated stock from the Bank for which the party was not entitled to. Thus Shri Kotecha has failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank instead of jeopardised it. (3) M/s.Paramount Meters Pvt. Ltd., was enjoying various credit facilities as mentioned in Appendix A. Shri Kotecha did not monitor the various accounts of the penalty properly. He did not arrange to maintain Export Packing Credit Account of the party separately but allowed to transfer the funds from Export Packing Credit Account to cash credit account of the party and thereafter allowed cash withdrawals for considerably large amount in the cash credit account of the party. During his tenure, Shri Kotecha allowed cash withdrawals in the cash credit account of the party aggregating to Rs.83,73,000 the details of Such cash withdrawals are mentioned in Appendix B. Before allowing the said cash withdrawals, Shri Kotecha did not look into the proper justification and genuineness of requirement of cash withdrawals in cash credit amount of the party. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure the same through the officers working in advances/cash credit department of the Branch. Thus Shri Kotecha did not ensure the enduse of Bank's funds and exposed the bank to great financial risk. (4) The party, being an exporter, was enjoying the benefits of duty draw back and cash incentives from the Government. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure the same through the officers working in advances/cash credit department of the Branch. Thus Shri Kotecha did not ensure the enduse of Bank's funds and exposed the bank to great financial risk. (4) The party, being an exporter, was enjoying the benefits of duty draw back and cash incentives from the Government. During the tenure of Shri Kotecha as Chief Manager of the Branch, the party had deposited the cheques as detailed in Appendix C, received by them against duty draw back and cash incentives, in their cash credit account and subsequently withdraw the amount of the said cheques, when the export packing credit account of the party was running in grossly out of order position. Shri Kotecha did not monitor the accounts of the party properly and failed to adjust/reduce the overdue outstanding balance of Export Packing Credit Account against the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and cash Incentives. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure that the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and Cash Incentives received by the party was appropriated against the over due outstanding amount of EPC Account by the officers working in the Department of the Branch. (5) The Export Packing Credit Advance allowed to the party was being disbursed by crediting/transferring the amount from Export Packing Credit Account to cash credit account of the party. During the tenure of Shri Kotecha several cheques aggregating to Rs.67,40,286.60 have been passed in the cash credit account of the party in favour of their parents company account as well as in favour of the allied concerns/concern of the same group and family members etc. The details of such payments are mentioned in Appendix D. Shri Kotecha neither himself nor through the officers working in credit Department of the Branch exercised proper control over the conduct of the party's account. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha enabled the party to divert huge funds from Export Packing Credit Account and cash credit account of the party to their parent company account and sister concerns account. (6) Export packing Credit Advance was allowed to the party against confirmed order from Vseaojuznoje Objedinenije Prommashexport, Moscow, USSR. In terms of the contract the party was required to supply particular number of water meters during the particular quarter. (6) Export packing Credit Advance was allowed to the party against confirmed order from Vseaojuznoje Objedinenije Prommashexport, Moscow, USSR. In terms of the contract the party was required to supply particular number of water meters during the particular quarter. The party availed the Export Packing Credit Advance against the contract but could not fulfill the same as per the Schedule. Though the amount outstanding in Export Packing Credit Account could not be liquidated fully from the proceeds of Export Bills, the party was allowed further export packing credit advance against the further contract/schedule without bothering to first liquidate outstanding amount. Shri Kotecha neither himself nor through the officers working in the credit department of the branch exercised proper control over the conduct of the EPC account of the party and allowed to continue such transaction repeatedly in the EPC Account. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to take undue pecuniary advantage by availing Export Packing Credit Advance for which they were not entitled to, as a result of which huge outstanding balance in EPC Account of the party remained unadjusted.” 10. The writ-applicant herein replied the aforesaid by denying the allegations levelled against the writ-applicant. An Inquiry Officer was appointed for the purpose of conducting the departmental inquiry wherein the Inquiry Officer held all the charges established against the writ-applicant herein. The writ-applicant thereafter was issued a show-cause notice along with the report of the Inquiry Officer. The writ-applicant filed his reply to the said report. 10. At this stage it is apposite to deal with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer having considered the charges framed against the writ-applicant herein and the reply filed by the writ-applicant herein which read thus :- “Charge No.1 : (1) During the tenure of Shri Kotecha as Chief Manager of Jamnagar Branch, the party was sanctioned credit facilities as mentioned in Appendix A. As per the set rules of the Bank Shri Kotecha was supposed to monitor various accounts of the party and to conduct/arrange for the inspection of goods hypothecated to the Bank, periodically, in order to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. However, before allowing export packing credit advance to the party as also subsequently during the currency of the Export Packing Credit Advances, Shri Kotecha during his entire tenure, neither conducted the inspection of the goods hypothecated to the Bank himself nor arranged for the inspection through responsible officer of the Bank, except on 8.8.1989. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to report/disclose the stock higher than what they were actually holding as also to report/disclose old stock, through their stock statement and enabled the party to avail finance from the Bank against such inflated stock and old stock for which they were not entitled to. Thus, Shri Kotecha has failed to ensure end-use of Bank’s funds and jeopardised in the interest of the bank. The same is proved at page-61 “No clinching evidence has been produced to adduce inflated stock of Rs.65/- 1acs at a particular point of time except ME-1/6 i.e. letter of party of 3.8.1990 wherein it has been admitted that over a period of 2.5 years they had been compelled to show inflated stock to avail facilities for execution of their expert orders as they suffered from liquidity branch. And this letter has been given when the CSO had already been relieved from the branch i.e. about six months after he left the branch. But there is enough documentary evidence in the form of MEs-1/5, 1/7, 2/1 which indicates that there was no mechanism available with the branch to verify the valuation of stock, instead whatever was mentioned in the stock statement, was accepted. The close scrutiny of the stock statements reveals that the items which are available in the following stock statements are valued at much higher prices than they were shown originally (ME-2/1). What is in doing this has neither been questioned by the branch nor explained by the party and it emboldened the party to inflate stock by revising the valuation upwards. No satisfactory evidence had been produced by the CSO to disprove this charge Yes, I agree that the inflation in stock had not occurred over night but it had been cleverly built up ever a period by putting to slumber the officials off the branch by not furnishing anything to them. No satisfactory evidence had been produced by the CSO to disprove this charge Yes, I agree that the inflation in stock had not occurred over night but it had been cleverly built up ever a period by putting to slumber the officials off the branch by not furnishing anything to them. In view of the above, it is sufficiently proved on the strength of the evidences led by P.O. that the CSO, during his entire tenure neither himself nor through the officers working in the Branch had carried out arranged for the inspection of the goods hypothecated to the Bank in EPC Alc of M/s. Paramount Meters Private Limited as a result of which the party could avail finance for which they were not entitled to, The CSO had totally failed monitor Export Packing Credit Ale of M/s. Paramount Meter Private Limited in ensuring endues of Bank's funds thereby jeopardized the interest of the Bank. While arriving at my findings all Mes and DEs have been perused and considered which have been mentioned explained in their respective columns No.2 & 3 of my findings under the head “Particular Exhibit Indicates”.” Charge No.2 : The party was being allowed Export Packing Credit Advance from time to time during the tenure of Shri Kotecha against the Stock hypothecated to the Bank through the statement of stock submitted by the party. Drawing power was being calculated on the basis of the stock statement. Before allowing the advance against the stocks so hypothecated to the Bank, Shri Kotecha did not ask for the proof regarding the rate of various items mentioned in the stock statement and .failed to ascertain the correct value of the stocks. Shri Kotecha not only failed to undertake this important job himself but also failed to ensure that this task of verification of the correct value of the stocks disclosed by the party was undertaken by the officers working in advances/ cash credit/ Foreign Exchange Department, of the Branch. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to report/disclose the value of the stocks on higher side and enabled the party to avail advance against such over valued/inflated stock from the Bank for which the party was not entitled to. Thus Shri Kotecha has failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank instead of jeopardised it. Thus Shri Kotecha has failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank instead of jeopardised it. The same is proved at page-63 “Documentary evidence No.DE-2/1 to DE-2/6 produced by the DR do not absolve the CSO of the Charge because they show comparative ratio of only one item i.e. Brass Scrap disclosed by the party only in one month i.e. August "89, between 2 a/as i.e. M's. PMP Ltd, And M/s. Parmeshwari Enterprises. Further the period of the stock statement of both the above parties is quite different i.e. August 89 and January-February 90, respectively. The close scrutiny of ME-212 G and ME-2/12 I and ME-2/1 A to G reveals that the party used to disclose: the rates of various items on higher side while repeating the said items in next Stock Statement, without justification. Thus it leads to believe that the party was over valuing the stock and availing excess finance to which it was not eligible. Observations on all DEs and MEs as sanctioned in Column No. 3 and 2 under the head "particular with indicates" of my findings have been considered while arriving at my finding.” Charge No.3 : (3) M/s.Paramount Meters Pvt. Ltd., was enjoying various credit facilities as mentioned in Appendix A. Shri Kotecha did not monitor the various accounts of the penalty properly. He did not arrange to maintain Export Packing Credit Account of the party separately but allowed to transfer the funds from Export Packing Credit Account to cash credit account of the party and thereafter allowed cash withdrawals for considerably large amount in the cash credit account of the party. During his tenure, Shri Kotecha allowed cash withdrawals in the cash credit account of the party aggregating to Rs.83,73,000 the details of Such cash withdrawals are mentioned in Appendix B. Before allowing the said cash withdrawals, Shri Kotecha did not look into the proper justification and genuineness of requirement of cash withdrawals in cash credit amount of the party. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure the same through the officers working in advances/cash credit department of the Branch. Thus Shri Kotecha did not ensure the enduse of Bank's funds and exposed the bank to great financial risk. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure the same through the officers working in advances/cash credit department of the Branch. Thus Shri Kotecha did not ensure the enduse of Bank's funds and exposed the bank to great financial risk. The same is proved at page-65 “The Argument of CSO/DR that the advances allowed in EPC A/cs, Have been transferred to C/C A/c. of the party as er Central Office guidelines would have stood ground and exercised proper control and supervision. But no such indication is available from from the documentary evidence led by CSO/DR. In the present case, the party was enjoying Cash Credit limit together with EPC limit and under such circumstances separate C/C or CD A/c. was required to be opened for transfer of EPC advances, in order to have proper check and control over the transactions in the A/c. and to monitor the A/c. Property. which the CSO had failed to do. Column No.14 and 15 of Audited Balance Sheet of the party as on 31.3.1990 (a) show the details: of manufacturing But it cannot be considered that all the payments were made in cash only. Further certain payments are of such nature for which EPC advance cannot be allowed. Similarly, DE-3/2 also does not indicate that the payments referred to in that very exhibits were made in cash. CSO/DR have failed to establish the said fact They because all of them cannot be considered as payments for procuring raw-material and manufacturing finished goods for export i.e. for which the export packing credit advance was allowed. In view of the above, it is sufficiently established that after transferring EPC advance allowed to M/s. PMP Ltd, to general Cash Credit Account of the party, CSO had allowed Cash withdrawals on various occasions for considerably large amount without looking to their proper justification and genuineness of their requirement and failed to ensure endues of Bank's funds. Examination of ME-2/31 reveals that the cash withdrawals had been utilized by the party for incurring expenses relating to M/s. Walker Anjaria & Sons P.Ltd. as admitted by the party. Examination of ME-2/31 reveals that the cash withdrawals had been utilized by the party for incurring expenses relating to M/s. Walker Anjaria & Sons P.Ltd. as admitted by the party. While arriving at my findings, all the MEs and DEs have been carefully perused and considered which have been mentioned/explained in their respective columns i.e. column 2 and 3 of my findings viz, "particular exhibit indicates" of my findings.” Charge No.4 : (4) The party, being an exporter, was enjoying the benefits of duty draw back and cash incentives from the Government. During the tenure of Shri Kotecha as Chief Manager of the Branch, the party had deposited the cheques as detailed in Appendix C, received by them against duty draw back and cash incentives, in their cash credit account and subsequently withdraw the amount of the said cheques, when the export packing credit account of the party was running in grossly out of order position. Shri Kotecha did not monitor the accounts of the party properly and failed to adjust/reduce the overdue outstanding balance of Export Packing Credit Account against the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and cash Incentives. Shri Kotecha also failed to ensure that the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and Cash Incentives received by the party was appropriated against the over due outstanding amount of EPC Account by the officers working in the Department of the Branch. The same is proved at page-68 “The CSO/DR have not put forth their arguments document-wise, but stated that the contracts of Export were backed by Export L/Cs and the same were in force as also the advances were observations are that:- - the facts regarding overdue amount after completion of the Export Contract and outstanding beyond 180 days have been sufficiently substantiate d as mentioned above, on the strength of the evidence produced by P.O. the export contract backed by L/C comes into picture only after shipment of goods is made. Here the case is different. Thus, it gets proved that the CSO had totally failed to monitor the advance accounts of the party in as much. as he did not arrange to get adjusted /reduced the overdue outstanding balance of EPC A/c. of the party against the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and Cash Incentives, instead allowed the party to withdraw the said funds, thereby did not ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. as he did not arrange to get adjusted /reduced the overdue outstanding balance of EPC A/c. of the party against the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and Cash Incentives, instead allowed the party to withdraw the said funds, thereby did not ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. Further more, ME-2/31 i.e. letter of the party to Zonal office, Ahmedabad reveals hat the party had neither been advised by the branch nor by the CSO to deposit the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and Cash Incentives in the Export Packing Credit A/e. of the party. Needles to mention here that all the Management Exhibits and Defence Exhibits s mentioned in column No.2 and 3 under the head "Particular Exhibit Indicates of my findings have been carefully perused and considered while arriving at my findings.” Charge No.5 : The Export Packing Credit Advance allowed to the party was being disbursed by crediting/transferring the amount from Export Packing Credit Account to cash credit account of the party. During the tenure of Shri Kotecha several cheques aggregating to Rs.67,40,286.60 have been passed in the cash credit account of the party in favour of their parents company account as well as in favour of the allied concerns/concern of the same group and family members etc. The details of such payments are mentioned in Appendix D. Shri Kotecha neither himself nor through the officers working in credit Department of the Branch exercised proper control over the conduct of the party's account. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha enabled the party to divert huge funds from Export Packing Credit Account and cash credit account of the party to their parent company account and sister concerns account. The same is proved at page-70 The arguments regarding impounding and transferring of 10 10 % of Export sales-proceed to holding company is not tenable at all because on scrutiny of the statement of EPC Alc. of the party (ME-1/10). I do not find any such transaction of EPC account transferring the funds from Export Proceeds to the holding company's account it cannot be considered as adherence to Central Office directions. The expenses towards job work had not been reflected in financial statements of the party produced as defence exhibit by the CSO / DR. As such, the arguments that payments were made for job work cannot be accepted. The expenses towards job work had not been reflected in financial statements of the party produced as defence exhibit by the CSO / DR. As such, the arguments that payments were made for job work cannot be accepted. Like-wise, borrowing from M's. Paramount Pistons is also not reflected in the particular financial statement. As such arguments of CSO/DR in that respect cannot be accepted for want of specific documentary evidence. The CSO / DR have drawn attention to DE-4/5 and DE-4/6 but on scrutiny of the said exhibits it is that the same do not support any arguments of CSODR. In the absence of any tangible/cogent evidence produced by CSO/DR to convince that the payments made to holding allied / concern of the same group family members related genuine trade transactions makes me to believe the funds had been ship honed of in a systematic manner by drawing the cheques withdrawals in favour of aforesaid allied concerns/ concern of same group/ family members etc. to the detrimental of Bank. Thus, the CSO had totally failed to ensure end-use of Bank's funds and jeopardized the interest of the Bank. I therefore hold the Charge No.5 as Proved after carefully perusing the documentary evidences produced by P. O. and D. R. during the course of Enquiry Proceedings and keeping in view the gist of MBs and DES recorded wherever necessary in the column No.2 and 3 i.e. "Particalar Exhibit Indicates" of my findings relating to this Charge. Charge No.6 : (6) Export packing Credit Advance was allowed to the party against confirmed order from Vseaojuznoje Objedinenije Prommash-export, Moscow, USSR. In terms of the contract the party was required to supply particular number of water meters during the particular quarter. The party availed the Export Packing Credit Advance against the contract but could not fulfill the same as per the Schedule. Though the amount outstanding in Export Packing Credit Account could not be liquidated fully from the proceeds of Export Bills, the party was allowed further export packing credit advance against the further contract/schedule without bothering to first liquidate outstanding amount. Shri Kotecha neither himself nor through the officers working in the credit department of the branch exercised proper control over the conduct of the EPC account of the party and allowed to continue such transaction repeatedly in the EPC Account. Shri Kotecha neither himself nor through the officers working in the credit department of the branch exercised proper control over the conduct of the EPC account of the party and allowed to continue such transaction repeatedly in the EPC Account. This inaction on the part of Shri Kotecha prompted the party to take undue pecuniary advantage by availing Export Packing Credit Advance for which they were not entitled to, as a result of which huge outstanding balance in EPC Account of the party remained unadjusted.” The same is proved at page-73” “To arrive at the findings with regard to charge No.6, I have carefully considered the documentary evidences ed led by P. 0. and D.R., written arguments of P. O. and DR/ CSO gist of MEs and DEs (relevant) recorded in column No.2 and3 i.e. "Particular Exhibit indicates" of my findings. After considering the documents produced by P.O. and DR. I observer that the party could not comply to the export in charge of the Branch failed to monitor the EPC Account of the party in as much as though the shipment as per the schedule fixed could not be made after allowing EPC advance either a he himself or through the officers working in the branch failed to ensure liquidation of the said advance and at the same time allowed further advances against future schedule. From ME-1/17, it is observed that in first and second quarter of 1988 the party was allowed advance more than the price of 20,000 water meters, to be supplied in one quarter. But during both the said quarter the party could not expert the water meters as per schedule. Further, when the circumstances as narrated above were prevailing in the account the CSO instead of asking the party to first liquidate the outstanding amount from expert proceeds, allowed the party further advance. Thus, even when the earlier advance was not liquidated of liquidated party, the party was allowed further advance and such transactions Were repeatedly allowed in each quarter, with the result, huge outstanding in EPC Account got built up. Even after the initial contract of supply of 60,000 water meters was fulfilled mach behind stipulated schedule, party. as on 28.3.1989. It was incumbent upon the CSO to get that outstanding amount first liquidated from expert proceeds before allowing further advance. Even after the initial contract of supply of 60,000 water meters was fulfilled mach behind stipulated schedule, party. as on 28.3.1989. It was incumbent upon the CSO to get that outstanding amount first liquidated from expert proceeds before allowing further advance. Bit the CSO had failed to do so as a result of which overdue outstanding in EPC Account of the party continued. Mere extension of contract does not entitle the party to withdraw the funds as per their own demand and CSO did not keep any control in allowing the funds for completion of expert contract when an outstanding of Rs.49,40,250 and id not exercise proper control over the account with the result outstanding of Rs.99.70 lacs continuously continued till he left the charge of the branch. Whatever experts had been made from July 1989 onwards and proceeds received there against had been allowed to be withdrawn instead of their being allowed towards the liquidation of existing outstanding of over Rs99.00 lacs. CSO/ DR while submitting their written briefs as not put forth the document wise arguments. However, they tried to establish that Expert Contract was extended from time to time and was backed by exper L/C. The arguments of CSO/DR that the expert contract was backed by Expert L/C has got no relevance with the charge. The same is related to post-shipment whereas in present case CSO had failed to get the preshipment advance liquidated and allowed further advance. It is established from the above that the CSO did not ensure and protect the interest of the Bank but jeopardized it as also prompted the party to take undue pecuniary advantage.” In light of the aforesaid, all the charges stood proved according to the inquiry authority. The same is summarized at page-73. While passing the impugned order the disciplinary authority also has considered the aforesaid and concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. While passing the impugned order the disciplinary authority has also considered all the six charges. 11. Considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and other materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 6.5.1994 dismissing the writ-applicant from service under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 12. While passing the impugned order the disciplinary authority has also considered all the six charges. 11. Considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and other materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 6.5.1994 dismissing the writ-applicant from service under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 12. It is apposite to refer to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, impugned order dated 6.5.1994 held thus (Page-94) :- “Z0/PRS: DAD:94-95/333 6/5/1994/ MEMO (ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER) Shri H.N.Awasthi, who was appointed as Disciplinary Authority in the Disciplinary proceedings taken against Shri N, G. Kotecha, Chief Internal Auditor (since retired) Ahmedabad Audit Zone, Ahmedabad, in pursuance to charge-sheet (Memorandum comprising of Articles of Charge & Statement of Imputation of Misconduct) No. ZO/PRS:DAD. 93-94:1826 dt. 12/8/93, has awarded the punishment of "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE to Shri Kotecha vide final order dt. 6/5/94. Shri Kotecha is informed that the above punishment is hereby inflicted on him and made effective w.e.f 31/10/93 ie. before Shri Kotecha retired from Banks' service, as per the final order of the Disciplinary Authority Sd/ (H. N. Awasthi) Zonal Manager” 12.1 The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order has dealt with each of the charge framed against the writ-applicant herein and has arrived at the following conclusion which read thus (page-99 to 110):- “In view of the above , the argument of CSO does not stand. Now I shall deal with each separately, charge, CHARGE NO-1: The gist of the charge is that the CSO did not ensure enduse of Bank 's funds and failed in monitoring the EPC Account of the party in as much as:- He failed to carry out/manage for the inspection of goods hypothecated to the Bank . He promoted the party (by his above inaction) to avail finance against inflated stocks. He promoted the party to avail finance against old stock. The Inquiring Authority has held charge No.1 as PROVED. While making his submissions dated 28.10.1993, the CSO has emphasised on the following points :- That he disputed ME 1/6 i.e. letter dated 3.8.1990 submitted by the party and argued that looking to the limit sanctioned and stock hypothecated, inflation of stock of Rs. 65 lacs was developed after he left the branch. While making his submissions dated 28.10.1993, the CSO has emphasised on the following points :- That he disputed ME 1/6 i.e. letter dated 3.8.1990 submitted by the party and argued that looking to the limit sanctioned and stock hypothecated, inflation of stock of Rs. 65 lacs was developed after he left the branch. That he issued office order for inspection of godown on nine occassions and that though he demanded for respective inspection report, he was not provided with the report by PO. That he kept ZO and C0 posted about the matter. That as observed in Inquiring Authority inspection was carried out in Cash Credit Account and not in EPC Account on 3.9.1986 and 31.3.1997. In fact, EPC Account was allowed on ly on 18.2.1988. That there was no fol low up at branch level subsequently and the limits were enhanced. after he left the charge. As regards the inaction in carrying out the inspection by CSO himself, it is sufficiently established that he had failed to do so during his entire tenure. As regard assuring this very task through the officers working in this branch observe that shri Kotecha had instructed the officers on 9 occasions but failed to get the assignment completed, as an incharge of the Branch. CS0 was allowed access to the entire relevant records but he had not produced any evidence in this regard. The contention of CSO with regard to observation of Inquiring Authority about inspection report dated 20.9. 1986 and 31.3. 1987 is not tenable at all because the relevant documents Were produced by the Defence Representative only and the inquiring authority while arriving at his findings has given justification to those documents. Here issuing the office order does not absolve the CS0 of the charge. As regard disclosing inflated stocks and availing finance there against by the party I observe that inquiring authority has relied on ME-1/5, 1/7 and 2/1. Out of those four documents ME 1/6 and 1/7 are confession letter of the party and the inspection report of Chief 0fficer, respectively. In both the Said documents irregularities with regard to inflated stocks have been reflected. CS0/DR had not taken objection before the said document ( ME 1/6) ( Was admitted as Management Exhibit. But now they have disputed that very document. The argument of CS0 is not acceptable at this stage. In both the Said documents irregularities with regard to inflated stocks have been reflected. CS0/DR had not taken objection before the said document ( ME 1/6) ( Was admitted as Management Exhibit. But now they have disputed that very document. The argument of CS0 is not acceptable at this stage. Similarly ME 1/7 which is God in Inspection report of Chief officer dated 7.7.1990 reflects the irregularities with regard to d is closing of stocks by the party . The said irregularities have been reported by the Inspecting officer On the basis of information provided by the Director of the company . The arguments of CSO do not absolve him of the charge. As regard allowing finance against old stocks, I observe that this very aspect has been Sufficiently proved on the strength of documentary evidence produced by presenting officer during the enquiry. I concur with the views of inquiring authority and hold charge no1 as PROVED. Considering the gravity of the misconduct, I impose the following punishment of Shri Kotecha for charge no.1. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" CHARGE NO 2:- The gist of the charge is that the CSO had failed to verify/arrange for verification of correct value of stocks disclosed by the party in stock-statement, which promoted the party to over value the stocks and to get finance against such stock, thereby jeopardised the interest of the Bank. The Inquiring authority has held the charge as PROVED CSO, while making his submissions dated 28.10.1993, has not raised any new point but pleaded that the evidences in favour of CS0 had not been Considered by the Inquiring Authority . The CSO has given stress on ME 2/12. On scrutiny of the said document, I observe that the same does not absolve the CSO of the charge. The particular document shows that the party while submitting stock statements in EPC Accounts On five occasions in February , March and April, 1988 had Submitted bills/ invoices of Brass Scrap: out of 12 occasions ( that too only in respect of one item ). As regard other arguments of CS0, I observe that the same had been sufficiently dealt with by the I.A. I concur with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. Looking to the gravity of acts of omission / commission, I impose the following penalty on Shrí Kotecha for charge no. 2. "REDUCTION OF BASIC PAY BY FOUR STAGES INTIME SCALE". As regard other arguments of CS0, I observe that the same had been sufficiently dealt with by the I.A. I concur with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. Looking to the gravity of acts of omission / commission, I impose the following penalty on Shrí Kotecha for charge no. 2. "REDUCTION OF BASIC PAY BY FOUR STAGES INTIME SCALE". CHARGE NO- 3: Gist of the charge is that Shri Kotecha had failed to keep proper control over the accounts of the party and; - allowed EPC advance by transferring the funds to C C Account of the party instead of maintaining separate EPC A/c. - allowed cash payment On Several occasions for considerably large amount in C.C. A/c. of the party, after the EPC advances were transferred to C.C. A/c. without looking into the justifications. The inquirying authority has held the charge as PROVED. In his submissions dated 28.10.1993, CSo has argued that the transfer of funds was allowed as per Central 0ffice/ RBI guidelines and that I.A. has imparted his imagination to back his false conclusion and thoughts about monitoring, controlling the account etc. whereas the charge is not about the same. Here, I observe that the argument of CSO is total ly incorrect because in the first sentence of articles of charge it is mentioned as Shri Kotecha did not arrange to maintain separate EPC Account of the aforesaid party to KEEP PROPER CONTROL .. As regard transfer of funds from EPC Account to C.C. Account I accept the argument of CS0. As regards allowing cash payment from C.C. A/c. of the party I observe that the charge is sufficiently proved on the strength of the documentary evidences produced by Presenting 0fficer, concur with the findings of Inquiring Authority. The other points raised by CSO in his submission have been properly dealt with by the IA. Considering my observations as recorded hereinabove, and taking into account the gravity of the acts of ommission/commission I imposed the foll owing penalty Shri Kotecha for charge no. 3. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" CHARGE NO- 4: The gist of the charge leveled against shri Kotecha is that be has failed to monitor C.C. and EPC Accounts of the party and did not ensure to get adjusted/ reduced over due outstanding balance of EPC Account from the proceeds of duty draw back and cash incentives. The Inquiring authority has held the charge as PROVED. The Inquiring authority has held the charge as PROVED. Main points raised by CS0 in his Submission dated 28.10,1993 and my observations thereto are as under :- That out of order position in account was Rs. 99,75,000 as per Appendix E. However, I.A. has found that amount as Rs.49,88,750/ (actually Rs.49,88,750/-) and nowhere he has arrived at that amount Here I observe that in second para of page no.10 of his findings the I.A. has made the mention about amount of Rs.49,28,750 outstanding even after which remained fulfillment of in itia1 contract of supply 60,000 water meters. On scrutiny of Appendix E itself, it is revealed that the particular amount was outstanding at the end of March, 1989 quarter, when 60,000 water meters had already been supplied by the party - As Such, I do not find any substance in the argument of the CSO. "That, I.A. has demonstrated his ignorance about packing Credit advance by stating that Export Contract backed by LC Comes into picture only after shipment of qoods. I agree that EPC advance is to be allowed against contract/Export L/C. But in the present case, the charge 1s different. Mere existence of valid contract and/or export L/C does not absolve CS0 of the charge for his failure to get adjusted/reduced over due outstanding of EPC Account from the proceeds of Duty Draw Back and cash incentives. The contention of inquiring Authority is correct. I Concur with the findings inquirying Authority. considering the gravity of the charge, I impose the following punishment shri Kotecha for charge no. 4. "REDUCTION OF BASIC PAY BY SIC INCREMENTS." CHARGE NO- 5: The gist of the charge is that shri Kotechahad failed to exercise proper control over the accounts as a result the party could divert huge funds from EPC A/c. (through C.C. Account) in favour of their parent company Account/allied Concerns/ concerns of same grop/family members etc. The inguiring authority has beld the charge as PROVED. While making his submissions dated 28.10.1993, Shri Kotecha, CS0 has not raised any new point but repeated their arguments that as mentioned in ME 1/6 Rs.60 lacs had been imponded by the Bank from the proceeds in order to cover up out of order position of the parent company Account of M/s Paramount Meters Pvt. Ltd. as per Central office instructions. The CSO has stated that the I.q. had hurriedly jumped over the concusion that the charge had been proved. Here I agree that the particular portion of export sales proceeds was impounded as per Central 0ffice instructins, but on the other hand, the EPC advance disbursed by transferring the amount to C.C. Account had been allowed to be diverted as mentioned in charge sheet. The Inquiring Authority while arriving at his findings has sufficiently dealt with each and every document produced and arguments put forth by P.0. as we11 as CS0/DR. I do not ind any substance in the argument of the CSO. Looking to the gravity of the acts of omission/commission, I impose the following penalty on Shri Kotecha for charge no.5. DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" CHARGE NO- 6: Gist of the charge is that shri Kotecha had failed to exercise control over EPC Account of the party and made advances against future con tract without bothering to first liquidate the existing outstanding in the Account . Such transactions were continued to be repeated thereby building huge unadjusted outstanding in EPC Account. The Inquirying authority has held charge as PROVED. While making his submissions with regard to the findings of I.A. the CS0 has not raised any new points. He has merely invited the attention towards their earlier arguments. On scrutiny of the relevant exhibits, arguments and findings of I.A. I observe that the I. A. has sufficiently dealt with and every point raised by CSO/ DR and held the charge as PROVED On the strength of the evidences led by Presenting. Officer. Considering the conduct of the account, it is very clear that the CS0 had continuously allowed finance against future contract, without bothering to first liquidate the earlier advance allowed in EPC Account I do not find any substance in the argument of CSO/ DR. I fully agree with the finding of the inquiring authority and hold the charge no.6 as PROVED. Looking to the gravity of the acts of ommissíon/ commission Committed by shri Kotecha I impose the following penalty on shri Kotecha for charge no. 6. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE". However, impose the following consolidated penalty on shri N.G. Kotecha. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India 0fficer Employees" (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976.” Shri Kotecha has retired from Bank service on 31. 10.1993. 6. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE". However, impose the following consolidated penalty on shri N.G. Kotecha. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India 0fficer Employees" (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976.” Shri Kotecha has retired from Bank service on 31. 10.1993. As informed to shri Kotecha, while he was in Bank's service, the aforementioned punishment is imposed on him with effect from 31.10.1993 that is before he retired from Bank's service. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- H.N. Awasthi. Disciplinary Authority Tos Shri N.G.Kotecha. By Registered Post A.D.” 13. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority, the writ-applicant preferred appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed by order dated 19.1.1995. 13.1 At this stage, it is apposite to refer to order dated 19.1.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority, relevant page-115 to 119 which read thus :- “The written briefs are permissible in terms the central Bank of India officer Employees' (Discipleine and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and it is not incumbent upon the presenting officer to put forthoral arguments to present the case in person) after producing evidences. In fact do not find any harm done to the appellant by this process as the written briefs are only to help the Inquiring authority for drawing inferences the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry. In fact, the Inquiring authority can draw those inferences even without the help of Written briefs. I, therefore, do not any Substance in the Contention of appellant. Yet another grievance is that personal hearing was not given to him. As per rules applicable to officers, no such hearing is required to be given. And as such, I do not find any force in his contention. CHARGE NO-1: In respect of this charge, I find that both the management and the defence were allowed to produce documents pertaining to the period prior and subsequent to the tenure of the appellant. While making submissions with regard to charge no.2, the findings in charge no.1 clearly specify of many inspections at several occassions. I do not find any substance in the contentions of the appellant in respect of this charge. The charge is rightly held as proved on the basis of the evidence led in the enquiry. While making submissions with regard to charge no.2, the findings in charge no.1 clearly specify of many inspections at several occassions. I do not find any substance in the contentions of the appellant in respect of this charge. The charge is rightly held as proved on the basis of the evidence led in the enquiry. CHARGE NO-2: The appellant has mentioned that Export contract was fully exhibited with the rate and total export value and that question of valuation was irrelevant is not Correct. Appendix E of the charge sheet shows that though the initial con tract was fulfilled, the addandums to the original con tract not fulfilled. The other points raised by the appellant is that there were no malafides and I find that the inquiring authority has rightly conducted the enquiry. I agree that the charge has been rightly held as proved. CHARGE NO- 3: The argument that cash withdrawals other than 41 transactions were of small amounts evidencing Sundry expenses is not correct. Management Exhibit no. 2/18 shows that the appe1lant is not correct. I find that out of 241 transactions of cash payment of Rs.83,73,000 the party had furnished the reason in 41 transactions amounting to Rs.30,90,000. However, the appellant does not deserve any relief in the overall context of the case. CHARGE NO 4: I find that most of the points raised by the appellant have already been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiring Authority I agree with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority and need not repeat the reasons for the same. CHARGE NO 5: I agree with the disciplinary authority and Inquiring Authority that the contention that payments were allowed for associate/family Concerns etc. and that transfer of funds was allowed in favour of the parent company account as per Central office instructions cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting evidence. There were instructions to impound ten percent of export bills proceeds. From the Management Exhibit, it is clear that 10% - 12% export bills were impounded and the remaining amount of the bills were credited to EPC account. Shri Kotecha allowed diversion of funds after the funds were transferred from EPC cash Credit account. Thus, I hold that he has been rightly held guilty of this charge. CHARGE NO-6: I find that this charge has no relevance to charge 4 and both are different in nature. Shri Kotecha allowed diversion of funds after the funds were transferred from EPC cash Credit account. Thus, I hold that he has been rightly held guilty of this charge. CHARGE NO-6: I find that this charge has no relevance to charge 4 and both are different in nature. I agree with the inquiring authority and Disciplinary Authority that this chage has been held as proved. I need not give my reasons as I am aggreable with the Disciplinary Authority. In respect if various charges, different punishment have been awarded to the appellant and I agree with the quantum of punishment in respect of each charge and consolidated punishment of Dismissal from service. The appeal is hereby dismissed and the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary shall continue to remain in Authority force. Sd/- J.N.Chinoy Appellate Authority. Datd January, 19,1995.” 14. Subsequent to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the writ-applicant thereafter preferred a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Bank of India, wherein the writ-applicant prayed that sympathy be shown towards him and the order of penalty of dismissal be substituted by any other punishment which may not disentitle the writ-applicant of his pensionary benefits and other benefits. The said representation came to be rejected by order dated 24.7.2003. 15. It is apposite to refer to the said order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director (page-129) which reads thus :- “Shri N.G.Kotecha’s representation dated 12/5/2003 has been put up to me alongwith all the relevant papers which I have perused carefully. My observations in this regard are as under : 1. A comprehensive charge-sheet dated 12/8/1993 was issued to Shri Kotecha vide which six specific charges were leveled against him. It is noticed that the said charges are serious in nature. 2. A fair and proper Regular Departmental Inquiry was conducted to find out the veracity of the said charges leveled against Shri Kotecha. In the said inquiry, Shri Kotecha was given full and free opportunity to defend his case. 3. The Inquiring Authority in the case submitted his detailed findings in the case holding all the charges leveled against Shri Kotecha as proved. The Disciplinary Authority concerned concurred with the findings submitted by the Inquiring Authority. 4. The findings of the Inquiring Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority are exhaustive, well reasoned and self explanatory. 3. The Inquiring Authority in the case submitted his detailed findings in the case holding all the charges leveled against Shri Kotecha as proved. The Disciplinary Authority concerned concurred with the findings submitted by the Inquiring Authority. 4. The findings of the Inquiring Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority are exhaustive, well reasoned and self explanatory. It is to be recorded here that neither the Inquiring Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority concluded the case summarily or in an arbitrary manner. 5. Based on the evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority concerned awarded the penalty of “dismissal” to Shri Kotecha. 6. Shri Kotecha preferred an Appeal there against and the Appellate Authority concerned after going through the record of the case confirmed the penalty by passing a Speaking Order. After going through the facts of the case as above, particularly the financial impact of the proven acts of misconduct on the part of Shri Kotecha on the Organisation, I have not been able to persuade myself as the head of a Public Sector Bank to show any sympathy in the case and alter the penalty that was awarded and confirmed by the independent authorities viz. Disciplinary Authority/Deputy General Manager and the Appellate Authority/General Manager respectively at different points of time. Hence, the request of Shri Kotecha to alter the penalty awarded to him stands rejected. Sd/- (DALBIR SINGH) CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR” 16. At that stage, the writ-applicant approached this Court by preferring the Special Civil Application No.10096 of 1995 challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority which came to be withdrawn by the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant reserving the right of the writ-applicant to approach the appropriate authority to consider the application that may be submitted by the writ-applicant and deal with the same sympathetically, liberty was also reserved in favour of the writ-applicant to challenge the said order, if passed against the writ-applicant. 17. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 6.5.1994 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ-applicant from the service and subsequent order dated 19.1.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 24.7.2003 of the Chairman and Managing Director the writ-applicant herein has preferred the present writ-application and has prayed for the reliefs, as referred above. 18. 18. The writ-applicant was served with a memorandum of charges on 12.8.1993, as referred above, the same is duly produced at Annexure-B at page-26. While passing the impugned order dated 6.9.1993 at page-95 the disciplinary authority considered all the charges levelled against the writ-applicant which stood proved and passed the order of dismissal from service. 19. Upon perusal of the charges levelled against the writ-applicant herein wherein all the charges stands proved against the writ-applicant, consequently upon such charges having been proved, the writ-applicant is dismissed from service. The competent authorities have concurrently held thus ; (a) The disciplinary authority upon close scrutiny of the proceeding held that the inquiry officer has given full opportunity to the writ-applicant to defend the case. (b) The inquiry officer had also given reasonable adjournment as and when asked by the writ-applicant. (c) The writ-applicant herein was allowed to inspect relevant record at the Branch for producing the evidence in defence. (d) The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer upon granting full and reasonable opportunity to the writ-applicant herein to defend the charges levelled against him. (e) It is further held that upon scrutiny of exhibits, arguments and findings, the Inquiry Officer has sufficiently dealt with each and every point raised by the writ-applicant and held the charge proved on the strength of the evidence led before the Presiding Officer. (f) It is finding of fact arrived by the disciplinary authority that the writ-applicant herein had continuously allowed finance against the future contract, without bothering to first liquidate the earlier advance allowed in EPC Account. 20. Considering the aforesaid and considering the gravity of the alleged charge levelled against the writ-applicant the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from the service under the Regulation-4 of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The aforesaid was subject matter of Appeal before he Appellate Authority wherein the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 19.1.1995 dismissed the said Appeal and punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was held to continue to remain in force. While passing the impugned order the Appellate Authority has also considered the documentary evidence on record and held that the six charges are proved against the writ-applicant. 21. While passing the impugned order the Appellate Authority has also considered the documentary evidence on record and held that the six charges are proved against the writ-applicant. 21. In light of the aforesaid, both the authorities have concurrently held that the inflation in stock had not occurred overnight but it has been cleverly built up over a period by putting into slumber the officials of the branch by not furnishing them anything. It is observed that out of four documents ME 1/6 and 1/7 are confession letter of party and inspection report of Chief Officer respectively. In both the said documents, irregularity with regard to inflated stocks have been reflected. 21.1 The competent authorities have further held that as regards allowing finance against old stock, the very aspect has been sufficiently proved on the strength of documentary evidence by presenting officer during the inquiry. Accordingly, the Charge No.1 stood proved. 21.2 The writ-applicant’s submission that the export contract was fully exhibited with the date and total export value, was irrelevant is negated by the competent authority. Reliance is placed on Appendix-E of the charge-sheet which shows that though the initial contract was fulfilled, the addendum of the original contract were not fulfilled. The charge against the writ-applicant with respect to transfer of fund from EPC Account to Cash Credit Account stands proved by allowing cash payment from CC Account of the party, it is observed that the charge is sufficiently proved on the strength of the documentary evidence produced by the presenting officer. Based on the said fact, the aforesaid charge No.3 having proved the order of dismissal from service came to be passed. 21.3 The competent authority further held that EPC advance is to be allowed against contract/Export/L/C, mere existence of valid contract and/or export L/C does not absolve the writ-applicant of the charge for his failure to get adjusted/reduced overdue outstanding of EPC Account from the proceeds of the Duty, Draw Back and cash incentives. The Charge No.4 stood proved accordingly i.e. reduction of basic pay by six increments. 21.4 The charge that the writ-applicant herein failed to exercise proper control over the accounts, as a result, the party could divert huge funds from EPC Account through CC Account in favour of their parent Company of the allied concerns/concern of the same group and family members etc. 21.4 The charge that the writ-applicant herein failed to exercise proper control over the accounts, as a result, the party could divert huge funds from EPC Account through CC Account in favour of their parent Company of the allied concerns/concern of the same group and family members etc. The said charges stands proved considering that particular portion of export sales proceeds were impounded as per Central office instructins, but on the other hand, the EPC advance disbursed by transferring the amount to C.C. Account had been allowed to be diverted as mentioned in charge sheet. The aforesaid finding is arrived upon considering every document produced, arguments advanced by both the put forth by the presiding officer as well as the writ-applicant. Consequently, punishment of dismissal from service came to be passed qua Charge No.5. 21.5 With respect to Charge No.6, the writ-applicant herein failed to exercise control over the EPC Account of the party and made advances against future contract without bothering to first liquidate the existing outstanding amount. Such transactions were continued repeatedly thereby building huge unadjusted in EPC Account. The aforesaid charge also proved upon the strength of evidence. The writ-applicant continuously allowed finance in future contract without bothering to first liquidate the earlier advanced allowed in the EPC Account. Considering the gravity of the aforesaid charge the competent authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, since the writ-applicant retired from service on 31.10.1993 while he was in service the punishment is imposed on the writ-applicant with effect from 31.10.1993 i.e. before the writ-applicant herein retired from the service. 22. In light of the aforesaid reasons, it is apposite to refer to the position of law. (a) In the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, reported in AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2188, paragraphs 29 to 33 read thus :- “29. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. 30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. 30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. 31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. 32. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect. 33. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect. 33. In entertaining and allowing the writ petition, the High Court has lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of judicial review and has in fact sat in appeal over the decision of the respondent No.2.” (b) In the case of Hari Prakash Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 512, paragraphs 25 to 27 read thus :- “25. The Appellants herein, before the impugned order passed by the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, had two concurrent findings in their favour by way of decisions rendered by the lower courts. The Appellants had proved their possession over the subject land by leading evidence, and the veracity of the same, by way of proper procedure, was tested by both the lower courts. The High Court, however, without evidence being led by the respondents, set aside the concurrent findings vide impugned order and judgment dated 04.02.2013. 26. This Court, in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse. 27. In the case of BK Muniraju Vs. State Of Karnataka, this Court, while expounding on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that the same cannot be used to re- appreciate evidence unless an error of fact appraised by the lower court is manifest and such an error has caused grave injustice.” 23. Considering the aforesaid position of law, as referred above, and considering the aforesaid findings arrived at by the competent authority having taken into consideration the documents on record, upon granting opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant herein. Considering the aforesaid position of law, as referred above, and considering the aforesaid findings arrived at by the competent authority having taken into consideration the documents on record, upon granting opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant herein. This Court also in light of the aforesaid concurrent findings arrived at by the competent authorities is not inclined to sit in appeal over the impugned order dated 6.5.1994 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ-applicant from the service and subsequent order dated 19.1.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 24.7.2003 of the Chairman and Managing Director. The writ-applicant herein approached the Chairman and Managing Director by preferring a sympathy application which also came to be declined considering the charge levelled against the writ-applicant. 24. For the aforesaid reason, also no interference is called for to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court does not find any procedural irregularity or any illegality having been committed in the departmental inquiry. The said inquiry is conducted by following the cardinal principle of natural justice. Once the charges levelled against the writ-applicant herein are proved, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-applicant that the respondent Bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss, does not weight with this Court in light of the fact that the aforesaid contention of the writapplicant herein was also considered by the competent authority wherein the writ-applicant herein stated that the charge related to only one account of M/s. Paramount Meters Pvt. Ltd., however there are as many as six charges levelled against the writ-applicant herein. The Appellate Authority has considered aforesaid contention and held that the charges relate to the advances account to one party and the writapplicant was charged for different acts of omission or commission committed by the writ-applicant in conduct of the captioned accounts and in view thereof there are different charges against the writ-applicant for which different punishments have been awarded and the quantum of punishment in respect to each charge and consolidated permission of dismissal from service is awarded and the same having been proved concurrently against the writ-applicant herein. 25. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for to to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present writ-application fails and is accordingly dismissed.