JUDGMENT : S.K. Medhi, J. The instant intra court appeal is preferred from a judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 184/(AP)2019. 2. The appellants are the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank and its Chairman. 3. The instant case has a chequered history. 4. The respondent/writ petitioner was the Branch Manager of the Basar Branch of the respondent Bank against whom a disciplinary proceeding was initiated under the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Officers’ and Employees Service Regulation, 2001. 5. The writ petitioner, who was placed under suspension was issued a Show-cause notice on 20.03.2009, which he had replied. Thereafter, a Charge-sheet was submitted to him on 06.05.2009, which was also replied on 19.05.2009. An enquiry was thereafter initiated and the charges being held to be proved except charge no. 3, a major penalty of removal from service along with fine of Rs.6,28,160/- with interest @ 14 % pa was imposed upon the writ petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2010. The Departmental appeal of the writ petitioner being rejected which was also followed by rejection of his application for review, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C)206(AP)/2012. 6. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 had interfered with the impugned action, however, a liberty was given to initiate a disciplinary proceeding afresh. Accordingly, on 06.06.2017, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service and a de novo enquiry was initiated by appointment of an Enquiry Officer. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the consequential benefits were not given to him and in view of the pendency of the criminal case initiated against him under Section 409 of the IPC, which was in the stage of trial, the writ petitioner had made a request for keeping the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance. However, the request was not acceded to. As a result thereof, the writ petitioner had participated in the proceedings, whereafter, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report. The disciplinary authority vide communication dated 01.05.2018 had sought the views of the writ petitioner on the report, which was given on 08.05.2018. Subsequently, on 02.06.2018, the disciplinary authority communicated the proposed penalty and after submission of the reply of the writ petitioner, it passed the order of penalty. It is the case of the writ petitioner that though charge no. Subsequently, on 02.06.2018, the disciplinary authority communicated the proposed penalty and after submission of the reply of the writ petitioner, it passed the order of penalty. It is the case of the writ petitioner that though charge no. 3 was held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the said findings. 7. Though the writ petitioner had preferred a Departmental appeal on 30.06.2018, the same was not disposed of and accordingly, a second writ petition was filed being WP(C) No. 136(AP)2019. This Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent bank to consider and dispose of the appeal. Consequently, vide communication dated 07.05.2019, the petitioner was informed that his appeal was dismissed. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 8. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the report of the disciplinary proceeding dated 01.05.2018 and the order of punishment dated 02.06.2018. Consequently, it was directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Since it was informed that the writ petitioner had, in the meantime, surpassed the age of superannuation, it was directed that he will be entitled to retirement benefits and the same were to be settled within a period of 3 (three) months. The learned Single Judge had however, clarified that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed afresh if the same is permissible under the law. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings and directions, the present appeal has been preferred. 10. We have heard Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard Shri G. Bhol, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, who has appeared through video conference. 11. The materials placed before us have been carefully perused. 12. Shri Panging, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment had taken into consideration certain facts which were not even pleaded. He submits that though the documents relied upon have exceeded the list which was given along with the memo of charge, the writ petitioner was given access to those documents at the time of the enquiry and more importantly, the writ petitioner did not raise the issue of suffering any prejudice. He submits that though the documents relied upon have exceeded the list which was given along with the memo of charge, the writ petitioner was given access to those documents at the time of the enquiry and more importantly, the writ petitioner did not raise the issue of suffering any prejudice. There is no pleading in the writ petition that the appellate authority also consisted of the disciplinary authority. He otherwise submits that since the appellant authority is the Board of which the disciplinary authority was a part, the doctrine of necessity would be applicable. 13. He submits that bias is not a ground pleaded and since the writ petitioner has surpassed the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019, no relief was legally entitled to him. Shri Panging, learned counsel categorically submits that most of the allegations were duly proved and though the interreference by the learned Single Judge was made on 3 (three) grounds, there were no pleadings to that effect. The three grounds are (i). that the Enquiry Officer was junior to the petitioner in rank; (ii). That the disciplinary authority was part of the appellate authority and (iii). Non-furnishing of certain other documents. He submits that on the other hand, the statement of defense of the writ petitioner would show that all the allegations were in fact admitted and only certain explanations were sought to be given. It is also submitted that the petitioner being a Branch Manager deals with public money and holds an officer of trust and therefore, a higher degree of integrity is required. 14. Additionally, Shri Panging submits that on 01.05.2018, the entire records of the disciplinary proceedings were given to the writ petitioner and on 06.06.2017, he was reinstated pursuant to the earlier order of this Court. 15. In support of his submission, Mr. Panging, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the case of Ganesh Santaram vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 13 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the requirement of higher standards of honesty and integrity of a bank official. It has also been laid down that acting beyond one’s power is also a misconduct. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow : 33. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on para 14 of the above judgment. It has also been laid down that acting beyond one’s power is also a misconduct. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow : 33. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on para 14 of the above judgment. Relying on the above passage, Mr Salve submitted that the appellant, the Branch Manager of a Bank is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity when he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers and, therefore, he is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. According to Mr Salve, good conduct and discipline are inseparable for the functioning of every officer, manager or employee of the bank, who deals with public money and there is no defence available to say that no loss or profit resulted in the case, when the manager acted without authority and contrary to the Rules and the Scheme which is formulated to help the educated unemployed youth. Mr Salve's above submission is well-merited acceptance and we see much force in the said submission. 34. The bank manager/officer and employees of any bank, nationalised/or on-nationalised, are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and a misconduct. In the instant case Charge 5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant Rule which prohibits the bank manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant did not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realised the mistake later and tried to salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decision. Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and, therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as bank manager. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decision. Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and, therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as bank manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the appellate authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before concluding, we may a usefully rely on the judgment Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal wherein this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 614, para 10) "If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal." 16. He has also relied upon the case of the State Bank of India vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 316 , wherein, on the ground of non-submission of documents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that prejudice is required to be pleaded and proved. 17. Per-contra, Shri G. Bhol, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has submitted that the judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity and the same has been passed by considering all the materials on record. He submits that the writ petitioner is facing an ordeal for a long period of time starting from 2009 and in spite of interference by this Court on two earlier occasions, he has been sought to be deprived of the fruits of the judgment passed by this Court. 18. He refutes that the charges were not disputed by him and submits that providing of explanation cannot amount to an admission of charge. He further submits that as many as 47 (forty-seven) documents which were relied upon were not furnished to his client and therefore, he was deprived from a fair opportunity to defend his case. 19. 18. He refutes that the charges were not disputed by him and submits that providing of explanation cannot amount to an admission of charge. He further submits that as many as 47 (forty-seven) documents which were relied upon were not furnished to his client and therefore, he was deprived from a fair opportunity to defend his case. 19. Rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before us have been carefully perused. 20. We have already noted that the learned Single Judge, while interfering with the impugned action has given liberty to the bank to initiate a fresh proceeding if permitted by law. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appellant bank has not been totally deprived of to initiate the proceeding. 21. While going through the records, we have also noticed that while forwarding the report of the enquiry officer vide letter dated 01.05.2018, which was pursuant to the earlier judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2017, the disciplinary authority has already expressed his mind on such findings and in fact, it is the findings of the disciplinary proceeding which was forwarded. 22. While the requirement of affording an opportunity to show-cause on the proposed penalty is not mandatory, which is in sync with the 42nd amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, what is essentially required is a fair and reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to place his views on the Enquiry Report, especially on the findings which are against him. 23. It is only after such response is made or due opportunity given to make such a response that the disciplinary authority can express his views regarding the findings of the enquiry. In this connection, the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 24. There is another aspect in this connection, inasmuch as, charge no. 3 was held to be not proved in the enquiry. Though the disciplinary authority would be within his jurisdiction not to concur with such findings favourable to a delinquent, there is a requirement in law to give an opportunity to the delinquent on such tentative disagreement. 24. There is another aspect in this connection, inasmuch as, charge no. 3 was held to be not proved in the enquiry. Though the disciplinary authority would be within his jurisdiction not to concur with such findings favourable to a delinquent, there is a requirement in law to give an opportunity to the delinquent on such tentative disagreement. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the cases of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 25. These two vital aspects which would go towards declaring the proceeding unsustainable in law do not seem to have been considered. 26. In any case, in an intra court appeal, the scope of interference is within otherwise limited and only because another view is available, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not required to be substituted if such view is based on the materials on record. 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 184/ (AP)2019. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 29. However, the liberty granted by the said judgment would still be available to the appellant bank to initiate the proceeding de novo. It is, however, clarified that such de novo proceeding would be from the stage of submission of the Enquiry Report, whereby, the writ petitioner is required to be given an opportunity to place his views with regarding to the findings against him. Further, to avoid causing of prejudice to either of the parties, the incumbent, who was the disciplinary authority who had passed the impugned order of removal may not act as the disciplinary authority in the de novo proceeding and any officer of equivalent rank and competent to act as a disciplinary authority be appointed for the said purpose. The aforesaid observation is made taking into consideration that the nature of the charges is grave, especially against the bank officer who holds a position of trust and discharges fiduciary responsibilities.