JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in Central Bank of India on basis of a selection proceedings conducted by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). He was granted appointment as Assistant Manager (Scale-1) and posted at Lucknow Zone in July, 2013. He was promoted as Officer Middle Management Grade (Scale-II) in April, 2016 and granted posting at Ahmedabad Zone and after working there till July, 2019, on his own request, he was transferred back to Lucknow Zone and posted as Manager (Scale-II Officer) at Branch Office Padleganj under Gorakhpur Region on 25.07.2019. Within few days, he was transferred and posted as Branch Manager at Branch Office Ramkola under Gorakhpur Region on 29.07.2019. In September, 2021, he was transferred to Lead Bank Office, Padrauna, Kushinagar where he lastly worked. An Internal Audit was conducted by Regional Branch Manager of Ramkola Branch where petitioner has worked as Branch Manager from 29.07.2019 to 22.09.2021 and a Regional Branch Internal Audit report was submitted in September, 2020, wherein number of objections were pointed out and according to petitioner, objections were rectified also and a compliance report was submitted by one Dharmendra Pandey on 03.03.2021. 2. Subsequently, a Checking Report of Audit Compliance of RBIA was obtained from one Ratnesh Ranjan, then posted as Senior Manager at Branch Office Padrauna, however, he has submitted an adverse report on 28.10.2021, that level of compliance was found unsatisfactory. 3. In pursuance of above reports, petitioner was served with a memo dated 02.11.2021 and an explanation was sought within a period of 7 days explaining the act of omission and commission mentioned therein as well as why disciplinary action be not initiated against him. 4. In response to above referred memo, petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 27.11.2021, however, it was not found satisfactory and Regional Manager proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated 27.01.2023 instituting a departmental proceedings against him with regard to Articles of Charge specified in Annexure-1 and 2 of said Memorandum. Annexure-1 levelled 58 charges against the petitioner based on Statement of Imputation of Misconduct specified with regard to each of said charge in Annexure-2. It was accompanied by list of Management documents and witnesses also. 5. On same day, Regional Manager appointed Mr. Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior Manager, Branch Office Padrauna as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry was conducted between 31.03.2023 to 13.07.2023 on various dates. It was accompanied by list of Management documents and witnesses also. 5. On same day, Regional Manager appointed Mr. Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior Manager, Branch Office Padrauna as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry was conducted between 31.03.2023 to 13.07.2023 on various dates. Preliminary proceedings were conducted between 31.01.2023 and 05.03.2023 and between 06.03.2023 and 25.05.2023. Presenting Officer produced total number of 1403 documents. Between 26.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, oral testimony of Ashutosh Vikram, Branch Manager, Ramkola Branch was concluded. The petitioner was provided a chance to cross examine him. The petitioner has presented total number of 637 documents. Proceedings were conducted on 05.07.2023, 06.07.2023, 07.07.2023, 10.07.2023, 11.07.2023, 12.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 and after cross examination, Presenting Officer as well as petitioner were granted 15 days’ time to submit defence brief of prosecution/defence. 6. According to petitioner, he was not examined i.e. his statement was not recorded though he has submitted a very detailed defence brief in written. 7. The Inquiry Officer after closing of inquiry proceedings submitted an Inquiry Report and served upon the petitioner with a covering letter dated 08.09.2023. The petitioner has submitted a very detail objection dated 29.09.2023 to Inquiry Report. On 08.11.2023, an order was passed by A.G.M., Stressed Assets Management/Disciplinary Authority inflicting a penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner constituting disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) "Regulations, 1976" (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1976”). 8. Petitioner being aggrieved by above referred order dated 08.11.2023 has submitted an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by an order dated 03.07.2024 though penalty of dismissal from service with a disqualification for failure employment was substituted by a penalty of removal from service. 9. Petitioner being aggrieved by said order filed a Review Petition under Regulation 18 of "Regulations, 1976" before General Manager, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, however, it was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2025. 10. Aforesaid orders dated 08.11.2023, 03.07.2024 and 05.03.2025 are impugned in this writ petition. 11. With consent of learned advocates for rival parties, this writ petition was finally heard without exchange of pleadings since petitioner has filed all relevant documents along with the writ petition which is running into about 1400 pages (Volume I to VII). 12. 10. Aforesaid orders dated 08.11.2023, 03.07.2024 and 05.03.2025 are impugned in this writ petition. 11. With consent of learned advocates for rival parties, this writ petition was finally heard without exchange of pleadings since petitioner has filed all relevant documents along with the writ petition which is running into about 1400 pages (Volume I to VII). 12. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-bank have filed their written submissions reiterating their oral arguments presented at length. 13. Petitioner was charged with 58 charges. Charges No. 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 were related as many as 413 CKCC loan accounts wherein serious irregularities were committed. For reference, aforesaid charges are quoted below :- “ Charge No.48 Mr. Md. Tarique had sanctioned & disbursed 54 CKCC limits in excess of actual land holding of borrower. He had manually prepared process notes in loan files where he had considered higher land holding for evaluating CKCC limits. Thus, he had abuses his lending powers as a Branch Manager, done reckless financing, concealed the facts from Higher Authorities & Violate the Loan Policy. Charge No.49 Mr. Md. Tarique had sanctioned & disbursed 50 CKCC accounts to borrowers who had availed limits with other financial institution (case of double finance) which were reflected in Khatauni/CIC reports. Thus, he did not follow the norms of lending and did uot carry out proper due diligence and KYC of the borrower and abuses his lending powers. Charges No.50 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned & disbursed 109 CXCC loan accounts where limit fed in CBS in excess of actual sanction (Limit manipulated in CBS). Thus, he did not adhere to the prescribed lending norms with regard to processing a the proposals and abuses his lending powers. Charge No.52 Mr. Md. Tarique has sartctioned & disbursed 174 CKCC loan accounts where multilayer approach (Joan sanctioned by single-handedly) while processing and sanctioning not followed. Thus, bu did not adhere to the prescribed lending norms with regard to processing and sanctioning of the proposals and abuses his lending powers. Charge No.53 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned & disbursed 17 CKCC loan accounts where limits were enhanced several times in a financial year, without any cause & justification. Thus, bu did not adhere to the prescribed lending norms with regard to processing and sanctioning of the proposals and abuses his lending powers. Charge No.53 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned & disbursed 17 CKCC loan accounts where limits were enhanced several times in a financial year, without any cause & justification. Thus, he had abuses his lending powers, concealed the facts from higher authorities & violated the Loan Policy while processing and sanctioning of the CKCC loan proposals. Charge No.54 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned & disbursed 17 personal & pension loan accounts where loan amount sanctioned in excess of eligibility of borrower. Thus, he had abuses his lending powers, concealed the facts from higher authorities & violated the Loan Policy while processing and sanctioning of the loan proposals. Charge No.55 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned & enhanced 16 MSME Loan accounts despite of withholding his lending powers by Regional Office, Gorakhpur vide its letter no. RO/Credit/2019-20/802 dated 19.03.2020. Thus, he had not obeyed and failed to carry out the written order of the competent authority and abused his lending powers. Charge No.56 Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned/enhanced/disbursed 26 CKCC accounts more than 175% without informing Regional Office and not created Bank's charge over Khatauni. He had violated the instruction of CO given in letter no. CO: ARD-FI:GM:2020-21- 234 D24.08.2021. Thus, he had not obeyed and failed to carry out the written order of the higher authority and abuses his lending powers.” 14. Learned Senior Advocate by referring written submissions has vehemently submitted that in the entire inquiry report and order of Disciplinary Authority has not alleged any fraud or there was no allegation of fabricating documents or that loan sanction or limit was increased was contrary to law. There was no allegation against the petitioner of ulterior motive or he has done any unlawful act which has caused loss to respondent-bank. Even on proved misconduct, since there was no proof of loss to bank, the punishment order of removal from service was unwarranted and shockingly disproportionate also. 15. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that total number of accounts involved are 513, however, number of accounts were repeated on more than one occasion, therefore, actual figure was much lesser. 16. Even on proved misconduct, since there was no proof of loss to bank, the punishment order of removal from service was unwarranted and shockingly disproportionate also. 15. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that total number of accounts involved are 513, however, number of accounts were repeated on more than one occasion, therefore, actual figure was much lesser. 16. A compliance report was submitted by Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior Manager, Branch Office Padrauna who has conducted Audit Compliance Report, however, he has submitted adverse report dated 28.01.2021 and despite he was author of adverse report, still he was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry which was absolutely illegal since he has to prove his adverse report and he could not go against his own findings. Entire proceedings were, therefore, suffered with malafides and petitioner was highly prejudiced. 17. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that petitioner has filed a detailed reply to inquiry report, however, same was no considered in its entirety. His detailed defence brief was also not considered as not been effectively mentioned in the impugned order. 18. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred pleadings of Writ Petition and written submissions. He has also referred Regulation 6(17) of "Regulations, 1976" that petitioner was not orally examined during course of inquiry proceedings which was mandatory. For reference, said Regulation is quoted below :- “6 (17). The inquiring may after the officer employee closed his evidence and shall if the officer employee is not getting himself examined, generally questioning on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for purposes of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.” 19. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon following judgments given more force to his arguments. “1. Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , 1991 (1) SCC 588 ; 2. Moni Shanker vs. Union of India and another , 2008 (3) SCC 484 ; 3. Union Bank of India vs. Bishwanath Bhattacharjee , 2022 (13) SCC 329 ” 20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-Bank has vehemently opposed above submissions and referred written submissions and pleadings that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Inquiry was conducted in strict adherence to Rules and procedures provided in "Regulations, 1976". Union Bank of India vs. Bishwanath Bhattacharjee , 2022 (13) SCC 329 ” 20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-Bank has vehemently opposed above submissions and referred written submissions and pleadings that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Inquiry was conducted in strict adherence to Rules and procedures provided in "Regulations, 1976". The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to present his defence and to submit all documents in defence as well as to cross-examine the Management witnesses, which he has availed effectively. No allegation of procedural violation or arbitrariness was raised during inquiry. Allegations were proved on basis of documents, that there were repeated procedural lapse. There were financial irregularities and there were failure in compliance of Internal Control Mechanisms. Dereliction on part of petitioner in discharging his duties and responsibilities was proved. He was negligent in sanctioning; processing and disbursing credit facilities to various customers which may cause higher financial and operational risk. The act of petitioner was highly prejudicial to interest of the bank. 21. Learned counsel has also submitted that there were clear cut procedural lapse. The petitioner has facilitated diversion of public funds, violating the trust and confidence reposed by the bank in him. Loans were sanctioned and disbursed without following due diligence. Nature of irregularities were not mere procedural but it was systematic failure to exercise due diligence and lapses led to severe risk exposure. Charges were proved beyond the preponderance of probabilities based on the documents and evidences. The petitioner has not raised question on impartiality of the Inquiry Officer during proceedings. On basis of proved charges, punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. 22. Learned counsel for respondents-Bank has placed reliance upon following judgments to support Bank’s case :- “1. Ram Avtar vs. Chairman and MD and others , Writ Petition No. 57592/2005 2. Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra , AIR 1999 SC 625 3. SBI vs. Bela Bagchi and others , Civil Appeal No. 5364 of 2005 4. Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and others , 1997 SC 357 5. UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand Sharma , 2010 (6) …. 6. Union of India vs. Managobinda Samantaray , Civil Appeal No. 1622-1623/2022 7. Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 219/2023 8. Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran 9. B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749” 23. UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand Sharma , 2010 (6) …. 6. Union of India vs. Managobinda Samantaray , Civil Appeal No. 1622-1623/2022 7. Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 219/2023 8. Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran 9. B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749” 23. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 24. Before adverting to rival submissions, Court takes note of paragraphs 12 and 13 of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others , (2021) 3 SCC 806 which are quoted below :- “ 12. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16-8-2005, to the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that he has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying — he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the Bank on account of his lapses. 13. The Manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in-built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-6- 2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.” 25. Court has already observed on basis of material that due process was followed in disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner. The procedure for imposing major penalty as prescribed under Regulation 6 of "Regulations, 1976" that inquiry was conducted by an Inquiry Officer. Charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner together with statement of allegations and list of documents and list of witnesses were also provided. The petitioner has submitted his reply within a specified period. On basis of oral and documentary evidence, Inquiry Officer has submitted his inquiry report, therefore, referred procedure was complied with substantially. 26. So far as Rule 6(17) of "Regulations, 1976" is concerned, it is not mandatory in nature and since petitioner has already provided ample opportunities for submitting his case, opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, therefore, there was no mandatory requirement to record his statement if he does not want to record his statement. The purpose of statement to ask question on circumstances against the delinquent, which was satisfied since entire documentary evidence was supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the object was satisfied. Otherwise also, petitioner has not asked to exercise provisions of Regulation 6(17), therefore, in given circumstances, it could not be a case that if such procedure was not substantially followed, entire inquiry would be vitiated. 27. As already referred above, impugned order is running into many pages, as each charge was dealt with independently referring details of charge, argument/submission of P.O., argument/submission of defence/CSOE, findings of I.A. and findings of Disciplinary Authority. For reference, scanned images of details mentioned in regard to Charge No.1 are quoted below :- 28. So far as Charge No. 52 is concerned, it is in regard to irregularities committed by petitioner in 170 accounts. The charge is running into 90 pages and for reference, scanned images of relevant part of Charge No. 52 showing 174 accounts where irregularities were committed as well as trial conclusions are pasted below :- 29. So far as Charge No. 52 is concerned, it is in regard to irregularities committed by petitioner in 170 accounts. The charge is running into 90 pages and for reference, scanned images of relevant part of Charge No. 52 showing 174 accounts where irregularities were committed as well as trial conclusions are pasted below :- 29. Court also takes note of summary of charges and its outcome as well as conclusion of Disciplinary Authority and for reference, scanned images of same are pasted below :- 30. Aforesaid details are discussions on few charges and from bare reading of it, Court can easily conclude that Disciplinary Authority has taken pain to consider each charge in detail, documents submitted in order to prove charge, submissions and defence of petitioner, findings of inquiry officer and thereafter gave his own reasoned findings. 31. As referred above, in regard to Charge No.1, petitioner has sanctioned CC Limit under Cent Mudra Loan of Rs. 4.50 Lacs on 21.12.2019. Said limit was enhanced from Rs. 4.50 Lacs to Rs. 24.50 Lacs on 27.10.2020 i.e. within 10 months and within further six months, on 06.02.2021, it was again enhanced from Rs. 24.50 Lacs to 34.50 Lacs. Aforesaid enhancement was done without proper decision justification for enhancement of limit from 4.5 Lacs to 24.50 Lacs and further to 34.50 Lacs. It was enhanced without any application, process note, sanction letter and loan documents i.e. absolutely contrary to prescribed procedure. All required documents for sanctioning loan were also not found. Net sale of companies were also not verified. CE RSAI was also not modified. It was a clear example of misconduct and dereliction of duties. Similar irregularities were committed in other about 50 loan accounts being part of the charge sheet. 32. Court also takes note of Charge No. 52 which is in regard to 174 CKCC Loan Accounts wherein petitioner has sanctioned loan avoiding multilayer approach (loan sanctioned by single handedly), as such due process was not followed. Petitioner did not adhere to prescribed lending norms with regard to processing and abused his lending powers. Process note, memo of sanction of credit loan was to be done by 2 Officers but it was done by petitioner himself as well as signature of Processing Officer was conspicuously left. 33. Petitioner did not adhere to prescribed lending norms with regard to processing and abused his lending powers. Process note, memo of sanction of credit loan was to be done by 2 Officers but it was done by petitioner himself as well as signature of Processing Officer was conspicuously left. 33. The Charge No. 50 was about irregularities committed in 109 CKCC loan accounts where limit was enhanced in CBC in excess of actual sanction (limit manipulated in CBC) without following due process. 34. Aforesaid details are sufficient that petitioner has repeatedly committed dereliction of duties and proceeded contrary to prescribed procedure for sanctioning loan, enhancing limit or other connected proceedings. Explanations given by the petitioner were duly considered and vague submissions that he was new to said responsibility was rightly rejected. Therefore, as observed in Boloram Bordoloi (supra) as well as in State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh , 2024 INSC 592 : 2024 SCC Online SC 1908 that once there is no error in decision making process, outcome of Disciplinary Aythority may not be interfered. Para 29 and 30 of Bhupendra Singh (supra) being relevant for present case are mentioned below :- “ 29. Evidently, while reappraisal of facts and evidence is not impermissible by the High Court, the infirmity in the underlying order has to be greater than ordinary. It is not the respondent's case that due to omissions by the appellants in substantive and/or procedural compliances, prejudice has ensued to him. Let us examine the aspect independently too. The facts reveal that an earlier removal order was quashed, and a copy of the Enquiry Report alongwith the RPSC's opinion was supplied to the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, received an opportunity to submit a written representation, which he availed of. Further, he was afforded an opportunity of hearing as well. In this view, we are unable to find any violation of the principles of natural justice. 30. Before the Enquiry Officer, 13 witnesses and 75 documents were exhibited on behalf of the Authority. 3 witnesses deposed in defence of the delinquent employee-respondent. Considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer by his report held certain charges levelled against the respondent to have been proved in full/part. Subsequently, a fresh Removal Order was passed, agreeing with the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer. This Removal Order cannot be said to be based on ‘no evidence’. Considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer by his report held certain charges levelled against the respondent to have been proved in full/part. Subsequently, a fresh Removal Order was passed, agreeing with the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer. This Removal Order cannot be said to be based on ‘no evidence’. On perusal thereof, we find that the Removal Order is reasoned as on the aspects where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's report, reasons therefor have been assigned. On the areas of agreement, the Removal Order bears discussion on the relevant evidence.” 35. Last argument of quantum of punishment is also liable to be rejected since petitioner has committed various irregularities and was punished after a due process. Punishment was already reduced from dismissal from service to removal from service which does not require any further interference. 36. Court also takes note that no loss or allegation of fraud was levelled against the petitioner, however, it would not favour case of petitioner since in such cases, actual loss is not necessary. Once prescribed procedure for disciplinary proceedings were followed and it was found that petitioner was failed to being diligent towards his duties and evidence was sufficient to prove charges against him, no interference is warranted. 37. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.