ORDER : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel, Apex Bank appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the order dated 30-04-2021 by which the Managing Director (MD) of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, in terms of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Bank, had informed the petitioner that he would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance drawn by him during the period of his suspension. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:- The petitioner who was at the relevant point of time functioning as the Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1/ Bank was placed under suspension on detection of certain irregularities occasioning in the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent Bank. The said order of the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 24-08-2017 and he was reinstated in his services. However, such revocation of the suspension was without prejudice to the departmental proceeding initiated against him. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was proceeded with and an enquiry report was placed in the matter before the Board, the Board not being satisfied, directed for holding a de novo enquiry in the matter and accordingly, a de novo enquiry came to be held. The report of the de novo enquiry on being received, came to be placed before the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 03-09-2020. The Board of Directors on perusal of the initial enquiry report as well as the de novo enquiry report, proceeded to resolve that the petitioner, herein, along with 04 (four) others were guilty of committing serious financial irregularities in respect of ABSD accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch and accordingly, decided to inflict punishment upon them. Accordingly, it was resolved by the Board of Directors of the Bank to effect proportionate recovery from all the delinquents, including the petitioners, herein, towards the pecuniary loss suffered by the Bank, which was quantified at Rs. 26,19,820/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty). Accordingly, it was resolved by the Board of Directors of the Bank to effect proportionate recovery from all the delinquents, including the petitioners, herein, towards the pecuniary loss suffered by the Bank, which was quantified at Rs. 26,19,820/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty). The Board further directed the Managing Director to issue necessary order(s) to each of the delinquents, separately, conveying the decision of the Board and disposing of the departmental proceedings initiated against them. In pursuance to the said resolution of the Board, the then Managing Director of the respondent No. 1/ Bank by order dated 06-11-2020, imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of recovery of proportionate amount of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four) being the 1/5 th share of the total pecuniary loss of Rs. 26,19,820/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) suffered by the Bank. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was disposed of subject to recovery of the amount of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four). The period of suspension of the petitioner was also regularized and he was held to be entitled to draw full salary for the period he was placed under suspension, along with other benefits. It is further projected that the said order dated 06-11-2020, passed by the Managing Director, in compliance with the earlier resolution adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, was again placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021 for ratification. The Board of Directors on perusal of the order dated 06-11-2020 found the same to have been issued in violation of the resolution adopted earlier in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 and accordingly, on a discussion about the same, resolved that the said order would mandate a modification to the effect that the petitioner, herein, will not be entitled for drawing full salary during the period of suspension, other than the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the Managing Director of the Board was authorized to issue fresh order by modifying the earlier order dated 06-11-2020, in line of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021. In terms of the said resolution of the Board of Directors adopted in its meeting held on 04-03-2021, the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1/ Bank proceeded to issue an order dated 30-04-2021, stipulating, therein, that the earlier order dated 06-11-2020 stood partially modified and the petitioner was held to be not entitled to draw his full salary for the period spent by him under suspension and the same was restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 30-04-2021, would not be sustainable, inasmuch as the departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner was already concluded with the issuance of the order dated 06-11-2020 by the Managing Director of the Board and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, herein, the same could not have been modified in any manner to the prejudice of the petitioner, herein. Mr. Saikia by referring to the earlier resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/ Bank arrived in its meeting held on 03- 09-2020, more particularly, the resolution No. 33 adopted, therein, has submitted that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner was to the extent of recovery of the proportionate amount of the loss caused to the Bank and no other penalty was specified, therein, and accordingly, the order dated 06-11-2020 issued by the Managing Director of the Bank being in tune with the resolution No. 33 adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, the same did not mandate any modification. 5. Mr. Saikia has further submitted that the order dated 30-04-2021 has the effect of imposing upon the petitioner two penalties, one as regard to recovery from his salary and the second towards limiting the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the period of suspension to that of the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. He submits that the said dual penalty now imposed upon the petitioner would not be sustainable and would mandate interference from this Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner in the meanwhile had retired from his service on reaching the age of superannuation and accordingly, the said order dated 30-04-2021 would mandate interference from this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. He has further submitted that the petitioner in the meanwhile had retired from his service on reaching the age of superannuation and accordingly, the said order dated 30-04-2021 would mandate interference from this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel, Apex Bank submits that in pursuance to the decision arrived at by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, more particularly, the resolution No. 33 adopted by it, having mandated imposition of penalty of recovery from the salary of the petitioner, herein, the then Managing Director of the Bank while issuing the order dated 06-11-2020, by exceeding his jurisdiction had also regularized the period of suspension of the petitioner by holding that he would be entitled to draw full salary, for the period of suspension undergone by him. Mr. Goswami submits that the Board of Director of the Bank in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 had not resolved with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be dealt with. 7. Mr. Goswami further submits that the order dated 06-11-2020, which was issued in pursuance to the resolution No. 33, adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, when placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021, the Directors of the Bank found the same to have been not issued in terms of the resolution adopted by the Board in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 vide resolution No. 33 and thereafter on a discussion on the said issue, the Board adopted a fresh resolution to the effect that the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled for drawing full salary during the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance already drawn by him in the matter. Mr. Goswami has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner having been found to have been established in the enquiry held in the matter, the penalty being imposed to the extent of recovery of the amount of loss occasioning to the Bank from the petitioner, herein, and other delinquents, proportionately, the period of suspension could also not have been regularized, as on duty by the Managing Director, without there being a specific resolution adopted in this connection by the Board of Directors of the Bank. He further submits that the Board of Directors had only authorized the then Managing Director of the Bank to only inform the petitioners, herein, of the decision as adopted by it, in the meeting held on 03-09-2020. Accordingly, he submits that the order dated 30-04-2021 would not mandate any interference, inasmuch, as it had only rectified a irregularity existing in the order dated 06-11-2020 in connection with regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner, which admittedly was passed without jurisdiction by the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1/ Bank. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The departmental enquiry held against the petitioner including the de novo enquiry held having concluded, the report, thereof, came to be placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020. The Board of Directors on considering the said reports had drawn the following resolution:- “Resolution No. 33: The Board held the five employees namely Sri Bhupendra Goswami, Sri Mihir Kr Baruah, Sri Hemendra Kr Talukdar, Sri Hari Prasad Malakar and Sri Dinesh Ch Das equally guilty of committing serious financial irregularities in respect of ABSD accounts of Sualkuchi Branch and decided to inflict punishment by making recovery of the pecuniary loss suffered by the bank to the tune of Rs. 26,19,820.00 lying in the Suspense Account of the Branch in equal share from each of the aforesaid employees, with a caution to them not to commit such nature of irregularities in future. The Board decided to dispose of the matter accordingly and directed the Managing director to issue necessary orders to each of the employee separately, conveying the above decision of the Board" 10. A perusal of the said resolution would reveal that the Board of Directors had resolved that the petitioner, herein, and 04 (four) other delinquents found to be involved in commission of financial irregularities in respect of ABSD accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank were held to be guilty and a decision was arrived at to inflict punishment upon them by way of making proportionate recovery of the pecuniary loss suffered by the Bank, which was also quantified at Rs. 26,19,820/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty), from each of the delinquents, including the petitioner, herein. 26,19,820/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty), from each of the delinquents, including the petitioner, herein. The Board of Directors also directed the then Managing Director to issue necessary consequential order(s) to each of the employees separately, conveying to them the decision of the Board. It is found that in pursuance to the said decision of the Board adopted in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, the then Managing Director of the respondent No. 1/ Bank had proceeded to issue order dated 06-11-2020. The operative portion of the said order, being relevant, is extracted here-in-below:- “Pursuant to the above decision, I Shashank Shekhar Shastri, Managing Director of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., do hereby convey the aforesaid decision and order for recovery of the pecuniary loss suffered by the Bank to the tune of Rs.26,19,820.00 in equal share from each of the aforesaid employees. Accordingly, Sri Bhupendra Goswami is required to pay Rs.5,23,964.00 (Rupees five lakh twenty three thousand nine hundred sixty four) only, being one fifth share of total pecunlary loss of Rs.26,19,820.00 under Rule 46(a) (iii) of (Staff) Rule of the Bank. Sri Bhupendra Goswami is also cautioned not to commit such nature of irregularities in future under Rule 46(a) (i) of (Staff) Rule of the Bank. The Departmental Proceeding drawn up against Sri Bhupendra Goswami on 23.01.2015 is disposed off subject to recovery of Rs.5,23,964.00 from Sri Bhupendra Goswami. Sri Bhupendra Goswami, Manager, Recovery Deptt., H.O. and Zonal Manager (i/c) Northern Zone, Tezpur will be entitled for drawing full salary during his period of suspension alongwith other benefits.” 11. A perusal of the operative portion order dated 06-11-2020 would reveal that while the Managing Director had communicated the decision of the Board to effect proportionate recovery from the petitioner, herein, towards the loss quantified to have suffered by the Bank for the irregularities committed in the matter while conveying the decision of the Board to the petitioners, herein, it is found that vide order dated 06-11-2020, the then Managing Director also proceeded to hold that the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to draw his full salary, for the period of his suspension, along with other benefits. The order dated 06-11-2020 when read in light of the decision of the Board of Directors rendered in the matter in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, this Court finds that the Board of Directors having not stipulated, anything with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner was to be regularized, it was not open to the then Managing Director of the Bank, vide order dated 06-09-2020, to also, on his own volition, proceed also to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner, by entitling him to draw full salary for the period he was placed under suspension along with other benefits. 12. It is also found by this Court that the order dated 06-11-2020, which was in the nature of a compliance order passed in pursuance to the direction issued in this connection to the Managing Director by the Board of Directors in terms of the resolution No. 33 adopted in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, when placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021 for ratification, the Board of Directors found that the said order dated 06-11-2020 was not issued by the Managing Director of the Bank in strict compliance of the resolution already adopted by the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 03-09-2020. The Board of Directors by noticing the role played by the petitioner, herein, in the irregularities noticed, as the Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank, which had resulted in causing huge pecuniary loss to the Bank, resolved that the petitioner, herein, during the period of his suspension would not be entitled to any salary except the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. Having reached the said conclusion, the Board of Directors resolved that the order dated 06-11-2020 passed by the Managing Director in the matter be withdrawn and modified accordingly. Basing on the said conclusions the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021: “Resolution No. 2: (a) Resolved that "the compliance report of the resolution of BOD meeting dated 12.03.2020 and 03.09.2020 be perused by the House". Basing on the said conclusions the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021: “Resolution No. 2: (a) Resolved that "the compliance report of the resolution of BOD meeting dated 12.03.2020 and 03.09.2020 be perused by the House". (b) Resolved that "Sri Bhupendra Goswami will not be entitled for drawing full salary during his period of suspension other than subsistence allowance already drawn by him and Hon'ble Board authorised the Managing Director to issue a fresh order to him suitably modifying the earlier order no. 6268 dated 06.11.2020 in line with the discussions and resolution of the Board. Also, the prayer of Sri Hemendra Kr. Talukdar, Sub-Accountant presently posted at Silpukhuri branch for review of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Board vide their meeting dated 03.09.2020 be and is hereby rejected.” 13. In pursuance to the said decision of the Board of Directors arrived at in its meeting held on 04-03-2021, the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1/ Bank proceeded to issue the order dated 30-04-2021 and therein in partial modification of the order earlier issued vide order dated 06-11-2020, pertaining to the drawal of full salary by the petitioner during his period of suspension, held that the petitioner would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension. The operative portion of the said order dated 30-04-2021 being relevant is extracted here-in-below:- “Pursuant to the above, I, Sri Dombaru Saikia, Managing Director of the Assam cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., do hereby convey the aforesaid decision of the Board that the Order Issued by the preceding Managing Director under Memo No. ACAB/HO/ADMN/DP/ BG/2020/ 6268 Dated 06/11/2020 in disposal of the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against Sri Bhupendra Goswami, Manager, stands partially modified in respect of his salary for the period under suspension and that the salary of Sri Goswami for the period spent under suspension shall be restricted only to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension. The departmental proceeding against Sri Goswami is disposed of accordingly.” 14. On perusal of the operative portion of the order dated 30-04-2021, this Court finds that the same was issued strictly in accordance with the decision arrived at by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021 and no error is found to have existed therein. The departmental proceeding against Sri Goswami is disposed of accordingly.” 14. On perusal of the operative portion of the order dated 30-04-2021, this Court finds that the same was issued strictly in accordance with the decision arrived at by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021 and no error is found to have existed therein. The Board in its earlier meeting held on 03-09-2020 having not taken any decision with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner, on disposal of the departmental proceeding instituted against him is to be so regulated, this Court finds that the Managing Director, suo-moto, could not have been proceeded to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty and entitled him to draw full salary for the period of suspension undergone by him along with other benefits. The order dated 06-11-2020 to the extent of regularization of the period of suspension, without the approval of the Board of Directors in the matter, in the considered view of this Court was so passed by the then Managing Director without jurisdiction. The Board having noticed the said irregularity and having specifically adopted the resolution laying down the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is now required to be regularized on the closure of the departmental proceeding instituted against him, in the meeting held on 04-03-2021, this Court does not find any error with the said decision so arrived at inasmuch as the charge leveled against the petitioner stood established in the enquiry and for which he was imposed with the penalty of proportionate recovery of the amount quantified as loss occasioning to the Bank in question. The Board of Directors having adopted the said resolution, this Court having not found any error therein, the order dated 30-04-2021 passed by the Managing Director of the Bank being only in compliance of the directions issued to him in this connection by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021, this Court does not find any error, therein, and accordingly, would not mandate any interference. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the contentions raised by the learned Sr. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the contentions raised by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that with the issuance of the order dated 30-04-2021, the petitioner was imposed 02 (two) penalties for the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceeding drawn against him. The said contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court is misplaced, inasmuch as, it is not found that the petitioner was imposed with 02 (two) different penalties for the charges so framed against him and proved in the enquiry. It is a settled position of law that on conclusion of the departmental proceeding the competent authority is to arrive at a decision with regard to the penalties that is to be imposed upon the delinquents. The Board of Directors in the present case in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 had arrived at a decision to impose penalty of proportionate recovery from the petitioner to towards the loss suffered by the Bank, which was also quantified. The regularization of the period of suspension is a consequential action taken after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings initiated against a delinquent. In the case in hand, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 while proceeding to impose upon the petitioner penalty of proportionate recovery from him, had not considered the aspect of regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner. The said issue was duly considered by the Board of Directors only in its subsequent meeting held on 04-03-2021 and had accordingly, adopted a decision to the effect that the petitioner for the period of suspension undergone by him would only be entitled to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him, which was communicated to the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Bank vide order dated 30-04-2021. Accordingly, this Court does not find that the petitioner was imposed with 02 (two) different penalties for the charge framed and proved against him in the enquiry held in the matter. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner in the present proceeding would not mandate acceptance and the same stands rejected. 16. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner in the present proceeding would not mandate acceptance and the same stands rejected. 16. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.