ORDER : R. Nataraj, J. W.P. No.29738/2019 is filed challenging an order bearing No.PAD:DISC:346/2015:1592/2018 dated 30.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 imposing major punishment and to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore all the service benefits which were deprived pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.3. She has also challenged an order bearing No. PAD:DISC:246/2017:374:2019 dated 10.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. W.P. No.10996/2019 is filed challenging an order bearing No.PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 dated 20.02.2019, by which, the petitioner was denied permission to participate in the promotion process for the year 2019-20. 3. W.P. No.5598/2020 is filed challenging an order bearing in HO Memorandum No.44/2020 dated 02.03.2020, by which, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 were promoted to Middle Management Grade-IV in violation of an interim order granted in WP No.10996/2019. Facts as pleaded in the above petitions: 4. (i) The petitioner was appointed as an employee of the respondent-Bank on 21.08.1986 and she served various branches of the bank in various capacities from time to time. The petitioner served as the branch head of the respondent- Bank at its new rural branch Brahmanipura, Ramanagara Taluk from 30.06.2012 till 12.07.2016 when she was promoted as Scale-III officer and posted as Senior Manager of Whitefield Branch, Bangalore. She contends that from 03.09.2015 to 12.07.2016, when she was at Brahmanipura branch, she was not in charge of sanctioning of loans and that during the said period, loans were sanctioned and approved by the Zonal Office till the respondent No.5 took charge from her as the Branch Head of Brahmanipura. (ii) She contends that regular audits of the branch was conducted from time to time for the period 30.06.2012 to 13.08.2015 and all the loans sanctioned and transactions made during the said period was found to be in order and no adverse report was made by the concerned auditor. Likewise, an internal audit report dated 19.08.2015 covered the transactions and the loans of the branch for the period 10.03.2014 to 13.08.2015. Thereafter, the regular internal audit report dated 10.02.2017 covered the transactions and loans of the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. The regular internal audit report dated 08.03.2018 covered the transactions and the loans sanctioned by the branch between 04.02.2017 to 26.02.2018. Thereafter, the regular internal audit report dated 10.02.2017 covered the transactions and loans of the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. The regular internal audit report dated 08.03.2018 covered the transactions and the loans sanctioned by the branch between 04.02.2017 to 26.02.2018. The petitioner contends that the audit report dated 10.02.2017 was extraneous, perverse and without jurisdiction, as it went against the principles of audit. She contends that the audit team could not have reviewed the previous audit done for the earlier periods and the scope of audit was for transactions and loans of the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017 only and not for the period earlier to it. (iii) She contends that the inspection and audit division of the respondent-Bank on the basis of a non-existing inspection and special audit report dated 10.02.2017 sought rectification of irregularities observed in the audit report dated 10.02.2017 by letters dated 11.07.2017 and 18.07.2017. She contends that she complied with irregularities pointed out. Nonetheless, the vigilance department of the respondent-Bank sought comments on certain loans granted and the same was clarified and intimated that all loans sanctioned by her were secured, keeping the interest of the bank in mind. The respondent No.3 purportedly not being satisfied with the steps taken by the petitioner, ordered for initiation of a major penalty disciplinary proceedings. She contends that, although similar irregularities as those imputed to her were observed in the audit reports dated 10.02.2017 and 08.03.2018, the persons in the zonal office who had sanctioned the loans of the said branch during the relevant period, as well as Respondent No. 5, were not subjected to any disciplinary proceedings, thereby discriminating her. She contends that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against her in March 2018 on sixteen charges which were all based on the special audit report dated 10.02.2017. (iv) She contends that as per the Corporation Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, the petitioner being a scale-III officer, as on the date of initiation of the enquiry and the irregularities were purportedly committed when she was serving as a scale-II officer, the competent disciplinary authority to hold enquiry against her was an officer of the rank of Deputy General Manager and appellate authority was the General Manager and the reviewing authority was the Executive Director or in his absence, the Chairman and Managing Director. She contends that the enquiry was not conducted by competent disciplinary authority, but he appointed a retired Assistant General Manager to enquire, though he was not competent to hold any enquiry against scale-II or scale-III officer, like the petitioner. She therefore contends that when the enquiry was conducted by an incompetent person and the enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 30.11.2018, he without granting an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice, imposed a major penalty of scaling down the petitioner from Middle Management Grade (henceforth referred to as 'MMG' for short)/scale-III to Middle Management Grade/scale-II with a basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month and thereby reducing her basic pay by Rs.10,000/- from the last drawn pay. Being aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Regulation 17 of the Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. 5. (i) The petitioner contends that she was eligible for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior Management Grade /Scale-IV in the selection process for the vacancies to be filled in 2018-19. She passed the requisite test and attended the general discussion and interview process. However, her name did not figure in the promotion list for the simple reason that the departmental enquiry was pending against her which was in no way concerned with her conduct under the Corporation Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. The result of the promotion of the petitioner for the year 2018-19 was placed in a sealed over and was not acted upon by the respondents. She contends that by this time, the appeal filed by her against the order passed by the disciplinary authority was pending consideration. She contends that as per the guidelines of sealed cover procedure applicable to promotion policy of the officers of the respondent-Bank, an officer is entitled to participate in the selection process for promotion against vacancies in the subsequent departmental promotion committee till the disciplinary case against the officer concerned is concluded. She, therefore, contends that the disciplinary proceedings against her, which had not attained finality in view of an appeal filed by her, did not render her ineligible to go through the selection process for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior Management Grade/Scale-IV during the year 2019–2020. She, therefore, contends that the disciplinary proceedings against her, which had not attained finality in view of an appeal filed by her, did not render her ineligible to go through the selection process for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior Management Grade/Scale-IV during the year 2019–2020. Accordingly, since she was eligible to go through the process of selection for the year 2019-20, she represented before the respondent No.2 to permit her to undergo the process of selection for the year 2019-20 subject to the outcome or decision that may be rendered in the appeal filed by her. (ii) However, the respondent No.2 by his letter bearing No.PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 dated 20.02.2019 ordered that the result of promotion of the petitioner for promotion from MMG/Scale-III to Senior management grade/Scale-IV during the year 2018-19 which was placed in a sealed cover cannot be acted upon as major penalty was imposed on her. The respondent No.2 also ordered that in the event of the orders of the disciplinary authority being set aside her case would be taken up as per the guidelines prescribed under the sealed cover procedure. She contends that this order of respondent No.2 was absurd as she was not permitted to face the promotion process to be held during the year 2019-20, which also could have been kept in a sealed cover. She contends that this decision of the respondent No.2 deprived her of an opportunity or another opportunity to participate in the promotion process held in 2019-20 for no fault of hers though she was eligible and satisfied all requirements prescribed under the promotion policy of the respondent. The petitioner therefore challenged the order of the respondent no.2 before this Court in W.P.No.10996/2019. (iii) An interim order was granted by this court in W.P.No.10996/2019 restraining the respondent bank from going on with the promotion of MMG/Scale-III to Senior management grade/Scale-IV. However, the interim order was later modified on 26.04.2019, by which, it permitted the respondent Bank to go on with the promotion process but ordered that one post shall be reserved to enable the petitioner, on promotion to occupy that post, which was subject to outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner. She contends that as on the date of the modified interim order, the promotion process for the year 2019-20 was underway and there were 113 posts available and the 112 th promotional vacancy was filled up by Sri. C.Chandrashekar. She contends that as on the date of the modified interim order, the promotion process for the year 2019-20 was underway and there were 113 posts available and the 112 th promotional vacancy was filled up by Sri. C.Chandrashekar. The respondent issued HO memorandum bearing No.44/2020 dated 02.03.2020 filling up the 113 th vacancy of promotional process in disobedience of interim order passed on 26.04.2019 in W.P. No.10996/2019. Later, the respondents not only disobeyed the interim order but also fraudulently created further vacancies from 114 to 117. The petitioner has therefore challenged the creation of vacancies and the appointment of the respondent no.3 to 7 against 113 th to 117 th vacancy in W.P.No.5598/2020. 6. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 being the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court in W.P No.29738/2019. 7. (i) The petition in WP No.29738/2019 is opposed by the respondents who inter alia contended that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging an order passed by the disciplinary authority, is not maintainable, if the enquiry has been conducted as per the rules. It is contended that Courts can interfere with disciplinary actions only where; (a) It finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in miscarriage of justice; (b) where the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and or the disciplinary authority, are not supported by any legal evidence; (c) where the penalty imposed on the delinquent official is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against her and not on any other ground. It is contended that unless the Court finds that the finding of fact recorded by an authority, statutory or otherwise, is based on no evidence, it cannot re-appreciate the evidence led before the authority and come to a different conclusion, than the one arrived at by the authority. That this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authorities. (ii) It is contended that on a perusal of the records, it is clear that, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and was afforded a full and fair opportunity to defend her case. That this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authorities. (ii) It is contended that on a perusal of the records, it is clear that, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and was afforded a full and fair opportunity to defend her case. Petitioner was given full opportunity to take the assistance of a co-officer of her choice during the enquiry proceedings. However, she decided to defend her case on her own and participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the management witnesses. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot now contend that the enquiry was conducted in an unfair or biased manner. (iii) It is claimed that good conduct and discipline are inseparable for functioning of every officer, manager or employee of a bank who deals with public funds and it is no defence to say that no loss was caused, when a Senior Manager acted without authority and contrary to the rules and the scheme formulated by his/her employer. It claimed that acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3 of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 and constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. It contended that 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. It contended that when a person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and no exception can be made. In the instant case, it is claimed that the charges are so grave that the punishment of reduction to a lower rank cannot by any stretch of imagination, said to be shockingly disproportionate. (iv) It is contended that the petitioner was working as a Manager/Senior Manager (Branch Head) at Brahmanipura branch during 30.06.2012 and 12.07.2016. It is alleged that the petitioner in violation of the group credit guidelines of the bank in gross abuse and in blatant violation of the laid down procedures, in gross negligence, dispersed various loans, diverted sums, acted beyond her authority and violated laid down systems and procedures. It is alleged that the petitioner in violation of the group credit guidelines of the bank in gross abuse and in blatant violation of the laid down procedures, in gross negligence, dispersed various loans, diverted sums, acted beyond her authority and violated laid down systems and procedures. Accordingly, charge sheet dated 12.01.2018 was issued to the petitioner and as many as sixteen charges were framed against her in respect of lapses committed by her while working as Senior Manager at Brahmanipura branch. By letter dated 05.03.2018 one Mr.Shashidhar C Tatti was appointed as an enquiry officer and by order dated 05.03.2018 a Senior Manager was appointed as a presenting officer. The notice of the enquiry was issued to the petitioner and the preliminary enquiry was fixed on 26.03.2018 at the Zonal Office (North) Bangalore. Petitioner appeared in the preliminary enquiry proceedings held on 26.03.2018, her statement was recorded and she denied the charges. Petitioner also verified all the management documents in the said proceedings. Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to take assistance from any officer in the enquiry. However, she did not choose to do so and decided to defend the enquiry on her own. The enquiry was conducted on 23.04.2018. The management got examined two witnesses and produced 132 exhibits. Petitioner has cross-examined both the management witnesses. However, she did not choose to examine any witness on her behalf and she did not produce any documents in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and following the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was provided reasonable and sufficient opportunities to present her case. It is claimed that after completion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 18.08.2018 indicating that out of the 16 charges levelled against the petitioner, 12 charges were fully proved, 2 charges were partly proved and 2 charges were not proved. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with a letter dated 28.08.2018 requesting her to submit her explanation and reply to the findings of the enquiring authority. The petitioner submitted her reply in terms of a letter dated 12.09.2018. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with a letter dated 28.08.2018 requesting her to submit her explanation and reply to the findings of the enquiring authority. The petitioner submitted her reply in terms of a letter dated 12.09.2018. After considering the case in its entirety and after noticing that the enquiry is conducted in accordance with the Corporation Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 and principles of natural justice, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 30.11.2018, imposed punishment of reduction to lower grade, i.e. from MMG/Scale- III to MMG/Scale- II with basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month. (v) Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, petitioner filed an appeal dated 19.01.2018 which was beyond the stipulated period of 45 days. However, the appellate authority condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority examined the memorandum of appeal submitted by the petitioner and after independently considering the same on merits, concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected in terms of the order dated 10.05.2019. It is claimed that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders. It is contended that the departmental enquiry has been held in accordance with the law following the principles of natural justice and that petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to put her defence and on the basis of the entire evidence, material record, the disciplinary authority submitted its findings holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against her. Therefore, it contends that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, that the principles of natural justice were not followed. As regards the punishment to be imposed in respect of the charges, it is contended that Courts have consistently taken the view that it is a managerial function and it is for the disciplinary authority to decide appropriate punishment to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is only when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorities is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges would this Court interfere with and not otherwise. It is only when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorities is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges would this Court interfere with and not otherwise. It is contended that the petitioner was found guilty of serious charges relating to gross violation of powers and norms, leading to indiscriminate accommodation of a vendor, thereby exposing the bank to the risk of losing the advances. The very act of acting beyond authority and such course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and in involving innumerable instances, is by itself a misconduct. Hence, it is contended that the order of punishment is just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. (vi) Adverting to the grounds urged in the writ petition, it is contended that in the earlier audit reports also, the auditors had reported irregularities in respect of the loan sanctioned by the petitioner. In the year 2012, the petitioner was cautioned by the bank in respect of the irregularities reported against her. Further, in the earlier audit reports also irregularities were reported in the credit facility sanctioned by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that Annexure-C is the audit report conducted on the transactions and loans sanctioned for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017 is denied. It is claimed that the audit report dated 10.02.2017 also contains reports on loan sanctioned on 05.06.2015, 30.03.2014, 15.04.2015, 10.12.2014, 29.04.2015 etc. Hence, it is claimed that the contention of the petitioner that there were no adverse remarks in the earlier audit reports is incorrect. It is contended that the auditor has observed many irregularities in the loan sanctioned by the petitioner while she was working as the Branch Head at Brahmanipura branch. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim that the loans sanctioned and transactions made during her tenure are in order. Further, it is claimed that the petitioner having participated in the departmental enquiry cannot now contend that the enquiry was discriminatory. It is further contended that one of the charges was that the petitioner had sanctioned loans beyond the command area. Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner is barred from contending that only negligible procedural irregularities were committed by her and that the same could not have culminated in initiation of major penalty proceedings. It is further contended that one of the charges was that the petitioner had sanctioned loans beyond the command area. Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner is barred from contending that only negligible procedural irregularities were committed by her and that the same could not have culminated in initiation of major penalty proceedings. It is claimed that it is the paramount duty of an officer of the bank to protect the interest of the bank. However, by blatantly violating the guidelines of the bank, the petitioner put the bank in unnecessary financial risk and hence, the claim that the loans sanctioned by her was within the scope of her work is wrong and misleading. (vii) It is further claimed that the enquiry officer was a public servant in accordance with sub-regulation 2 of Regulation 6 of Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. Therefore, it is claimed that the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry officer was not a public servant is not justified. It is also contended that the petitioner was given all the documents and all principles of natural justice were complied with during the course of the enquiry. A reading of the charge sheet and the findings of the enquiry officer would categorically establish that the charges levelled and proved are serious in nature and that while arriving at the quantum of punishment, the disciplinary authority has exercised discretion and therefore, this Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . It is claimed that the petitioner by sanctioning credit facilities to ineligible persons has not only acted against interest of the respondent-Bank, but also against the economy in general. It is contended that the purpose of taking securities is to protect the interest of the bank in the eventuality the borrower is not able to repay the loan. It is contended that sanctioning agriculture loans to ineligible customers without following the guidelines and without even verifying the end user of the funds, the petitioner deprived the need of those eligible farmers who desperately needed the loans and also exposed the bank to unnecessary risk. It is also contended that one of the charges is that one customer availed an agricultural loan from the bank and he had transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the son-in-law of the petitioner. It is also contended that one of the charges is that one customer availed an agricultural loan from the bank and he had transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the son-in-law of the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that it is clear that the action of the petitioner was not a genuine risk taking. With these and other contentions, the respondents have claimed that the enquiry conducted against a petitioner is well within the procedure prescribed under the regulations and the punishment imposed is just and proper does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, contends that under Regulation 6(2) of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds to inquire into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, he may himself enquire into or appoint any other person who is or who was a public servant to enquire into the truth thereof. He contends that public servant is defined under Regulation 3(m) of the Corporation Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 as a person as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code . He contends that the enquiry officer in this case was a retired Assistant General Manager of Corporation Bank, who did not fit into the definition of a public servant. He submits that since the Regulations, 1982 refers to a public servant as defined in the IPC, the same has to be strictly construed. He contends that under Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act , employees of banks are treated as public servants for the purpose of Chapter 9 of the IPC, which stood omitted in view of Sections 7 to 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. He contends that though for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 an employee of a bank is treated as a public servant, but the same is not the case when it comes to the Indian Penal Code . He therefore contends that the appointment of the enquiry officer is faulty, and hence the report submitted by him had no value in the eye of law. He therefore contends that the appointment of the enquiry officer is faulty, and hence the report submitted by him had no value in the eye of law. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI vs Ramesh Gelli - (2016) 3 SCC 788 . (ii) He further contends that the Articles of charge are based on special audit report conducted by the inspection and audit division of the bank based on certain observations reported during regular inspections. He contends that no such special audit was conducted and no records in that regard was produced before the enquiring authority. Thus, he contends that the very basis of the charge sheet was not proved at the enquiry. He contends that the audit report dated 10.02.2017 was for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. However, it commented on the loan sanctioned prior to 14.08.2015, which was found to be regular by the regular audit team. Thus, it is contended that the audit report was for a period beyond the mandate given to the audit team and hence, could not have been relied upon at the enquiry. iii) He further contends that all the loans sanctioned were sufficiently secured and hence, the interest of the bank was not compromised and no loss was caused to the bank. He referred to para 11.9 of the order of the appellate authority to contend that as on 31.12.2018, the branch had suffered no loss from the date of opening. Therefore, he contends that the charges levelled was ill motivated and ill designed. (iv) He contends that in banking institutions, risk taking forms an integral part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organization, either in pecuniary or non pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of a vigilance enquiry. It would be quite unfair to use the benefit of hindsight to question the technical merits of managerial decisions from the vigilance point of view. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between a business loss which is arising as a consequence of a bonafide commercial decision and an extraordinary loss which has occurred due to any malafide, motivated or reckless performance of duties. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between a business loss which is arising as a consequence of a bonafide commercial decision and an extraordinary loss which has occurred due to any malafide, motivated or reckless performance of duties. He contends that while the farmer has to be accepted as a normal part of business and ignored from the vigilance point of view, the later has to be viewed adversely and dealt with under the extant disciplinary procedures. Thus, he contends that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, is not justified. He further contends that there are no malafides or motives or reckless performance of duties alleged to justify the imposition of a major penalty and hence, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner, warrants interference. (v) He further contends that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct under the conduct regulations. He contends that under Regulation 24 of the conduct Regulations, an employee, can be proceeded against for breach of the Regulations and in the instant case, none of the allegations made against the petitioner was in respect of any misconduct as described under the conduct regulations. He also contends that the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity of being heard before imposing a major penalty and hence, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority violates the principles of natural justice. vi) He also contends that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and therefore, the impugned order passed by the discipline authority, has to be interfered with. vii) He also contends that the petitioner has been accused of violating certain guidelines issued by the bank from time to time. He contends that these guidelines are not mandatory in nature, but are directory. He contends that since the interest of the bank is sufficiently taken care of by obtaining appropriate security, minor lapses in documentation cannot be treated as a misconduct and therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate. viii) He also contends that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to MMG-IV by adopting the sealed cover procedure since the order of disciplinary authority was challenged before the appellate authority and the proceedings had not attained finality. viii) He also contends that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to MMG-IV by adopting the sealed cover procedure since the order of disciplinary authority was challenged before the appellate authority and the proceedings had not attained finality. Therefore, he contends that sealed cover procedure must have been adopted, even during pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. He contends that though this Court had granted an interim order and reserved one post in MMG-IV so that the petitioner could occupy it, if she succeeds in the writ petition, the respondents have proceeded to grant promotion to the other respondents and thereby violated the interim order as well as spoiled the chances of the promotion of the petitioner. He therefore contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondents, deserve to be interfered with. 9. (i) The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that this court should not ordinarily exercise power under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India , unless it is shown that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice or that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity at the enquiry. He contends that when all procedural requirements have been followed and all principles of natural justice have been complied with, this Court should not ordinarily interfere with the order passed by the discipline authority and upheld by the appellate authority. He also contends that this Court in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , cannot re-appreciate the evidence recorded before the enquiry officer to return a different finding than the one recorded by the disciplinary authority. He contends that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is just and proper having regard to the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner, which resulted in severe risk to the respondents. He also contends that the punishment that was imposed upon the petitioner was meant to act as a deterrent, not only to the petitioner, but also others in the organization. He contends that the gravity of the allegations is so severe that the disciplinary authority found it appropriate to impose punishment of reduction in rank. ii) He next contends that the enquiry authority appointed by the disciplinary authority is a public servant. He is a member of a corporation established under a State Act. He contends that the gravity of the allegations is so severe that the disciplinary authority found it appropriate to impose punishment of reduction in rank. ii) He next contends that the enquiry authority appointed by the disciplinary authority is a public servant. He is a member of a corporation established under a State Act. Therefore, he contends that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiring authorities is valid in the eyes of law and clearly enforceable. iii) He contends that the petitioner was accused of gross misconduct in as much as, the petitioner had sanctioned seven agricultural loans aggregating to 68.25 lakhs to the members of one family. She did not comply with the post follow up and did not obtain the required documents, such as due diligence report, etc. He contends another charge proved against the petitioner is that one customer availed an agriculture loan from the branch and that the customer had transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the son-in-law of the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner had blatantly violated the time tested guidelines which were made to protect the interest of the bank. He also contended that the petitioner was given all opportunities to defend herself at the enquiry and the she did not produce any documents to establish hat she had taken due care and caution before granting the loan to the various individuals. He contends that the bank not suffering any loss due to acts of the petitioner is not a ground to exonerate the petitioner from the charges. He contends that the guidelines are framed by the bank for orderly conduct by all the employees of the bank and therefore, the petitioner cannot flout the guidelines with impunity. He contends that if all the employees, such as the petitioner indulge in such violation of the guidelines, there would be total anarchy in the administration of the respondents. Thus, he contends that the impugned order passed by the authority is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Thus, he contends that the impugned order passed by the authority is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The respondents have framed the Corporation Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1980. Regulation 6 of the regulations provide for the procedure for imposing major penalties. Regulation 6(2) states as follows: “Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer employee, it may itself inquire into, or appoint any other person who is, or has been, a public servant (hereinafter referred to as “the Inquiring authority”) to inquire into the truth thereof." Regulation 3(m) defines a public servant as a person defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code . 12. There is no dispute that in the instant case, a retired Assistant General Manager of the respondent-Bank was appointed as an enquiry officer. Therefore, the threshold question that would arise for consideration is whether the inquiring authority was a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code . A perusal of Section 21 of IPC shows that one of the attributes of a public servant is as follows: “Every person, (a) in the service or pay of the government, or remunerated by fees, or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government, (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or state act, or a Government company, as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.” 13. The respondent was established as a corresponding new bank under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1980 and by virtue of Section 4 the undertaking of respondent stood transferred to new bank. The Management of the newly constituted respondent was vest in a Board of Directors who were duly appointed by the Central Government and the respondent was to be guided by the directions issued by the Central Government from time to time. The Management of the newly constituted respondent was vest in a Board of Directors who were duly appointed by the Central Government and the respondent was to be guided by the directions issued by the Central Government from time to time. Therefore, the respondent was a corporation established by the Central government and hence, the employees of the respondent were public servants as defined under Section 21 of the IPC. The enquiry officer being an erstwhile employee of the respondent bank “was a public servant” and therefore, he could be appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct and enquiry against the petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry officer was not a public servant and therefore, his report is not enforceable is liable to be rejected. 14. The respondent framed the following articles of charge. "11.01. (a) CHARGE NO-01.It is alleged against the CSO that, " In violation of Group Credit Policy of the bank, in gross abuse of official position and blatant violation of laid down systems and procedures, without conducting Due diligence of the borrowers, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 57 various loans aggregating Rs.304.10 lakh. 11.02. (a) CHARGE NO-02. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, in gross negligence and in violation of systems and procedures, without any specific purpose, CSO sanctioned and disbursed 54 Agricultural demand Loans/terms loans aggregating Rs 294.60 lakh." 11.03. (a) CHARGE NO-03. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, without obtaining quotations/project report, without evaluating project cost, CSO sanctioned and disbursed 54 Agricultural demand Loans/terms loans aggregating Rs 294.60 lakh resulting in over-finance. 11.04. (a) CHARGE NO-04. It is alleged that the CSO "In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, without insisting for any security. CSO sanctioned /disbursed five AGTLs in the name of family members of MsFairozunnisa (borrower under AGTL 150001) wherein borrower were not having Agricultural land in their names, aggregating Rs 48.75 lakh thereby CSO accommodated the borrowers. 11.05. (a) CHARGE NO-05. It is alleged that the CSO, "In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, instead of taking Mortgage of agriculture Land as security for the loan amount CSO sanctioned / disbursed eight AGDLS. aggregating Rs 33.00lakh by taking collateral security of Residential properties. 11.06. (a) CHARGE NO-06. 11.05. (a) CHARGE NO-05. It is alleged that the CSO, "In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, instead of taking Mortgage of agriculture Land as security for the loan amount CSO sanctioned / disbursed eight AGDLS. aggregating Rs 33.00lakh by taking collateral security of Residential properties. 11.06. (a) CHARGE NO-06. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, instead of taking Mortgage of agriculture land as security for the loan amount, CSO sanctioned / disbursed three agriculture loans aggregating Rs 9.50 lakh against hypothecation of vehicles without any specific purpose. 11.07. (a) CHARGE NO-07. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in abuse of official position, CSO sanctioned / disbursed 25 AGTLS/AGDLS aggregating Rs 143.00 lakh against collateral security of Agriculture Land without any specific purpose, resulting in over finance. 11.08. (a) CHARGE NO-08. It is alleged that the CSO In violation of extant" guidelines, in abuse of official position, CSO sanctioned / disbursed two Agriculture loans aggregating Rs 2.50 lakh for business purpose and thereby CSO failed to ensure end use of funds lent and by diverting the loan proceeds, CSO accommodated the borrowers. 11.09. (a) CHARGE NO-09. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed seven Agriculture loans aggregating Rs 26.75 lakh in the names of members of the family without any specific purpose thereby accommodated the borrowers. 11.10. (a) CHARGE NO-10. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed 11 various loans aggregating Rs 83.85 lakh beyond the command area. 11.11. (a) CHARGE NO-11. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed various 09 Loans with amount aggregating Rs 72.25 lakh beyond the delegated lending powers. 11.12. (a) CHARGE NO-12. 11.11. (a) CHARGE NO-11. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned /disbursed various 09 Loans with amount aggregating Rs 72.25 lakh beyond the delegated lending powers. 11.12. (a) CHARGE NO-12. It is alleged that the CSO, "In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedure without involving second line officer while taking credit decision, CSO sanctioned /disbursed 57 various loans aggregating Rs 304.10. 11.13. (a) CHARGE NO-13. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, without ensuring end use of funds lent, CSO credited the loan proceed of 55 loan accounts to the SB accounts of the borrowers and borrowers were allowed to withdraw cash in all loan accounts aggregating Rs 300.10 lakh. 11.14. (a) CHARGE NO-14. It is alleged that the CSO, “ In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, the CSO diverted Rs 1.00 lakh from the AGTL-130002 to the SB account of Son-in law of CSO. 11.15. (a) CHARGE NO-15. It is alleged that the CSO, " In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, the CSO sanctioned /disbursed DL 140002 and DL 150001 loan accounts aggregating Rs 4.00 lakh which have been classified as NPA within one year, are cases of early mortality. 11.16. (a) CHARGE NO-16. It is alleged that the CSO, “ In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 55 various loans aggregating Rs 300.10 lakh. Wherein post-sanction visit report and bills/vouchers were not held and end use was not ensured." 15. 11.16. (a) CHARGE NO-16. It is alleged that the CSO, “ In violation of extant guidelines, in gross abuse of official position and in blatant violation of the laid down systems and procedures, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 55 various loans aggregating Rs 300.10 lakh. Wherein post-sanction visit report and bills/vouchers were not held and end use was not ensured." 15. The petitioner has not placed the reply filed to these articles of charge but what can be gathered from the report of the enquiry officer is extracted below: In respect of Charge No.1: It is not stated how the Group Credit Policy of the Bank/Guidelines are applicable to the individual loans/borrowers and it is not known what policy guidelines of the Bank are applicable for sanction of individual loans. In respect of Charge No.2: It is not stated how the Group Credit Policy of the Bank/Guidelines are applicable to the individual loans/borrowers. That these guidelines are applicable to project loans and not to the 54 loans sanctioned to individuals. In respect of Charge No.3: The loan sanctioned are purely agricultural terms loans or agricultural demand loans and not project loans where either a financial paper/estimation/quotation or project report is required but is based on the valuation of the property mortgaged to the Bank or collateral security offered. In respect of Charge No.4: The loans are sanctioned/disbursed against the security of hypothecation of crop as well as land and building and therefore, this charge is without basis. In respect of Charge No.5: In the Manual on Agricultural Loans, it permits taking residential buildings as security when agricultural land is not available and hence, there is no violation of any guidelines as alleged. In respect of Charge No.6: As per the Manual on Agricultural Advances, it permits taking of an asset as security and therefore, there is no violation of any guidelines as alleged. In respect of Charge No.8: That the loans sanctioned/disbursed for business purpose was for allied agricultural activity. Hence, there is no diversion of proceeds of the loans. As per the Manual on Agricultural Advances, the post sanctioned visits should be undertaken by the branch officials in order ot ensure end use of fund advanced. It does not cast duty solely on the Manager to ensure end use of the fund. As per the Manual on Agricultural Advances, at least two officers are normally involved in any decision to advance loan. It does not cast duty solely on the Manager to ensure end use of the fund. As per the Manual on Agricultural Advances, at least two officers are normally involved in any decision to advance loan. Therefore, when loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, some other officer of the branch had to ensure the end use of the funds lent. In respect of Charge No.9: As per the Group Credit Policy guidelines, it is mentioned at para 6.6 that “purpose of the credit shall invariably be stated in all proposal but does not state that specific purpose should be mentioned. In respect of Charge No.10: That the borrowers reside within 30 kms. radius of the branch and if the distance is measured by road, it may be beyond 30 kms. Therefore, no misconduct is committed in extending loans to customers who reside within 30 kms. radius of the branch. In respect of Charge No.11: The allegation that the Head Office Circular No.234/2011 dated 30.03.2011 is violated is vague as the charge does not spell out the delegated lending powers, its limit and the alleged excess made by her. In respect of Charge No.12: The Group Credit Policy is not applicable to the loans sanctioned by her as they are all individual loans. The Second Line Officer, Mr. Yogesh Naik was a Probationary and not in a position to sign the documents. That she has not violated any systems and procedures prescribed by the Bank. In respect of Charge No.13: That the unit visit report shows that the end use of fund was ensured as per the statement of the borrowers. That it is not the sole responsibility of the Branch Manager to ensure end use of the funds lent as the other official responsible for credit decision should also ensure the end use of the fund. That there is no diversion of the funds or the loans sanctioned. In respect of Charge No.14: When the borrower admittedly transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of her son-in-law, question of she diverting the funds does not arise. That the amount paid to the son-in-law was refund of the loan and not quid pro quo to give any rise for suspicion. The transfer of Rs.1,00,000/- was through cheque and not cash payment and therefore, she had no control over transaction. That the amount paid to the son-in-law was refund of the loan and not quid pro quo to give any rise for suspicion. The transfer of Rs.1,00,000/- was through cheque and not cash payment and therefore, she had no control over transaction. In respect of Charge No.15: That it is for the incumbent Branch Manager to recover the loan amount and petitioner is not responsible for early mortality of the loan. In respect of Charge No.16: This is a repetition of charge No.13 and therefore, the reply to charge NO.13 is adopted by answering this charge. 16. The reply submitted by the petitioner ex-facie was evasive and did not answer the charges alleged against her. All that the petitioner claimed was that sufficient security was taken before sanctioning the loans and that the interest of the respondent was well protected. The petitioner tried to wish away the accusations made against her as frivolous and that the non compliance of the stated norms did not affect the respondent in any manner. This Court has no expertise to know the consequences of the non compliance of the norms/ guidelines/directions framed by the respondent while sanctioning loan, as no material in that regard is placed before this court. However, this Court is certainly aware that when the respondent is bound to follow a set pattern while sanctioning loans, the non compliance of the pattern may raise concerns/ suspicion about the legitimacy of such loans, which may or may not ultimately result in the loan becoming sticky. The respondent is a large organization which has to deal with its constituents uniformly and on a non discriminatory basis. It is in order to achieve this that the respondent would have framed rules/regulations, issued guidelines/directions/circulars etc. Therefore, everyone concerned with the affairs of the respondent is bound to comply with the aforesaid lest the whole edifice would crumble to the ground. 17. Now coming to the question whether the framing of charges against the petitioner were justified or not, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, this is purely a decision of the management of the respondent. 17. Now coming to the question whether the framing of charges against the petitioner were justified or not, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, this is purely a decision of the management of the respondent. If the petitioner is found to have violated or willfully ignored any guidelines/directions/circulars issued by the respondent or has acted negligently in the discharge of her duties, there can be no second thought that the respondent has the authority to proceed against its employee by treating it as a misconduct. The contention of the petitioner that the internal audit of Brahmanipura branch in respect of loans sanctioned by her in the previous years did not show any misgivings, cannot itself protect the petitioner against any deliberate let up that was then either not noticed or not capable of being noticed. A wrong however miniscule remains a wrong forever and cannot be equated to an inadvertent error. A perusal of the articles of charge show that the petitioner who was the senior manager at Brahmanipura branch had failed to do the basic due diligence such as: "(a) Charge No-01. It is alleged against the CSO that, In violation of Group Credit Policy of the bank, in gross abuse of official position and blatant violation of laid down systems and procedures, without conducting Due diligence of the borrowers, CSO sanctioned/disbursed 57 various loans aggregating Rs.304.10 lakhs. (b) In respect of above charge, the CSO, in her Written brief dated 16.06.2018,has stated that, when Ex M-71 refer to circular about Group Credit Policy guidelines of the bank, it is not elicited how it would be applicable to individual loans /borrowers or what policy guidelines of the bank is for sanction of individual loans. (c) The Presenting Officer(P O) in his written brief dated 25.05.2018, has stated that, the CSO while giving clarification dated 10.07.2017(Ex M-07), to the Vigilance Officer (MW-1) the CSO has stated that "wherever there is absence of due diligence or CIBIL report, the said loans are based on collateral security, keeping the interest of bank's money secured". (c) The Presenting Officer(P O) in his written brief dated 25.05.2018, has stated that, the CSO while giving clarification dated 10.07.2017(Ex M-07), to the Vigilance Officer (MW-1) the CSO has stated that "wherever there is absence of due diligence or CIBIL report, the said loans are based on collateral security, keeping the interest of bank's money secured". In view of the above the CSO admitted that she has sanctioned the loans without due diligence and CSO not submitted any proof that she had obtained due diligence report of borrowers." It may be that it is humanly impossible for one person such as the petitioner to personally oversee with precision various activities of the bank commencing from its establishment, running of the branch, pre loan visits, documentation, verification, advances, post advance follow ups, recoveries, statutory compliances, audits, internal compliances etc. It could also be that the branches are provided with targets both for advances and recoveries and in many a case it could affect their promotional prospects. In this scenario, it could quite be possible that there could be some errors or mistakes that happen inadvertently. In the instant case, the petitioner has not made any attempt to establish that the mistakes pointed out in the articles of charge were inadvertent or were due to any reason beyond her control. This Court does not wish to go into the specifics of each charge and defence raised to ascertain whether the mistake committed was inadvertent or deliberate. This must have been stated in the reply filed by the petitioner to the articles of charge which she has not done. 18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court cannot upset the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority unless it is shown that such finding is either based on no evidence or based on misconception of evidence or when incontrovertible evidence on record is ignored to return a finding to implicate an employee. This Court is also aware that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , this Court should not voyage into a discovery of facts or reassess the evidence on record to render a different finding. This Court is also aware that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , this Court should not voyage into a discovery of facts or reassess the evidence on record to render a different finding. So long as the enquiry undertaken by the enquiry officer is just and proper and complies with the principles of natural justice and the disciplinary authority gives all reasonable opportunity, the Court would be hesitant to interfere, unless the reasons mentioned in the preceding sentence exists. However, the Court would exercise jurisdiction whenever the disciplinary authority imposes a punishment which is thoroughly disproportionate to the charges made against a delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority should be alive to human frailties, limitations and the possibility of they committing mistakes etc., before imposing harsh penalties. Punishment should be commensurate to the misconduct alleged so that the delinquent employee reforms himself. In the instant case, though the petitioner has negligently failed to comply mandatory compliances, yet the silver lining is the fact that all the loans sanctioned by the petitioner was sufficiently secured, thereby meaning that the interest of the respondent was not compromised or jeopardised. It is undisputed that the Brahmanipura branch of the respondent did not suffer any loss till 31-12-2018. This should be a mitigating factor while considering the punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner. 19. Now, the question that would arise for consideration is the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to. It is found that the petitioner was aged 55 years when she filed this writ petition. Therefore, by now, the petitioner must have attained the age of superannuation. This Court had granted an interim order directing the respondents to reserve one post in MMG /Scale-IV. However, the respondents without reserving the post in the year 2019-20 have proceeded to fill up the four posts, namely, vacancy Nos.113, 114, 115 and 116. In the ordinary course, the vacancy No.113 must have been reserved for the petitioner. 20. Consequently, if the petitioner succeeds in writ petition 29738/2019 the petitioner is entitled to be granted the promotion with effect from the date when the respondent No.3 in WP No.5598/2020 was granted the promotion. In the ordinary course, the vacancy No.113 must have been reserved for the petitioner. 20. Consequently, if the petitioner succeeds in writ petition 29738/2019 the petitioner is entitled to be granted the promotion with effect from the date when the respondent No.3 in WP No.5598/2020 was granted the promotion. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of her grade (MMG-III) and pay as also promotion with effect to the MMG Scale-IV with effect from the date when respondent No.3 in WP No.5598/2020 was promoted. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits. 21. In view of the fact that the misconduct imputed against the petitioner is proved and taking into account that such misconduct has not resulted in any financial impact on the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is harsh and excessive. Consequently, the same deserves to be modified and a minor penalty deserves to be imposed on the petitioner. 22. Hence, W.P.No.29738/2019 is allowed-in-part and the major penalty of reduction from MMG-III to MMG-II with basic pay of Rs.44,640/- per month is set aside and minor penalty of reduction of one annual increment with cumulative effect is imposed. Consequently, W.P.No.10996/2019 is allowed. The promotion of the petitioner to MMG-IV for the year 2018-19, kept in a sealed cover shall be opened and the petitioner shall be granted promotion to MMG-IV from the date when the vacancy arose in 2018-19 and if there were no vacancies, then to grant promotion to MMG-IV Grade from the date of promotion of respondent No.3 in W.P.No.5598/2020. As a result of the above, the Grade and Pay of the petitioner in MMG-III shall stand restored and the respondent shall grant the promotion and all consequential benefits. In view of the Order allowing W.P.No.10996/2019 no orders are required to be passed in W.P.No.5598/2020 and the same stand disposed. 23. The restoration of the grade and pay of the petitioner and the grant of promotion to MMG-IV with all consequential benefits shall be granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.