JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing/setting aside of the order of punishment dated 23.08.2005 of removal from service passed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings initiated against him; (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing/setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 03.11.2005 communicated to the petitioner vide Letter dated 07.11.2005, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.08.2005 has been rejected; (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing/setting aside the order dated 08.12.2005 communicated to the petitioner vide Letter dated 12.12.2005, whereby and whereunder, review petition filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order dated 03.11.2005 has been rejected by the Executive Director being the Reviewing Authority; (iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) including the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including full back-wages. 2. Petitioner was posted as Branch Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ranchi University Branch, Ranchi from 25.06.2001 to 22.02.2002 in which he had sanctioned loan in 23 cases without involving any other officer(s) of the Branch. Out of loans disbursed four were fictitious borrowers. 3. Further, charge against the petitioner was that he had disbursed loan in 32 cases without ensuring the genuineness of the documents submitted by the borrowers. 4. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the following charges: - i. He sanctioned and disbursed loans to four fictitious borrowers. ii. He sanctioned and disbursed loans in 32 cases without ensuring the genuineness of the documents submitted by the borrowers. iii. He sanctioned and disbursed loans in 23 cases under Bank’s Retail Credit Scheme for Employees without complying with the eligibility criteria of the Scheme. iv. He unauthorizedly sanctioned loans to close relatives of the staff members in four cases. v. He sanctioned loans in 23 cases without involving any other officer of the Branch and thus, violated Head Office guidelines. 5. iv. He unauthorizedly sanctioned loans to close relatives of the staff members in four cases. v. He sanctioned loans in 23 cases without involving any other officer of the Branch and thus, violated Head Office guidelines. 5. On departmental proceeding, the petitioner was indicted of the charges and he was removed from the service under Regulation 4(i) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. 6. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the General Manager, HRD, but without success, and after hearing the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed. The subsequent review has also been rejected. 7. Writ petitioner is before this Court against the order of dismissal. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner had followed the due procedure for advancing the loan and at the relevant time, Shri M.N. Jha was the loan officer of the said branch and he had introduced four persons, to whom loans were sanctioned and disbursed. However, neither said M.N. Jha was proceeded against nor he was examined as a witness. It is argued that despite the petition being filed to summon him as a witness, the Inquiry Officer did not summon him, thereby causing prejudice to the Petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that as per the Circular No. ADV/40/2000-01/240 dated 21 st November, 2000 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, only four general conditions were required to be satisfied before advancing the loan. Under these conditions, identity card was to be verified from the original by the Loan Officer at the sanctioning branch. Here the Loan Officer was Shri M.N. Jha who was not impleaded in the proceedings nor as a witness. 10. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Bank has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of very suppression of the fact that petitioner was prosecuted in R.C. No. 15 (A)/2003-R for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this case, the petitioner was convicted by the judgment dated 30.01.2019. 11. The final order was passed by the Reviewing Authority in the year, 2005, whereas, the writ petition has been filed after an ordinate delay of 6 years in the year, 2011. 12. In this case, the petitioner was convicted by the judgment dated 30.01.2019. 11. The final order was passed by the Reviewing Authority in the year, 2005, whereas, the writ petition has been filed after an ordinate delay of 6 years in the year, 2011. 12. It is submitted that a writ petition is liable to dismissed for delay and suppression of facts is settled by long line of judicial precedents. Reliance is placed on the following judgments :- (i) W.P. (S) No. 2453 of 2023 [Kanhu Tirkey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] (ii) Civil Appeal No(s). 852 of 2020 (Supreme Court of India) (iii) Civil Appeal No. 7550-7553 of 2021 (Supreme Court of India) Shri K. Jayaram & Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. 13. On facts, it is submitted that the charges of disbursement of loan without involving any other officers and also advancing loan to the fictitious persons have been proved both in departmental proceeding as well in the criminal trial and has attained finality. 14. It submitted that the said circular specifically provided that the officer concerned had to verify and exercise due diligence in exercise of his duty while disbursing the loan. In view of the fact that no officers were involved while sanctioning the loan, there was flagrant violations of the procedures for disbursing. 15. Induspitably charges of advancing loan without complying with the eligibility criteria of the Scheme and guidelines has been proved in the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner. Charges include advancing loan to the fictitious borrowers. Petitioner has also been convicted in a criminal trial. Plea that the Loan Officer who had introduced the fictitious borrower(s) was neither impleaded nor examined as witness is not sustainable for the reason that during enquiry proceeding, Petitioner was permitted to examine Sri M. N. Jha as defence witness. He failed to examine him as a witness on the date fixed for evidence and, therefore, his plea at this stage cannot be accepted. There are findings of fact that loan was advanced in violation to the scheme and guidelines. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the Writ Application, which accordingly stands dismissed.