G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner interalia challenges the suspension order dated 7 June 2011, the order dated 14 February 2013 imposing penalty of dismissal as confirmed by the Appellate Authority's order dated 16 May 2013 as also confirmed by the Reviewing Authority by its order dated 22 October 2013, praying that these orders be quashed and set aside with a further prayer seeking reinstatement in service with full back-wages.

The facts in nutshell are:-

2. The Petitioner joined services with the first Respondent in the year 1983 as a clerk-cum-cashier. He received promotions and ultimately in the year 2010 was working as Senior Branch Manager at Mahidpur branch of the first Respondent. The Petitioner states that from January to May 2011, two officers from Mahidpur branch were transferred to the other branches resulting in tremendous work load on the Petitioner and other officers working in the branch.

3. On 7 June 2011 the first Respondent issued an order of suspending the Petitioner in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. The suspension order recorded that the Petitioner had parted with the security documents in respect of KCC loan accounts sanctioned by the Petitioner. The order sets out details of 40 accounts alongwith the details of the sanctioned amount and the disbursed amount. It was recorded that the Petitioner had connived with the local agents and collected bribe for sanction of KCC loans through these agents, which was also widely reported in the local media, which tarnished the bank's image.

4. The first Respondent thereafter issued to the Petitioner a show cause notice dated 26 August 2011, setting out 17 acts of misconduct alleged to be committed by the Petitioner. The details of 41 bank accounts in regard to which the allegations were made were also set out. The Petitioner by his letter dated 7 September 2011 replied to the show cause notice, inter alia, stating that the Petitioner deeply regretted the lapses and requested the first Respondent to forgive him. The Petitioner also stated that he was under tremendous pressure of work after transfer of certain officers. The Petitioner recorded that he was unable to know how the security documents went out of the branch premises. He also pleaded that he had not given these documents to the middleman Mr. Bherulal. He denied that he has accepted any bribe or commission and stated that this was a conspiracy to tarnish the Petitioner's image and to blackmail the Petitioner and that there is some local politics involved.

5. Being not satisfied with the reply, the first Respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 30 June 2012. The charges interalia were of misuse of official position in sanctioning as well as disbursing KCC loans in connivance with middleman Mr. Bherulal, in respect of 40 loan accounts and while sanctioning these loans acceptance of illegal gratification, by way of siphoning of loan amount payable to the borrowers being the Petitioner's illegal share, the details of which were set out. The second charge was that the Petitioner unauthorizedly allowed Mr. Bherulal the middleman to take physical possession of the bank security documents in respect of 40 loan accounts. It was alleged that after taking unauthorized possession of the bank's security documents, Mr. Bherulal got these documents executed by the borrowers at his private office without the presence of any bank official. Thirdly, it was alleged that the Petitioner extended undue accommodation to Mr. Bherulal by sanctioning him Agricultural Term Loan for purchase of car of Rs.3 lakhs on 18 April 2011 which was disbursed without ensuring to any security for the safety of bank's fund, thereby exposing the bank to financial loss of Rs.3,11,769.30. Fourthly it was alleged that the Petitioner has committed gross dereliction in performance of duties while sanctioning KCC loans inasmuch as no presanction or post sanction inspection was c