Aftab Alam, J.

1. The petitioner who at the material time was working as a Cashier with the respondent Bank got away with relatively mild punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect on the grave charge of extorting money from a number of poor borrowers for disbursing the small bank loans to them. Mr. Chandrmauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly argued that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was quite illegal and unsustainable as it was based on a domestic enquiry and its report made in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel urged the Court to disregard, at least for a while, the gravity of the charge and to examine the manner in which the charge was sought to be fastened upon the petitioner. He pointed out that the charge was held to be established against the petitioner on the basis of statements of the borrowers, made not in the course of the enquiry against the petitioner, but on other occasions and behind his back. The finding of the petitioners guilt was, thus, arrived at by denying him any opportunity to cross-examine those whose allegations against him were considered and relie