JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated April 7, 2016 as passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent No.1 Bank who is the Respondent No.3 in this writ petition and which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.4 herein) by his order dated November 3, 2016.

2. Before the Inquiry Authority, the present writ petitioner being the delinquent has faced the following four charges :

Charge No.1 : The petitioner misappropriated bank’s fund of Rs.25,000/-for benefiting his family members by debiting Account No.2355713311 to the credit of Savings Bank Account No.3108810402 of Smt. Sikha Varshney, the wife of the petitioner.

Charge No. 2 : The petitioner created two loan accounts favouing himself against time deposits without creating underlying security and loan documents violating the laid down procedure of the bank for getting undue personal benefit utilizing his post and incumbency..

Charge No. 3 : The petitioner sanctioned loan (Account No.3239035497) to credit his own savings bank Account (no.3110051051) with loan proceeds without any security, abusing his delegated lending power and violating norms for sanctioning loan/staff loan and enjoyed bank’s funds unauthorizedly.

Charge No. 4 : The petitioner has sanctioned and disbursed loans on different dates without ensuring end use of fund as per scheme and allowed the beneficiary to divert fund and put bank’s interest in stake. Under Charge no. 4, allegation has been raised in respect of six term loans.

3. The delinquent/writ petitioner has submitted his statement of defence and thereafter the inquiry proceedings proceeded against him and on conclusion of the same, the inquiry officer found that the Charge No.1 has been partially proved and the remaining charges have not been proved against the delinquent/writ petitioner.

4. Before the Disciplinary Authority (the respondent No.3), the respondent No.1 Bank did not proceed with the Charge Nos. 2 & 3. However the Disciplinary Authority in its findings dated February 18, 2016 did not agree with the findings of the inquiry authority and thus held that Charge No. 1 has been fully proved and Charge No. 4 with all its sub-parts have been partially proved and accordingly the present writ petitioner by an Administrative Order dated April 7, 2016 was awarded with the punishment of Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976.

5. The matter was thereafter taken to the Appellate Authority at the instance of the delinquent/writ petitioner. The Appellate authority vide its decision dated November 3, 2016 affirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority in respect of Charge Nos.1 and 4 and also affirmed the consolidated punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

6. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and the punishment as imposed upon him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

7. Mr. Indranil Chakraborty, Learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Apurba Ghosh Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner inter alia submitted :

(i) In absence of any proof that any benefit accrued either in favour of the writ petitioner or his wife, the aforementioned three authorities ought to have held that the Charge No.1 has not been proved against the writ petitioner.

(ii) Prior to imposition of penalty, the respondent authorities ought to have visualize that on account of alleged misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner, the respondent/Bank has not suffered any loss or harm.

(iii) In absence of any further evidence, either oral or documentary, there cannot be any basis on the part of the Disciplinary Authority and/or the Appellate Authority to come to a conclusion that the Charge Nos. 1 a