Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the Zonal Manager, United Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office as the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service, as affirmed by order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the appellate authority. Facts of the case may be briefly noted.

2. While the petitioner was serving in the Regional Office of United Bank of India, Sibsagar Region, he was placed under suspension by order dated 22.5.2001 issued by the Deputy General Manager(Personnel) of the United Bank of India (Bank). It was stated that disciplinary action was contemplated against the petitioner for certain gross misconduct allegedly committed by him as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 28.5.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Zonal Manager of the Bank, Guwahati Zonal Office, being the disciplinary authority, informing him that an enquiry was proposed to be held in terms of Regulation 6 of United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on the eight articles of charge mentioned therein. All the charges related to the tenure of the petitioner as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch during 24.2.1997 to 22.9.2000. The substance of the allegations is that petitioner had misused his position as Branch Manager and had granted loans without ensuring proper security and some without authority, even by creating fake ledger-sheet, thereby exposing the Bank to financial risk.

3. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 10.6.2002 denying the allegations. He also stated that it could not be concluded that Bank was likely to suffer financial loss on account of loans granted.

4. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and accordingly, it was decided to hold departmental enquiry under Regulation 6 of United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Regulations). Accordingly, Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the case of the Bank at the enquiry.

5. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted wherein petitioner participated. At the end of the enquiry, written submissions were filed by the Presenting Officer as well as on behalf of the petitioner. In his written statement, petitioner stated that he had served the Bank for almost four decades and had an unblemished service record. Dehing Tea Estate Branch was a single officer branch and he could not manage the entire work load by single supervisory hand. However, for the errors, omissions and procedural irregularities committed, petitioner expressed sincere regret. There was no mala fide intention on his part. Loan accounts which may have turned NPA are secured by documents and the Bank may initiate legal proceedings to realize the dues.

6. On conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.4.2003. All the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved except Charge No. 2(ii), which was held to be partially proved. Disciplinary authority vide the forwarding letter dated 17.4.2003 furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to submit his defence statement on the enquiry report. In respect thereto, petitioner submitted his representation dated 8.5.2003 contending that submissions made on behalf of the defence were not given due consideration. Nothing was recorded by the Enquiry Officer as to why defence arguments were acceptable or non acceptable to him. He, therefore, prayed for exonerating him from the charges.

7. Disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2003 agreeing with the views of the Enquiry Officer. He came to the conclusion that misconduct of the petitioner had been proved in the enquiry. He therefore held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, honest