Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-XIV order dated 11.11.2008, by which pursuant to the departmental proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent bank imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2009, by which his Departmental Appeal was dismissed by the Departmental Appellate Authority, upholding the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner while was serving as Senior Manager of the respondent bank was issued with the Annexure-1 show cause notice dated 12.06.2007, alleging serious financial irregularities. Referring to the transactions with as much as 14 organizations, it was alleged in the show cause notice that the petitioner abused his position and failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty and also failed to protect the interest of the bank exposing it to grave financial risk.

2. Responding to the show cause notice, the petitioner by his Annexure-II reply dated 14.07.2007 quiet to justify his action. It was stated in the show cause reply that over drawing was allowed with the prior permission of the competent authority from the Regional Office obtained over telephone. Being not satisfied with the reply, so furnished, the respondent bank issued the charge sheet dated 12.10.2007, alleging violation of the provisions of 'UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. Along with the articles of charge, the statement of allegation was also enclosed dealing with the misconduct and the charge attributed to the petitioner. Referring to the financial transactions with the organizations named in the statement of allegation, it was alleged that the petitioner had recommended cash credit beyond his jurisdiction and that no regular inspections of stock were carried out. It was also alleged that the petitioner had allowed disbursement of term loan by crediting directly to the cash credit account of the parties and without ensuring its end dues. The transactions in reference to which the statement of allegation was made against the petitioner involved huge amount and it was alleged that the petitioner exposed the bank to financial risk.

3. Responding to the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence, on perusal of which, the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the same, ordered for a regular enquiry. The Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose conducted the enquiry and by his enquiry report dated 30.04.2008, held as follows:-

I finally conclude as follows-

The following allegations and the relevant charges are proved- 1(a), 4(a), (c) and (d), 5(b), 6(a), (b), (g), (i), 9(a) and 13(a).

The following allegations and relevant charges are partially proved-1-(d), (e), (f), (g), 2(a), (b), 3(a), 4(b), (e), (f), 5(a), (c), 6(b), 7(b)(c), 8(e), (h), (k), 9(d), (e), 10, 11 and 13(c).

The following allegations and relevant charges are not proved-1(b), (c), (h), 3(b), 7(a), (d), 8(c), (d), (f), (j), 9(b), (c), (f), (g), (h), 12, 13(b) and 14.

4. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not pleaded any procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry, but what has been pleaded is that the irregularity attributed to the petitioner was condonable more particularly when the transactions did not incur any financial loss to the respondent bank. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1377 (Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank & Ors.) Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transactions in respect of which the charges have been leveled against the petitioner were duly transacted by the petitioner without any evil intention and was not for any personal gain. He submits that the procedural irregularity in the financial transactions