JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 10.10.2014, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order dated 04.04.2015, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

3. The fact as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was working on the post of Staff Clerk-cum-CTO under the respondent-bank. While the petitioner was posted at Kalikapur branch, Jamshedpur, certain irregularities were found in opening of KCC accounts (Kissan Credit Card) and the relevant years were 2009-2011. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner has opened few loan accounts which were sanctioned by one C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar during their tenure as second line officials in the branch and since the said two officers were not the Branch Manager and were not having any authority to sanction these loans; still the loan accounts were opened. The charge No. 2 as it appears is almost same and similar except for the fact that in charge No. 2; there is a reference that the said accounts was found to be fictitious later on.

Pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet; an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted enquiry report on 1.4.2014. Upon submission of the enquiry report, show-cause notice was issued to this petitioner to which he duly replied and finally the impugned order of dismissal has been passed against this petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was also rejected.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charges as indicated in the charge-sheet has not been proved in true letter and spirit. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the delinquent knew that the branch manager was the only competent authority.

He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8 to the writ petition and submits that this document stipulates the delegation of powers for the person who is holding the temporary charge. According to that as per guidelines pertaining to sanction of credit proposals under Government, sponsored schemes including KCC and Crop Loan; the official holding temporary charge of the branch during the absence of the branch manager is authorized to exercise lending powers as per his Grade/Scale for sanctioning loan. By referring this document, learned senior counsel submits that there is no finding in the enquiry report that the petitioner knew that the sanctioning authority namely: C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar were not having power.

He further submits that there is no finding in the enquiry report as to whether which branch officers were on leave or as to whether in the presence of any branch manager; the loans were sanctioned by the respective two persons namely: C.S. Biswas and S.K. Sardar with some ulterior motive.

He further draws attention of this Court towards the Inquiry report and submits that at one place after dealing with the factual aspect and evidence; the Inquiry Officer held that the charge No. 1 could not be proved. However, at the concluding portion he proved the charges.

He contended that though in departmental proceeding punishment is based on preponderance of probabilities, but in no case it should be in absence of any evidence. Since there is no evidence of fraud or misappropriation as against this petitioner; punishment of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law.

He further draws attention of this Court towards the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank dated 04.06.2021 and submits that admittedly; more serious charge was inflicted on two persons who sanctioned 74 loan accounts without being an