Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The facts as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as directly recruited officer initially in Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank which was later on amalgamated in Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank having its head office at Raebareilly. During the period of posting of the petitioner as Branch Manager, Mundalia Gausu Branch in the year 1985 certain irregularities were reported during the course of inspection and the petitioner was put to notice vide letter dated 17/27.4.1986. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice. The petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry. The suspension order dated 30.10.1987 was revoked by the office order dated 30.11.1987. However, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner continued.

3. Fresh suspension order dated 18.2.1988 was passed pending enquiry. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and the suspension order was lifted by the order dated 12.8.1993 with certain terms and conditions mentioned in the order itself. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 44311 of 1993 with the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.8.1993 and the terms and conditions as laid down in the order dated 12.8.1993 revoking the suspension order dated 18.2.1988. The prayer for quashing of the entire enquiry proceedings was also made in the writ petition. The writ petition was heard and dismissed as premature by the judgment and order dated 30.11.1993 passed by this Court. The enquiry proceeded and the petitioner had participated in the proceedings which were concluded on 6.10.1997. The order dated 7.6.1999 imposing punishment was passed. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is as under :

“1. The cumulative penalty for all the above, charges will be Recovery of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousands only) as pecuniary loss caused to the bank consequent upon the misconducts committed by Mr. Mayank Agarwal as mentioned in the said charge-sheet, be made from pay of Mr. Mayank Agarwal.”

“2. The period spent under suspension be treated on duty. However, he will not be entitled to get credit for any type of leave for the period of suspension in his leave account.”

“3. Mr. Mayank Agarwal is further warned that in case such type of misconducts are repeated, serious view shall be taken in the matter.”

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Regulation 31 of the Staff Regulations, 1980 before the Board of Directors, Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the then bank through proper channel. The appeal was rejected by the order dated 10.1.2001.

5. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 7.6.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the appellate authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while impugning the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, drawn attention of the Court upon the charges levelled against him in the article of charges. He submits that in the statement of allegations as against the first charge of committing certain acts and commissions by the petitioner it is stated that he had sanctioned 7 loans to beneficiaries at Mundalia Gausa beyond the discretionary lending power of Branch Manager for an individual. He further submits that the table as provided alongwith the statement of allegations which finds place at page 58 of the paper book shows that the loan which was alleged to have been sanctioned in excess of the discretionary lending power of the Branch Manager for an individual was nominal. The petitioner has loaned only approximately Rs. 100/- or Rs. 400/- in excess of discretionary power as alleged.

7. As soon as the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner he submitted the representation before the officer asking him to provide certain