ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Call for records.

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or Order quashing the Order No. IRS DP BLCR 5324 2007 dated 24.11.2007 (Annexure F) passed by the Disciplinary Authority; Order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure J) passed by the Appellate Authority and Order No.HRW IRS DP BLCR 178 2012 dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure L) passed by the Reviewing Authority and reinstate the petitioner with back wages and all consequential benefits including increments, seniority, promotions etc as if the order of punishment was never in existence.

c. Grant costs of the proceedings.

d. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner joined the services of the respondent-

Bank as a Clerk on 20.04.1980 and has worked at the various branches of the Bank. Petitioner was promoted as Manager in MMG Scale II on 18.06.2001. When the petitioner was working as a Manager at the Dibburahally branch of the 2nd respondent bank, he was kept under suspension by order dated 15.05.2006 passed by the General Manager. Thereafter a charge sheet is laid alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities in sanctioning 272 tractor loans against the target of 45 for the year 2005-2006 and also that the petitioner has not conducted any sanction inspection and the loans were sanctioned beyond 16 kms. radius without prior permission.

Thereafter on enquiry, the disciplinary authority by order dated 24.11.2007 imposed punishment of “dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" on the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Regulation 17 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations before the appellate authority. Petitioner also submitted a representation dated 19.8.2008 as per Annexure-H to the appellate authority regarding the security available with the Bank and that there is no financial loss or even risk of financial loss to the Bank. The appellate Authority without considering the ground raised in the appeal and the representation, rejected the appeal confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

4. Against the order of the appellate Authority, petitioner preferred a review petition under Regulation 18 of the Discipline and Regulations, which came to be rejected and was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.4.2012 vide Annexure-

L.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal which shall ordinary be a disqualification for future employment’ which is confirmed by both the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, the captioned petition is filed seeking to quash the said orders.

6. Learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are erroneous and while holding the petitioner guilty has virtually discarded the materials placed on record to counter the allegations. He would vehemently argue and contend that these documents would virtually displace the allegations attributed to the petitioner while sanctioning tractor loans. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on documents marked at DEX12 and DEX19. Referring to these counter documents, he would point out that the stand of the management that petitioner has sanctioned 272 tractor loans against the target of 45 is effectively refuted by these two clinching documents. Referring to DEX12, he would point out that the petitioner’s superiors vide letter dated 28.2.2005 had notified the petitioner regarding the tractor mela scheduled on 23.9.2005. He would also point out to the documents marked at Ex.DEX19 to demonstrate that tractor loan campaign was scheduled from 1.8.2005 to 2.11.2005. Referring to these significant de