IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.278 of 1993 Decided on:7.1.2008 Anil Kumar Gupta Petitioner Versus Himachal Gramin Bank and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes For the petitioners: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Per V.K.Ahuja,J.(Oral): This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the appellate order dated 18.12..1992 passed by the Appellate Authority/Disciplinary Authority of respondent No.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager, Gupt Ganga, Kangra and during his posting he did not identify one borrower who had applied for sanctioning of the loan and prepared a bogus CR of the borrower in the loan application and did not conduct pre-appraisal of the loan case sanctioned by him. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 27.7.1992 found him guilty of two of Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 the charges out of the three charges leveled against him. The charges proved against the petitioner were that he did not conduct the pre-appraisal sanction of the loan case since he failed to conduct proper pre-sanction of the case recommended by him and he fraudulently raised false loan in the name of the borrower and himself mis-appropriated the loan amount himself. A show-cause notice was issued to him which was replied by him and thereafter after enquiry the penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as under: “Reduction of salary by four stages in time scale with cumulative effect” The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority decided to reduce the punishment of reduction of increments from four to three stages. Being aggrieved by the final order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has challenged those orders by way of this writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The submissions mace by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the said loanee Desh Raj had admitted that he had signed the loan papers and therefore his evidence as well as other evidence did not establish the charges as against him and in view of the fact that the amount involved was less, he did not conduct proper enquiry before submitting the case for sanction. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are 3 in regard to the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot go into the question of findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer. There is no substance in the plea that the loan amount in question pertaining to Desh Raj was deposited by the said loanee and all these questions of fact have been raised which cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. There is nothing on record to show that the rules of natural justice were not followed by the Enquiry Officer or that there is any such specific ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from any illegality. Therefore, there is no question of interference in the findings of the fact and the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer,. Coming to the penalty imposed of stoppage of three increments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the fact that the loan amount in question has been fully deposited and the transaction pertains to a small amount, the punishment is harsh and needs to be reduced accordingly. The question in regard to the punishment to be inflicted upon the persons holding such posts as that of Branch Manager, was dealt with by this Division Bench in LPA 24 of 2006 State Bank of India and others vs. B.D.Mandhotra decided on 24.7.2007. This Court after relying upon a decision of the Apex Court had concluded that in cases of bank employees, the financial irregularities committed by them, cannot be taken lightly since the confidence of the public is involved, who deposit their money with the bank and in most of the cases, the Apex Court has held that such persons cannot be retained in service. 4 Keeping in view the aforesaid decision of this Court and the fact that the charges as against the petitioner relate to financial irregularities which have been proved and the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority of imposing a penalty of stoppage of three increments cannot be said to be harsh and it calls for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. (Deepak Gupta),J. 7th January, 2008. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)