JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The present case was listed in the admission column and the petitioner in person has expressed urgency in the matter and requested for taking up of the same for disposal at the admission stage. The same not being opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent – Bank, the matter is accordingly taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed seeking the following relief: “ PRAYER In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayer that that Your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and issue rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why: 1) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned order of termination dated 30/04/2025; 2) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent authorities to rescind the order dated 30/04/2025 thereby reinstate the petitioner to his post; 3) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to pay his back wages along with all accrued allowance, benefit and other entitlements w.e.f. 01.05.2025; 4) A writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs 93,000/- deducted from his monthly pursuant to order dated 30.04.2025. 5) And/or be pleased to pass such further order / orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was appointed in the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (hereinafter the Bank) on 03.01.2022 as Assistant Manager on probation for a period of two years. In April, 2023 he was posted at the Bhalukpung Branch as the Branch Manager. On 29.03.2025, the petitioner was served with a letter calling for explanation (explanation letter) regarding certain irregularities which were detected and the same was replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 was passed whereby he was terminated from his service. It is the aforesaid action, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the petitioner in person. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 was passed whereby he was terminated from his service. It is the aforesaid action, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the petitioner in person. I have also heard Shri T. Taba, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank. 5. The petitioner has submitted that while on probation, he was posted as a Branch Manager of the Bhalukpung Branch without providing any training and adequate support staff. He had also contended that the probation period, as per the Rules was two years which is extendable by one year whereafter, the services are required to be confirmed and, in this regard, there is default on the part of the Bank in not passing appropriate orders of confirmation of service. He has also submitted that there is a vast difference between the letter dated 29.03.2025 calling for explanation and the reasons cited in the impugned order of termination dated 30.04.2025. He has submitted that new factors have been taken into consideration by the respondent - Bank while passing the termination order which were not part of the letter dated 29.03.2025. 6. The petitioner has also submitted that in the investigation carried out, there is no element of any fraudulent activity and also there was no mention of the amount of Rs.93,000/-. Rather, there was only an indication of an amount of Rs.9500.92. Under such circumstance, the respondent Bank could not have directed deduction of the amount of Rs.93,000/-. He has also submitted that after expiry of initial period of two years from the date of his appointment, the probation period was extended and if there were any allegations earlier, the probation would not have been extended. He has also contended that there has been violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Regulation 39 of the AP Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter, Regulation of 2010). Lastly, he has contended that the termination letter is stigmatic which would be a hindrance for the petitioner in applying in any other job. 7. In support of his submission that there is a difference between the explanation letter and the order of termination vis-à-vis the allegations, the petitioner has relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 1212 [Ravi Oraon Vs. 7. In support of his submission that there is a difference between the explanation letter and the order of termination vis-à-vis the allegations, the petitioner has relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 1212 [Ravi Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand] and the following observations have been pressed into service: “33. The present is akin to a situation where the noticee successfully defends the charge against him but is made to suffer civil consequences because the notifier finds the noticee guilty of a different charge in respect whereof he is not put to notice. In such a case, the finding of guilt which is at variance with the original charge without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and renders any order or action unsustainable.” 8. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case reported as 2024: MPHC:JBP:47153 [Govind Singh Lodhi Vs. Union of India] . In the said case, certain observations have been made that public sector banks are to ensure that newly recruited officers who are under probation are not entrusted with the job of recommendation and process of loans. 9. Per contra, Shri Taba, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the impugned action has been taken by following the due process of law and by giving the petitioner adequate opportunity. He has submitted that gross irregularities were detected in the duties discharged by the petitioner including opening of fictitious account in the name of one Sargary Basumatary and another account in the name of the Branch itself by using the PAN and TAN of the Branch. 10. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Bank, the learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that admittedly, the service of the petitioner is governed by the Regulation of 2010. In the appointment letter dated 03.01.2022 itself, there was a clear stipulation that the services would be on probation for a period of two years and confirmation would be subjected to various conditions. For ready reference, Clause 3(g) of the appointment order is extracted hereinbelow: “g). You will be put on Probation for 2(two) year and confirmation in the Bank will be subject to satisfactory report on your work, punctuality, intelligence, moral character etc. For ready reference, Clause 3(g) of the appointment order is extracted hereinbelow: “g). You will be put on Probation for 2(two) year and confirmation in the Bank will be subject to satisfactory report on your work, punctuality, intelligence, moral character etc. from the official under whom you will be serving and receipt of satisfactory Police Verification Report, regarding your character and antecedents.” 11. The learned counsel for the Bank has referred to Regulation 8 which pertains to Probation and Regulation 9 which pertains to Confirmation. It is submitted that the period of probation would be two years which is extendable for a period not exceeding one year. Regulation 9 provides that an officer would be confirmed if, in the opinion of the appointing authority, he has satisfactorily completed his probation. It is also provided in Clause 9(2) that if appointing authority is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation, his services may be terminated by giving one month notice. 12. The learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that since the beginning of his appointment, the conduct of the petitioner has not been above board and there were show-cause notices / explanation call on a numerous occasion and the said aspect is brought on record. He submits that the impugned action is fully justified and is in the interest of public. On the aspect of alleged difference between the explanation letter and termination letter, the learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that after the explanation letter was issued, a fact- finding investigation was carried out when many fraudulent activities were detected. He has also referred to Regulation 39 which lays down that for facts admitted, enquiry, per se is not mandatory. 13. The rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 14. From the records and the pleadings, the following facts, which are undisputed, emerge. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager of the respondent – Bank on probation vide an order dated 03.01.2022 for two years and the impugned order of termination dated 30.04.2025 is preceded by an order of calling for explanation dated 29.03.2025. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was at the stage when the petitioner was still under probation as there is no clause of deemed probation in the Regulations. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was at the stage when the petitioner was still under probation as there is no clause of deemed probation in the Regulations. On the contrary, there is a specific clause in the appointment letter namely, Clause 3(g) which lays down that after expiry of the probation period, the Bank may confirm the services which would be subject to satisfactory report on the work. In this regard, the Regulations contain specific provisions, both for Probation and Confirmation. For ready reference Regulation 9 is extracted hereinbelow: “9. Confirmation:- (1) An officer or employee shall be confirmed in the service of the Bank if in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, the officer or employee has satisfactorily completed his probation. (2) Where during the period of probation, including the period of extension of probation, if any, the Appointing Authority is of the opinion that the officer or employee, as the case may be, is not fit for confirmation in the said post,- (a) In the case of a directly appointed officer or employee, his services may be terminated after giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof; (b) In the case of an employee, promotion from Group 'B' to scale 1 of Group 'A' or from Group 'C' to Group 'B', he may be reverted to the post from which he was promoted.” 15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would reveal that if in the opinion of the appointing authority, an officer or employee is not fit for confirmation, his services may be terminated by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order of termination dated 30.04.2025 fulfills the aforesaid condition. 16. With regard to the submission advanced by the petitioner that there is a difference between the letter dated 29.03.2025 of calling for explanation and the impugned termination order dated 30.04.2025, this Court is inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the Bank that in the fact-finding investigation, many new things had surfaced. This Court has also noted that the present proceeding initiated vide the explanation letter dated 29.03.2025 was not the maiden proceeding and within the short period of appointment of the petitioner, that too while being in probation there has been many other charges. This Court has also noted that the present proceeding initiated vide the explanation letter dated 29.03.2025 was not the maiden proceeding and within the short period of appointment of the petitioner, that too while being in probation there has been many other charges. Though the preceding incidents may be argued to have no impact on the impugned termination order, this Court has noted from the records that the earlier allegations were accepted by the petitioner. In this regard, various communications including the letter dated 25.05.2023 issued by the petitioner (page 186 of the records) would show that the petitioner has clearly admitted his fault. There is no denial whatsoever regarding issuance of those communications including the letter dated 25.03.2023. In fact, the admissions are found to be categorical. For ready reference, the admissions are extracted hereinbelow: “To, The Chairman Sir Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Head Office-Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh-791110 Sub-An Earnest Request To Withdraw My Termination. RESPECTED CHAIRMAN SIR, I agree that my indiscipline at my work place brings a question to my carrier as a Banker but I promise I will work hard from now and will work for the interests of the branch. Please forgive me for once and I promise I will regain the reputational image of the branch a continue to work sincerely for this org. As asked following are my answers for the acts of misconduct against various points of L.NO-37/639 1. I apologize for it. 2. I have changed my attitude and from now I shall follow the branch timings from 9 am to 5pm. 3. I don't find it correct. 4. From now I shall follow all my guidelines and shall never repeat this mistake of leaving the station without prior information to Head Office. 5. Distance from Daporijo to Bhalukpong is 500+ kms and I was not getting carriage service so quicki I took the Preparatory leave. I apologize for not informing about this. 6. It was serious act of misconduct. I promise I shall not repeat it at any cost. 7. I know leaving my branch without informing higher authority and also submitting of both vault to the cashier is not justifiable. I promise I shall not repeat this mistake. 8. As only two staffs are here so it becomes necessary to share the id and password because in m situations the maker and checker has to be done by one staff. I promise I shall not repeat this mistake. 8. As only two staffs are here so it becomes necessary to share the id and password because in m situations the maker and checker has to be done by one staff. 9. I shall strictly following my timings and shall abide by all my duties from now. 10. The difference of RS 20,000 Is excess in balance acc. I've consult IT team. When it is found out RS19000 will go in GLCOM acc and remaining RS 1000 will go in vault. 11.a) Smti Yanu Taso, is already avalling a shg loan facility in one shg acc. She has asked me to fund her new shg loan on previous docs and also without visiting the site, so I have declined her request. In regards to this she has complained I guess. Moreover, I will communicate her and will clarify all her doubts again. b) Most of the KYCs has been taken and remaining will be submitted soon as confirmed by ANU JEBISON President of THRIZINO BLOCK. d) All scanning done. e) All Specimen photograph and signature upload completed. I shall attend every phone calls from now. 12. I admit my mistake. And I promise to come early to the branch from now. I agree that being a Branch Manager my Indiscipline and misconducts is very detrimental to this organization. My deepest apologies to Chairman sir, HR team and every co-worker. I've learnt a lot from my mistakes. I promise I will work for the betterment of this org. I commit to bring improvement in myself Thus, it's my request to Chairman sir to withdraw my termination and give me a chance to prove me. I will work sincerely to become an efficient employee for this org. Please consider to give me a chance and withdraw my termination letter. I shall be highly obliged to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible 25-05-2013 Subodh Kr Ral JMGS-1 APRB, BHALUKPONG” 17. The level of integrity, honesty and diligence of a Bank Officer / Employee is higher than any other Officer / Employee of other Departments as they are entrusted in discharging duties in fiduciary capacity. It is the public money which are dealt by the Bank in trust and therefore, the doctrine of public trust is fully applicable so far as Bank Officer / Employee are concerned. It is the public money which are dealt by the Bank in trust and therefore, the doctrine of public trust is fully applicable so far as Bank Officer / Employee are concerned. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the State Bank of India & Ors Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 wherein the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.“ 18. It is a settled law acting beyond one’s authority, particularly by a Bank employee is itself a misconduct when it is found to be recurring. In this connection, one may gainfully rely to the case of Disciplinary Authority- Cum-Regional Manager Vs. the Disciplinary Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 wherein the following observations have been made: “... True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a Bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organization - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/ employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organization, more particularly, a Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organization and more particularly, a Bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and over-drawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. ...” 19. As regards the challenge to the act of recovery of Rs.93,000/-, this Court has noted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 has taken into consideration all the different instances wherein the misconduct of the petitioner becomes apparent. ...” 19. As regards the challenge to the act of recovery of Rs.93,000/-, this Court has noted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 has taken into consideration all the different instances wherein the misconduct of the petitioner becomes apparent. Amongst the allegations, there is a very serious allegation of opening an account in the name and Branch of the Bank itself by using the PAN and TAN and the same are not denied. This Court is of the opinion that under such facts and circumstances, the respondent – Bank has rather taken a softer approach in terminating the services in accordance with Regulation 9(a) and has not lodged any police complaint. This Court is accordingly not inclined to direct refund of any amount. 20. The petitioner, towards the last part of his submission has expressed his apprehension of prejudice in case he applies for any other job. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the aspect. The impugned order dated 30.04.2025 is ultimately issued as per Regulation 9(a) of the Rules which is in connection with confirmation or otherwise of an officer under probation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served by directing that the impugned termination order dated 30.04.2025 is to be deemed as a termination simpliciter which would not have any impact if the petitioner applies for any other jobs as per his qualification and suitability. 21. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. 22. No order as to cost.