JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in the instant writ application, prays for the following relief(s):- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the order contained in Letter bearing No. HO/vig/175/2018-19 dated 20th December, 2018 issued by Respondent No.2 communicated to petitioner on 05.01.2019 (Annexure-21) whereby penalty of 50% of the loss amount i.e. Rs.3,11,909.31 has been imposed upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 39.1(a)(iv) of Vanachal Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Services Regulation, 2010 (herein after referred as "Regulation of 2010" for short) on the alleged ground that petitioner has violated Rule 18 and Rule 20 of Chapter IV of the said Regulation of 2010, especially in view of the fact that no second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the said impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take extra legal steps against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged amount of the penalty from retiral benefits of the petitioner especially in view of the fact that petitioner has not violated any Rules of Regulation of 2010. 3. Briefly stated, on 20.07.1979, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Dumka Branch of erstwhile Santhal Parganas Bank and thereafter, on 01.01.1986, he was promoted to Scale-I Officer. On 30.06.2006, the Santhal Parganas Gramin Bank and Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank were amalgamated in terms of provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and consequent thereto, its name changed to Vananchal Gramin Bank. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.12.2015, several technical problems occurred in CBS Programme and/or server of the Computer system including automatic generation of double debit and/or double credit in the accounts of customers, which was duly brought to the notice of the Help Desk and Head Office of the respondent-Bank. 5. Vide letter dated 02.07.2016, the respondent No. 4 informed the Branch Manager that the team of respondent No. 4 had visited the said Branch on 01.07.2016 and during reconciliation of GLCNTR & GL COMP, they had detected overdraft of Rs.8,38,203 in the account of one Sanjay Kumar Yadav, which has occurred due to double credit in his account on 31.03.2016. 6. 6. It has been contended by the Petitioner that from letter dated 31.08.2016, issued by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3 that an amount of Rs.1,81,972/- out of overdraft of Rs.8,38,203/- was duly recovered from the said Sanjay Kumar Yadav. 7. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 27.10.2016, was received by the petitioner on 13.11.2016 and he was asked to submit his reply as to why disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him. The petitioner duly replied and requested to drop the proceeding on the ground that petitioner has no role in crediting the amount in the account of Sanjay Kumar Yadav and it happened only because of technical error in the server system. 8. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, issued charge-sheet to which the petitioner filed his reply. However, the respondent No. 2 without appreciating the reply of the petitioner, initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vide letter dated 19.12.2017. 9. The further case of the petitioner is that on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.08.2018 but no retiral benefits were given to him. Hence, after lapse of more than 65 days from the date of his retirement, he wrote a letter dated 05.11.2018 to the Chairman of the respondent-Bank by requesting to release his retiral dues as petitioner has taken 4 different loans and in absence of fund, he is unable to pay its installments. However, the respondents have not considered his request and on 20.12.2018, after going through the report of the Inquiry Officer, imposed punishment of a cash penalty of 50% of the loss i.e. Rs.3,11,909.31 in terms of Rule 39.1(a)(iv) of the Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010. 10. The said order of punishment has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ application. 11. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that an amount of Rs.8,38,203 has been credited twice and a complete loss of mentioned amount has been incurred to the Bank and the Branch Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Sahibganj Branch was directed to recover the overdraft amount within 10 days and report to the Regional Office but only Rs.1,81,972 was recovered. 12. It has been also contended that both the entries of the amount that were made to the system were scrutinized by Md. 12. It has been also contended that both the entries of the amount that were made to the system were scrutinized by Md. Eqbal Ahmed (petitioner herein) and VVRs were not checked by him, for which the petitioner was duty bound to. Due to the lapses on the part of the petitioner, who being accountable, has violated Regulation Nos. 18 & 20 of Chapter-IV of the Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010. 13. For the said act of the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was conducted against him and after conclusion of the same, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.06.2018. Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority inflicted minor punishment of a cash penalty of 50% of the loss i.e. Rs.3,11,909.31 in terms of Rule 39.1(a)(iv) of the Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010. Hence, there is neither any perversity; nor any procedural error and as such, the writ application deserves to be dismissed in limine. 14. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that several technical problems occurred in CBS Programme including automatic generation of double debit and/or double credit in the accounts of the customer which was brought to the notice of the Help Desk as well as Head Office and only due to this technical problem, double payment was made and it was not only this petitioner, who was responsible for the said double credit. 15. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had even written a letter to the Branch Manager and requested to lodge an F.I.R. against the Account Holder namely, Sanjay Kumar Yadav but the same was not done. 16. However, the record suggests that an amount of Rs.8,38,203/- has been credited twice and a complete loss of the cited amount has been incurred to the Bank and the petitioner was directed to recover such amount vide Annexure-3. As matter of fact, the two entries of the amount that were made to the system were scrutinized by the petitioner and VVR were not checked by him and due to lapses on the part of the petitioner he had violated Rules 18 & 20 of Chapter-IV of Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010. 17. As matter of fact, the two entries of the amount that were made to the system were scrutinized by the petitioner and VVR were not checked by him and due to lapses on the part of the petitioner he had violated Rules 18 & 20 of Chapter-IV of Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010. 17. It further transpires that a detailed enquiry was held against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.06.2018 to the Disciplinary Authority and as per Rule, it appears that a minor penalty has been inflicted on the petitioner. 18. It is further evident that as per Regulation Nos. 39.1(a)(iv) and 39.2(b)(iii) of the Vananchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees Service) Regulation, 2010, there was no need of holding enquiry of issuing 2 nd show-cause notice in case of minor punishment and as stated hereinabove, the punishment of recovery imposed upon the petitioner was a minor punishment. From the Regulations of said Bank it is crystal clear that issuing show-cause notice and asking explanation is enough in order to meet the requirement 19. One more aspect is to be noted in this case. As per Rule 50 of the said Regulation, the petitioner has not filed any Appeal. Since the punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority on 20.12.2018 (Annexure- 21), so the Board of Director is the Appellate Authority and petitioner should have availed the remedy available under Rule 50 of the Regulation. However, instead of filing an appeal, he preferred this writ application. 20. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and after going through the enquiry report and the impugned order, this Court holds that, neither there is any procedural irregularity in the entire proceeding; nor there is any perversity in the impugned order of punishment. Looking to the limited scope under 226 of the Constitution of India, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 21. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s, if any, stand closed.