received the letter from the Head Office advising him not to entertain the loan proposal of M/s Kalita Brick Industry, Nalbari, the petitioner had given the loan application form, due to the fact that the Head Office had also written a letter dated 19.02.2013, asking the petitioner to send a detailed status report of the working, security and repayment position of M/s Kalita Brick Industry, Nalbari. Thus, the petitioner had directed that an enquiry should be conducted in terms of the Head Office letter dated 19.02.2013. Accordingly, on the belief that the Head Office was considering giving additional loan to M/s Kalita Brick Industry and as a promoter of the M/s Kalita Brick Industry had assured the officials of the Branch in which the petitioner was working that he would regularize the loan amount, the petitioner had given the promoter of M/s Kalita Brick Industry the loan application form. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that the Inquiry Report was not provided to the petitioner, prior to the petitioner being imposed the penalty of permanent stoppage of increment, which was subsequently modified by the Appellate Authority to stoppage of two increments. He submits that due to the fact that no Inquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner, which is mandatory, the non-furnishing of the same rendered the penalty imposed upon the petitioner invalid, as the disciplinary proceedings had been vitiated.
