proposals, bonafide put up by the assistant manager, could have sanctioned it. However, this cannot be an excuse to escape from the charges. The manager at the bank is the end officer who is bound to ensure compliance of all protocols so that the bank is not put at a risk of loss. Therefore, the findings of inquiring authority that the charges regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner in the grant of ODH facilities cannot be disbelieved and there is no reason why, the disciplinary authority could have taken a different view. In so far as the grant of tractor loans are concerned, there too there were certain irregularities which the petitioner failed to explain such as, failure to conduct pre-sanction visits and post sanction follow up. When tractor loans of Mr. Hiralal Paswan, Mr.Sridev Kumar Paswan and Amit Tewari, were processed, though it was contended that these customers were fictitious, the petitioner did not make any attempt to establish the identity of those customers. The guarantors who had guaranteed these loans, were also untraceable. Therefore, the charges against the petitioner that these tractor loans were sanctioned without presanction visits is probable. Likewise, the loan sanctioned to Mr.Sishu Shankar Pandit, was also without any pre-sanction
