MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for declaration that the order of termination of service dated 3-2-1972, was illegal and for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF was bank manager in birur branch of respondent. He had been appointed on 3-6-1967. One Sri B. P. Uttappa S. I. of police applied for loan of Rs. 3,900/ -. The plaintiff, after scrutiny recommended his case for sanction of loan. The administrative office by its letter, dated 26-10-1970 intimated the plaintiff that loan has not been sanctioned and application was rejected. Subsequently the loanee approached the head office of the bank and got the loan sanctioned. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF took it as personal insult so he addressed a letter on 26-11-1970, to the chairman, administrative office, Bangalore, calling upon the latter to inform the grounds regarding their satisfaction to accept the proposal, having rejected it earlier. To quote his own words, he stated thus:"this is really a regrettable case of insulting the manager. Do you expect every client to come to a. o. for canvassing or influencing the proposal? Or do you think that the manager was recommending the loan proposals without satisfying himself about the means and character of the borrowers? The matter would have been honourably settled, should you have asked the borrower to approach again through us". ( 4 ) THE administration took a serious note of this communication and decided to hold departmental enquiry. Sri A. C. B. Nair was appointed as enquiry officer, on 21st January 1971, charges for gross misconduct were framed and served on the plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted his reply on 1-2-1971, refuting the charges. He maintained that the action of the head office had injured his reputation in the eyes of public; his action was not a gross misconduct and he was not liable for any penalty. ( 5 ) IN the enquiry no witnesses were examined either by the department or by the plaintiff. Since the writing of letter and its contents were admitted the only question was whether it amounted to gross misconduct, as per the bank regulations. On 13th April 1971, his services were terminated with effect from 2-4-1971 and he was paid three months salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Plaintiff filed an appeal to Chairman, Vijaya Bank. On 13th April 1971, his services were terminated with effect from 2-4-1971 and he was paid three months salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Plaintiff filed an appeal to Chairman, Vijaya Bank. The executive committee of the bank heard the plaintiff. His contention that the enquiry officer Mr. Nair was biased against him was rejected on the ground that Sri A. C. B. Nair was not the loan sanctioning authority and no such objection was raised in the enquiry. The appellate authority observed"we would have considered the question of reducing the punishment, if the officer had expressed regrets for his conduct in the explanation offered by him; on the contrary, in the explanation he sought to justify his conduct",the appeal was dismissed. On 1-7-1971 plaintiff sent a letter stating that he was challenging the order of termination in the court for a declaration that it is void and inoperative. there after he filed the suit on 29th january, 1972. . ( 6 ) IN the written statement, bank sought justification of the termination order and prayed for dismissal of suit. ( 7 ) ON the pleadings the court framed the following issues:"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his services were illegally terminated by the defendant bank?2. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has committed gross misconduct?3. Whether the enquiry conducted by defendant-bank was violative,of the principles of natural justice?4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the enquiry officer was biased against him in recommending the punishment of termination?5. Whether the plaintiff was discriminated and victimised in awarding such excessive penalty of termination, ignoring his past record and comparing the cases of other officers in the defendant-bank?6. Whether the plaintiff's action in not recommending a loan for Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. A. r. rangappa of birur prejudiced the defendants in terminating the plaintiffs services?7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 20,000/-?" ( 8 ) EXCEPT the second issue, which was answered in the affirmative, the other issues were answered in the negative. The court finally dismissed the suit with costs. ( 9 ) IN this appeal, the appellant, who is now a practising lawyer, argued the case in person. His contention was that the wordings of letter, dated 26-11- 1979 (ext. P-4) do not constitute a gross misconduct, hence the action taken was illegal and secondly the penalty imposed is disproportionate to foe charge. ( 9 ) IN this appeal, the appellant, who is now a practising lawyer, argued the case in person. His contention was that the wordings of letter, dated 26-11- 1979 (ext. P-4) do not constitute a gross misconduct, hence the action taken was illegal and secondly the penalty imposed is disproportionate to foe charge. In support of the first contention, it was also contended that Mr. A. c. b. nair, the enquiry officer was biased, hence the enquiry was not fair. ( 10 ) THE bank has framed rules called the vijaya bank employees (discipl inary proceedings) rules, 1971, which came into force on 29th january, 1971. 'misconduct' consists of "gross misconduct" and "minor misconduct". Gross misconduct is defined as: "6. Gross misconduct: "gross misconduct" means any of the following acts or omissions on the part of any employee: (a) knowingly making a false statement in any return, report, declaration, statement, bill or information submitted or given in the course of his employment in the bank; (b) engaging in any trade, business, profession or calling outside the scope of his employment in the bank, in contravention of regulation 3 of chapter vi of this code; (c) breach of the obligation of secrecy imposed on him by regulation 4 of chapter vi of this code, or the disclosure of any secret or confidential information in contravention of the said regulation; (d) wilful insubordination or disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the management or of persons placed in authority over him; (e) wilful slowing down in the performance of work; (f) giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from customer or an employee of the bank; (g) gambling or betting on the premises of the bank; (h) speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any commodity whether on his own account or that of any other person; (i) gross negligence that is to say negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss; (j) wilful damage or attempt to cause damage to any property of the bank or of any of its customers; (k) drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank; (1) habitual doing of any act which amounts to "minor misconduct". "habitual" meaning a course of action taken or persisted in, notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions censure or warning have been administered or adverse remarks have been entered against him; (m) doing any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the bank; (n) any act or omission which under any law for the time being in force amounts to or is deemed to be "gross misconduct" on the part of an nmployee; (o) abetment or instigation of any acts or omissions mentioned in clauses (a) to (n) above". paragraph 7 deals with punishment for gross misconduct. It reads thus:"7. Punishments for gross misconduct: an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be awarded any or more of the following punishments: (a) warning, (b) censure, (c) entering an adverse remark, (d) withholding of increments and promotion, (e) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders issued from time to time, (f) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment, (g) condonation of misconduct and discharge from service". ( 11 ) THE words "wilful insubordination" in clause (d) are not defined. In service matters it would include an act of revolt against superior, a challenge to the authority of superior, an agitation against the superior, any act which humiliates, insults or degrades the dignity and decorum of superior's authority, words which deliberately cast a slur or stigma on the superior, language employed to denigrate the superior, condemnation which demoralises and shatters the public confidence, an act or use of expression which pollutes and militates against loyalty, an unbecoming gesture without words and like matters; what constitutes insubordination depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The offender may not realise the consequences, therefore examination from his angle would be irrelevant. How it is received by the other side, what is the reflection on the administration and discipline of the office would be very relevant. ( 12 ) ON facts the act of writing the letter at ext. P-4 squarely attracts clause (d) and (m) of the above definition. The appellant being a manager of a branch, he cannot question the correctness or propriety of acts or orders by the head office or chairman. As the loan is sanctioned by the chairman, he had to obey those orders. P-4 squarely attracts clause (d) and (m) of the above definition. The appellant being a manager of a branch, he cannot question the correctness or propriety of acts or orders by the head office or chairman. As the loan is sanctioned by the chairman, he had to obey those orders. Personally he should compliment and console himself, as in the final analysis, his recommendation is accepted. The earlier rejection having been reviewed, his decision to grant loan prevails. But he cannot call upon the chairman to provide the grounds or reasons for the sanction order. By expressing regrets on the final decision he exhibited absolute discourtesy and disrespect. It also demonstrates arrogance. The appellant cited a few decisions to contend that the act does not amount to misconduct and it may only be an act of 'indiscretion'. ( 13 ) IN Union of India v J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1922 referring to the charges framed against the officer, it was observed thus: "some charges were framed none of which could constitute misconduct in law. Some charges were mere surmises. Substance of the allegations was that he was not a very efficient officer and lacked the quality of leadership and was deficient in the faculty of decision making. These deficiencies in capacity would not constitute misconduct". ( 14 ) ON facts the respondent therein was not in service, having been retired earlier, hence the order of removal from service was held to be illegal and void. The ratio of this decision has no application to the facts of this case. ( 15 ) IN vijayakumar v g. s. r. t. corporation, 1987 lab i. c. 685 a workman was dismissed from service on the ground of absence from duty for two days, even though leave therefor was refused. The court held that it was a minor misconduct which could be punished with minor penalty. The charge established against the appellant does attract the ingredient of gross misconduct, hence this ruling does not assist him. ( 16 ) HENCE, for the aforesaid reasons we confirm the finding recorded by the court-below. ( 17 ) THE next contention was that the penalty of termination of service is disproportionate to the charge framed against the appellant in this context the major penalties for gross misconduct are enumerated in Rule 7. ( 16 ) HENCE, for the aforesaid reasons we confirm the finding recorded by the court-below. ( 17 ) THE next contention was that the penalty of termination of service is disproportionate to the charge framed against the appellant in this context the major penalties for gross misconduct are enumerated in Rule 7. While it is the discretion of the authorities to impose any of the punishments mentioned therein, nevertheless what punishment meets the guilt of the officer is a matter purely in the discretion of the employer. That discretion, unless found to be arbitrary and capricious, cannot be interfered with. Indeed the penally now imposed does not act as a bar on the appellant to seek some other employment if he had been dismissed from service so as to disqualify him from future employment; that would have been too harsh but that is not so. In our opinion, this contention has no force and hence rejected. ( 18 ) LASTLY it was contended that Sri A. C. B. NAIR who was appointed as enquiry officer was biased and therefore the enquiry proceedings were vitiated. The contention has not been raised before the enquiry officer. The appellant participated in the enquiry and submitted to his jurisdiction. In the appeal this ground was taken but was repelled on the ground that Mr. Nair was not the loan sanctioning authority and therefore it cannot be said that be was biased against the appellant. The provocation for the appellant to address a communication as per ext. P-4 was the sanction of the loan after having been rejected once. If the loan is not sanctioned by Mr. Nair and is sanctioned by some other authority, appellant cannot be heard to say that mr nair was prejudiced. Therefore this contention also is devoid of any merit. ( 19 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with any one of the findings recorded by the court-below. This appeal fails; accordingly it is dismissed. Each party will bear his own costs in both the courts. --- *** --- .