AGRAWAL, C.J. — This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1-2-1991 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 270 of 1987 quashing the order dated 28th January 1986 removing the respondent Bhagwan Sahahi Sharma from the Banks service with immediate effect. (2) The relevant portion of the order, by which the services of the respondent were terminated, is quoted below : — "I have since received Shri Sharmas reply dated 8th January 1986 to my above mentioned letter dated 23rd Dec. 1985. He also appeared before me for a personal hearing on 21.01.1986. I have carefully examined his reply and also the submission made before me on 21st Jan. 1986. I do not find any extenuating circumstances or fresh points to reconsider the enhanced punishment proposed by me. In the above premises, I pass the following order under Regulation 4 (g) of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 : — "SHRI B.S. SHARMA IS REMOVED FROM THE BANKS SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHICH SHALL NOT BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT." (3) The respondent was appointed in 1961 as Clerk-cum-Typist. In 1976, he was promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale I. He was thereafter posted as Branch Manager Dausa. When he was suspended by order dated 19th Sept. 1983 passed by the Dy. General Manager(Personnel Administration), a criminal case was registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding offences u/s. 428 IPC and 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After investigation, a final report was filed on 25.05.1984. This report was accepted by the Special Judge on 27.07.1984. (4) After the submission of the final report, the respondent was served with a memorandum dated 11-6-1984 along with a charge sheet under Regulation 6 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The following were the charges : — "1. He failed and neglected to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and his conduct was also unbecoming of an officer of the Bank. 2. Shri Sharma wrongfully introduced the current account opened at the Branch in the name of Dr. G.S. Chawla and also wrongfully verified the statements made in said account opening form. 3. 2. Shri Sharma wrongfully introduced the current account opened at the Branch in the name of Dr. G.S. Chawla and also wrongfully verified the statements made in said account opening form. 3. Immediately after opening of the current account he wrongfully, un-authorisedly, in violation of the rules and regulations of the Bank, much beyond his discretionary power and without the knowledge and sanction of his higher authorities allowed clean overdrafts to Dr. Chawla in the said current account said to be for purchase of machinery/medicines to set up a clinic at Dausa although there was no written request for the said overdrafts from the said Dr. Chawla and no person of the said name was residing at the said address or carrying the profession of medical practitioner there. 4. The body of the two cheques for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- drawn on the said current account were written by Shri Sharma were presented by him for payment; were passed for payment by him and payment thereof was also obtained by him. 5. He wilfully made a false statement before his higher authority to suppress his above wrongful acts. (5) In the reply submitted by the respondent, he denied all the charges. One Sri K.L. Sharma was appointed as Inquiring Officer. He held that charges were proved. On the basis of the inquiry report the Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) proposed the punishments, details of which are quoted below : — Though the charges proved against you are of serious nature and any of the major/minor penalty in terms of clause 4 of United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1976 can be awarded to you, however, keeping in view the fact that bank has not incurred any financial loss, I am taking a lenient view and accordingly passing the following order: — Charge No.l — Reasonably proved —Punishment: stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.2 — Reasonably proved —Punishment : stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.3 — Reasonably proved —Punishment: stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.4 — Reasonably proved —Punishment : stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.5 — Reasonably proved —Punishment: stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.2 — Reasonably proved —Punishment : stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.3 — Reasonably proved —Punishment: stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.4 — Reasonably proved —Punishment : stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Charge No.5 — Reasonably proved —Punishment: stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The punishment of stoppage of increment will be concurrent and therefore, in all one annual increment (as & when will fall due for consideration) with cumulative effect be stopped." (6) In the review, the reviewing authority found that the punishment imposed was much too less and inadequate and the same was called upon to show cause as to why the same be not enhanced. The relevant portion of the notice is quoted below : — "Accordingly, I propose to pass the following order against you: — "SHRI B.S. SHARMA BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE WHICH SHALL NOT BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. You are hereby required to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of this letter, why the above order should not be passed against you. If no reply is received by me within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer in the matter and in that event I shall proceed further without any reference to you." (7) The respondent submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The reviewing authority having found that the punishment imposed was liable to be enhanced, passed the order of removal of the respondent from Banks employment. (8) Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court seeking quashing of the same. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated. 28.01.1986 was set aside as a result whereof the learned Single Judge directed the Bank to reinstate the respondent in service and also to give consequential benefits. (9) Before us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank contended that the learned Single Judge interferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the General Manager (Reviewing Authority). (9) Before us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank contended that the learned Single Judge interferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the General Manager (Reviewing Authority). He urged that this Court under Art. 226 exercises jurisdiction to interfere or set aside an order of the subordinate authority if the same is beyon its power or if it has committed mistake apparent on the face of record in doing so. In the present case, the reviewing authority had the power conferred by law to set aside an order passed by a subordinate authority. The reviewing authority came to a conclusion that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. He proposed the enhancement of punishment after duly considering the representation/explanation submitted by the delinquent officer to the show cause notice. In the opinion of reviewing authority the charges were of serious nature and there were no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view. (10) We have already quoted the charges levelled against the respondent. If in the light of the aforesaid charges, the impugned order of the reviewing authority is examined, the same would not be branded as over-stepping the jurisdiction. To enhance the punishment imposed on the respondent or not to do so are elements of discretion and that the said discretion having not been exercised on irrelevant grounds in favour of the respondent by the reviewing authority, the same could not be interferred with under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, finding that as the reviewing authority did not give reasons for the exercise of its power, its order was vitiated, & was, thus, liable to be quahshed, set aside the same. But we are finding ourselves unable to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge. As to how much reasons are required to be given in support of an order, is a question of fact. The Tribunal or an administrative authority is not required to write a detailed judgment like that of a Sessions Judge when dealing with the witnesses in extenso. Before the reviewing authority, the controversy simply was whether the punishment awarded was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. The Tribunal or an administrative authority is not required to write a detailed judgment like that of a Sessions Judge when dealing with the witnesses in extenso. Before the reviewing authority, the controversy simply was whether the punishment awarded was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. For the said purpose, he considered the entire record of the case as well as reply given to the show cause notice for enhancement. Even the respondent had not challenged the finding of the punishing authority with the result all the charges had been established and proved against him. So the controversy before the reviewing authority was not to review the findings or reconsider the findings by which the respondent had been found guilty. Before the reviewing authority, the question about the validity of the order of the Divisional Manager on the ground that the respondent had not been given copy of the inquiry report was also not in issue. That order of the Divisional Manager had become final. Moreover, in connection with the discharge of duties of a Branch Manager or an employee of the Bank, the charges are got to be held serious inasmuch as respondent has been found to have opened bank accounts and drawn money. Therefore, in these circumstances. his jurisdiction was confined to the issue about the quantum of punishment. The reviewing authority was not expected to write a detailed order or to give its findings even on charges which had been established and proved and correctness of which was not in challenge. (11) Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the decisions of Supreme Court and the various High Courts on the point of requirement of giving reasons. Details of a proposition are not required to be gone into in this case what we find is that there being no breach of statutory principles or violation of natural justice, the order of the reviewing authority cannot be held to be erroneous only on the ground that the same was not a speaking one. The reviewing authority had the seriousness of the charges in his mind when he enhanced the punishment passed against the respondent. The reviewing authority had the seriousness of the charges in his mind when he enhanced the punishment passed against the respondent. (12) There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in issuing a writ, the Court does not act as an appellate authority and the merits of the findings are not open to challenge-See Associated Cement Company Ltd. vs. P.D. Vyas (1). Since the High Court does not sit in appeal, we do not like to discuss the charges elaborately at this stage. (13) For the reasons given above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.