Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner challenges an order of punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time-scale for a period of two years, with effect from May 1, 1986 dated April 30, 1986 and also simultaneous transferring the petitioner to Voimedu branch. 2. It may be immediately stated that since the petitioner has retired from service the prayer of the petitioner, in so far as the prayer with regard to the order of transfer had become infructuous and as such only the question about the reduction of basic pay alone has to be considered. 3. The facts are : The petitioner has been working as an appraiser/clerk/shroff at Indian Bank, Nidamangalam branch. A charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on January 3, 1986, relating to 19 transactions which reveal that the transactions had been engineered to accommodate the petitioner with the loan amounts at cheaper rate of interest and with a view to circumvent bank's rules and guidelines governing the jewel loans to staff members and for other than agricultural purposes. It seems that the petitioner used the name of his wife Smt. T. K. Suseela and the name of his son T. K. Baskaran, who are dependants of him and also third parties as borrowers of above jewel loans. It is further stated in the said charge-memo that the above loans were raised to meet his requirements whereas in the relevant jewel loan application forms it had been declared that the loans were raised for agricultural purposes in blatant violation of directives for availing of jewel loans on cheaper rate of interest for agricultural purposes. It is further stated in the charge-memo that the above said acts of the petitioner, if it is proved, would amount to doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross misconducts under Clause 19.5(j) of the memoranda of Bipartite settlements, 1966. The petitioner herein submitted an explanation and the departmental enquiry held on January 28, 1986 and on January 29, 1986 wherein the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. During the said enquiry, the respondent Bank examined one witness and examined 77 documents as exhibits whereas the petitioner examined one defence witness and marked three exhibits. The petitioner herein submitted an explanation and the departmental enquiry held on January 28, 1986 and on January 29, 1986 wherein the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. During the said enquiry, the respondent Bank examined one witness and examined 77 documents as exhibits whereas the petitioner examined one defence witness and marked three exhibits. The disciplinary Authority concurred with the report of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to award him the punishment of reduction of basic pay one stage in the time scale for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted his reply on April 26, 1986. By order dated April 30, 1986, the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time scale for a period of two years with effect from May 1, 1986 has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the punishing authority. The petitioner challenges the order of punishment as confirmed by the appellate authority. 4. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that all the allegations relate to agricultural loans secured by his relatives, viz. his wife, son and daughter from time to time on furnishing valuable security between 1981 and 1984 and that the loans were granted only after scrutinising the applications by the then Branch Manager who had satisfied him about the genuineness of the claim and soundness of security etc. and after obtaining proper security. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that it is not shown or alleged as to how loss had occasioned to the Bank by such grant of loans and that there is no allegation that these loans have not been repaid or reimbursed. It is also stated that it is not the case of the bank that as appraiser the petitioner had overvalued the jewels and caused loss to the bank. The petitioner also alleges that it is not the case of the respondent bank that the petitioner had sanctioned the loans. The petitioner also states that the respondent bank added up all the loans obtained from 1981, even though earlier loans had been discharged and as on date there is no loan outstanding. The petitioner also alleges that it is not the case of the respondent bank that the petitioner had sanctioned the loans. The petitioner also states that the respondent bank added up all the loans obtained from 1981, even though earlier loans had been discharged and as on date there is no loan outstanding. It is also stated by the petitioner that if the loans that were granted had been utilised for some other purpose, the respondent Bank can only charge interest at commercial rates or call back the loans immediately, and as such the charge-memo and impugned order are totally without jurisdiction and authority. It is also alleged that Para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlements had no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner alleges that the charge is vague and is not specific, and that in as much as no allegation is made against the Branch Manager, who sanctioned the loans, there is no basis for proceeding against the petitioner for any imaginary misconduct or suspending him pending any such enquiry. The petitioner also alleges that the charge did not say whether the act of the petitioner was prejudicial to the interests of the bank and whether he was guilty of gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss. It is pointed out in the affidavit that there is no rule or regulation in the respondent bank which prohibits sanction of agricultural loans to the relatives of the employees. It is further stated that it is not the case of the bank that the applicants suppressed their relationship to the petitioner in their applications, and that it is not the case of the bank that the security is inadequate or that he had overvalued the security thereby causing loss to the bank. The petitioner also alleges mala fides against the branch manager of the bank, pointing out that no action was taken between 1981 and 1985. A reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Muthukrishnan v. State Bank of India W.A. No. 524 of 1979 etc. is made in the affidavit to show that unless enormous loss had been caused to the Bank, an employee cannot be proceeded against under para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. A reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Muthukrishnan v. State Bank of India W.A. No. 524 of 1979 etc. is made in the affidavit to show that unless enormous loss had been caused to the Bank, an employee cannot be proceeded against under para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. It is also stated in the affidavit that many such loans have been and are being granted by various branches of the respondent bank to the relatives of the employees of the bank, but they have not chosen to take any action against those employees. It seems the petitioner has moved this Court by way of writ petition in W.P. No. 12863 of 1985 for issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus to quash the charge memo dated September 25, 1985 and October 21, 1985 and also to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the said charge-memos and that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it is premature. Though certain allegations were stated in the affidavit, on the ground of mala fides against the order of transfer, I do not think that there is any need to refer to the same, as I have already stated the petitioner had already retired.4A. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the charge-sheet issued to the employee would show the various misconduct committed by him while he was working as appraiser/shroff of the Nidamangalam branch and that it would also demonstrate as to how the petitioner misused his position in securing advances against gold ornaments in the names of his relatives for his own use. It is also stated that the further course of transactions that followed the disbursement of loans would clearly demonstrate that the loans secured were not utilised for the purpose for which they were availed. It is also pointed out that number of jewel loan accounts were closed by transferring the funds from the savings bank account of the petitioner. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that when the respondent bank has prescribed certain procedure for the staff members to avail loan against jewels, the petitioner has utilised his close relatives for obtaining loans whenever he required loans against jewels thereby circumventing head office guidelines. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that when the respondent bank has prescribed certain procedure for the staff members to avail loan against jewels, the petitioner has utilised his close relatives for obtaining loans whenever he required loans against jewels thereby circumventing head office guidelines. It is also claimed that the petitioner who assessed the jewels tendered by the applicants who are his wife, son and daughter, did not make a categorical statement that the jewels are owned by his close relatives and that he has assessed the jewels as per rules. It is also stated that such advances are made to the agriculturists at a concessional rate of interest, that while it should be the endeavour of everyone in the public sector banks to ensure that the loan reaches the needy, the action of the petitioner, availing loan facilities in the name of his relatives had caused loss to the bank. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that though the said loans were sanctioned against the security of ornaments, such a huge amount which should otherwise have been made available to the needy agriculturists has been deprived by the petitioner in securing advances in the name of his relatives. It is pointed out in the counter-affidavit that as an employee of the public sector bank, the petitioner ought to have ensured that the jewel loan scheme is implemented properly. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that the charges levelled against the petitioner are as per the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. It is also pointed out that necessary action is being taken against the manager who has sanctioned the advances as per the provisions of the Officers' Conduct Regulation. It is also stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very specific. It is also stated that the action initiated against the petitioner is not for causing serious loss to the bank but doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. A reference to Circular of the Bank dated October 30, 1979 is made in the counter-affidavit, wherein detailed guidelines for obtaining jewel loan by the staff members were shown. It is also stated that the action initiated against the petitioner is not for causing serious loss to the bank but doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. A reference to Circular of the Bank dated October 30, 1979 is made in the counter-affidavit, wherein detailed guidelines for obtaining jewel loan by the staff members were shown. It is also stated that it was established in the enquiry that the proceeds of the loans availed of by the relatives were utilised by the petitioner himself and that he has used his close relatives for getting the advance against jewels whenever he needed funds. 5. Mrs. Nagasaila, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that a reading of the charge-memo and the transactions narrated therein will not come under Cl. 19.5(j) of the Memoranda of Bipartite Settlement and as such the impugned order imposing punishment by the Appellate Authority is not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that it is true that the transactions had taken place and that it is also true that the petitioner was working as appraiser in the said branch and that in so far as the said acts of the petitioner have not been done prejudicial to the interest of the bank, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of Sathiadev, J. (as he then was) in W.P. No. 2384 of 1976 dated May 30, 1979 which has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 524 and 680 of 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was only an appraiser, that he is not the sanctioning authority, that the loans were obtained by the wife, son and daughter of the petitioner for agricultural purposes and as such they cannot be construed as a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision in A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited (1984-II-LLJ-186) : (SC), for the proposition that the contention of the respondent bank that the loan amount has not been used for agricultural purposes, will not enable the respondent bank to frame charges against the petitioner for misconduct. 6. Per contra, Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank contends that this court should not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer in a proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein charges had been framed and proved and punishment had been imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent bank further contends that this Court should take note of the systematic way in which the petitioner has acted against the interest of the bank, by availing of the loan intended for agricultural purposes. According to the learned counsel, the documentary evidence will clearly show that certain amounts drawn by the petitioner, in favour of his wife, son and daughter, were credited into the savings bank account of the petitioner, and as such this Court should come to the conclusion that the petitioner has used his close relatives for obtaining loans at the lower rate of interest. According to the learned counsel, on looking upon various accounts also the documentary evidence, will clearly show that the action of the petitioner is prejudicial to the interest of the bank and accordingly charges have been framed against the petitioner as per Clause 19.5(j) of the Memoranda of Bipartite Settlements. With regard to the quantum of punishment, learned counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994-I-LLJ-872) (S.C.) wherein it has been held that this Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel submits that obtaining loans, in the names of the petitioner's wife, son and daughter and crediting the amount in the savings bank account of the petitioner, needs such an imposition of punishment on the petitioner and that this Court should not sit over the judgment of the appellate Authority. Learned counsel also submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that charges are not proved. Learned counsel for the bank took me through the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the respondent bank also contends that simply because the appellate authority has stated that the burden is on the petitioner, the petitioner herein should not be allowed to take advantage of the reasoning given by the appellate Authority. 7. I have considered the arguments of Mrs. Nagasaila, the learned counsel for the petitioner and of Mr. Learned counsel for the respondent bank also contends that simply because the appellate authority has stated that the burden is on the petitioner, the petitioner herein should not be allowed to take advantage of the reasoning given by the appellate Authority. 7. I have considered the arguments of Mrs. Nagasaila, the learned counsel for the petitioner and of Mr. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. I have gone through the charge-memo, enquiry report and the order of punishment and also the order of the appellate Authority, with connected records. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the grant of loan, the bank had not incurred any loss as such the petitioner cannot be charge-sheeted under Clause 19.5(j) of the Memoranda of Bipartite Settlements, I am not able to accept the same, in so far as charges 13, 14 and 17 are concerned. On a perusal of the files produced before me, it is seen that the loan amount had been deposited in the savings bank account of the petitioner. If it is so, assuming for a moment, that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no loss to the bank may be accepted, the act of the petitioner, having obtained agricultural loans in the name of his relatives at the lower rate of interest and crediting them in the savings bank account of his own, as found from the entries in the Savings Bank account, would surely show that it is prejudicial to the interest of the bank. This act of the petitioner is shown in charge numbers 13, 14 and 17 issued to him, and they read as follows : "...... That you raised a Jewel loan (No. 217/84) of Rs. 4500/- at Nidamangalam branch on March 31, 1984 in the name of your wife Smt. T. K. Suseela, for agricultural purposes and from out of the proceeds of this loan, you had remitted by means of credit vouchers, duly singed by you on the reverse side. 1. Rs. 900/- into the S.B. Account No. 3879 of Sri Y. Shanmugam, Clerk/Shroff 2. Rs. 1200/- into the S.B. Account No. 5064 of Sri N. Rajagopalan, Clerk/Shroff 3. Rs. 1000/- into the S.B. Account No. 6738 of Sri K. Gopalakrishnan, Clerk/typist 4. Rs. 800/- into the S.B. Account No. 7565 of Sri K. Jayaraman Clerk/Shroff. 1. Rs. 900/- into the S.B. Account No. 3879 of Sri Y. Shanmugam, Clerk/Shroff 2. Rs. 1200/- into the S.B. Account No. 5064 of Sri N. Rajagopalan, Clerk/Shroff 3. Rs. 1000/- into the S.B. Account No. 6738 of Sri K. Gopalakrishnan, Clerk/typist 4. Rs. 800/- into the S.B. Account No. 7565 of Sri K. Jayaraman Clerk/Shroff. ** That you raised a jewel loan (No. 769/84) of Rs. 1440/- at Nidamangalam branch on July 31, 1984 in the name of your wife Smt. T. K. Suseela, for agricultural purposes and the proceeds of this loan plus the amount withdrawn on that day from your S.B. Account No. 918 were utilised by you for adjusting a jewel loan earlier raised in the name of your dependant son Sri T. K. Baskaran (No. 648/84). This loan of Rs. 1440/- was adjusted by you on October 5, 1984 with the amount withdrawn from your S.B. Account No. 918 on that day .... That you raised a jewel loan (No. 785/82) of Rs. 5, 000/- at Nidamangalam branch on December 6, 1982 in the name of your daughter Smt. D. Prema, for agricultural purposes and the proceeds of this loan were remitted into your S.B. Account No. 918 on the same day ......"* As I have already stated, the act of the petitioner in crediting the loan amount in his savings bank account is certainly prejudicial to the interest of the respondent bank. I am not able to accept the contention that the Judgment of Sathiadev, J. (as he then was) in P. Muthukrishnan v. The Secretary and Treasurer (The Chief General Manager) State Bank of India, Madras (W.P. No. 2384 of 1976 dated May 30, 1979) will be applicable to the facts of this case. That case arose out of an Award of the Tribunal where the Tribunal found that the petitioner therein was delaying the matter in the purchase of the cheques and that the petitioner therein was responsible for such misconduct, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. In such circumstances, the learned Judge has held that if an employee is permitted to purchase cheques on his own account, it is immaterial whether the purchases were only one or two or more than that, and that in what manner the intention to benefit the petitioner therein by purchase of cheques would constitute gross negligence had not been made out. In that case, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there cannot be a fraudulent intention, to constitute a 'gross misconduct'. I do not think that the above said judgment will be applicable to the facts of this case. As I have already stated, it has been clearly proved, from the records, that the petitioner has availed of the loan, which is meant for needy agriculturists, in favour of his wife, son and daughter, by abusing his position as staff member of the bank. Taking into account that he is fully aware of the Circulars issued by the head office of the bank, that he suppressed the fact that the borrowers are his close relatives and that he credited the loan amount in his savings bank account against the tenor of the Circulars issued by the head office of the respondent bank, I have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry Authority is right. 8. Clause 19.5(j) of the Memoranda of Bipartite Settlements reads as follows : "........ By the expression" gross misconduct "shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part of an employee ...... (j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss ..........."* On a reading of the charge-memo issued to the petitioner and on going through the evidence adduced in the enquiry, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner is not prejudicial to the interest of the bank. It is not necessary to show that the respondent bank had incurred serious loss. In so far as the petitioner's act is prejudicial to the interest of the bank, I am of the view, that the impugned order of the respondent, can be sustained. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, it is not for this Court to go into the question of quantum of punishment. In the circumstances of this case, it cannot be held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, it is not for this Court to go into the question of quantum of punishment. In the circumstances of this case, it cannot be held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh. It has been held so by this Court in The Secretary and Treasurer, State Bank of India, Madras v. P. Muthukrishnan (W.A. No. 524 of 1979 etc.) that a Court sitting under Art. 226 of the Constitution has no power to substitute its discretion with that of the punishing authority, in imposing punishment. It is also well settled that is not for this Court to re-validate or re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, unless it is perverse or based on 'no evidence'. A reading of evidence of M.W. 1 would clearly show the involvement of the petitioner herein, atleast in the transactions in charges numbers 13, 14 and 17, extracted above. With regard to charge number 14, the evidence of M.W. 1 is as follows : "....... On July 31, 1984 in the name of Smt. K. Suseela Jewel loan for Rs. 1440/- (loan a/c. 769/84) was raised. In the back side debit voucher bore cash adjustment details, part of this amount of Rs. 1440/- was utilised for partly liquidating an existing jewel loan account 648/84 in the name of Sri T. K. Baskaran, dependent son of Sri T. Krishnamurthy, jewel appraiser. In the redemption credit dated July 31, 1984 is for Rs. 2089.50 Rs. 1100/- withdrawn from S.B. a/c. 918 by Sri T. Krishnamoorthy and added with the jewel loan for Rs. 1440/- stated above was utilised for this credit. Jewel loan document 769/84 executed by Smt. K. Suseela bore rate of interest applicable for agricultural purposes. The relevant jewels were taken delivery by Sri T. Krishnamoorthy as evidenced by loan documents on redemption, i.e. the jewels relating to jewel loan a/c. 769/84. Here again loan raised in the name of his wife and funds from his account were clubbed together for redemption of jewel loan in the name of his dependant son. Thus the loan amount itself was utilised by Sri T. Krishnamurthy as observed by us and not for any agricultural purposes, thus representing an accommodation transaction ......"* With regard to charge No. 13, the evidence of M.W. 1 is as follows : "...... Thus the loan amount itself was utilised by Sri T. Krishnamurthy as observed by us and not for any agricultural purposes, thus representing an accommodation transaction ......"* With regard to charge No. 13, the evidence of M.W. 1 is as follows : "...... On March 31, 1984, a jewel loan for Rs. 4500/- was raised in the name of Smt. K. Susila, W/o Shri T. Krishnamoorthy covered by DPN bearing interest rate 11.5% applicable for agricultural purposes (loan a/c. No. 217/84). Back side of the cash debit voucher evidences the following offset credits for a total amount of Rs. 3900/-. The balance amount paid in cash. The offset single credit vouchers were as follows : 1. Rs. 900/- for the credit of S.B. a/c. 3879 of Mr. Y. Shanmugam. 2. Rs. 1200/- remitted to S.B. a/c. 5064 of Sri N. Rajagopalan. 3. Rs. 1000/- credited to S.B. a/c. 6738 of Sri K. Gopalakrishnan. 4. Rs. 800/- to S.B. a/c. 7565 of Sri K. Jayaraman. All the above four members are co-staff members of Sri T. Krishnamurthy working at Nidamangalam branch. The above remittances were made by Sri T. Krishnamurthy under his initials. Thus a jewel loan was raised in the name of his wife obviously representing agricultural purposes but the amount utilised as a source of credit to fellow staff members S.B. accounts ......"* With regard to charge No. 17, the evidence of M.W. 1 runs as follows : "....... On December 6, 1982, a jewel loan was raised in the name of Smt. D. Prema W/o Sri Devadass, C/o Sri Baskaran, Mothilal Nehru Street, for Rs. 5, 000/-. The purpose found in the application is being fertilizers, pesticides and for cultivation. Cash of Rs. 5000/- was disbursed in denomination of 50 x 100 as per details of the backside of the debit voucher. On a perusal of the day's voucher, it was observed that with a similar amount with the same denomination remitted to the S.B. a/c. of Sri T. Krishnamoorthy. Possibly these two transactions have been Related ......"* On a perusal of the evidence of M.W. 1, regarding charge numbers 13, 14, 17, as extracted above, I have no hesitation to hold that the charges are proved. It is well settled principle of law that when number of charges are framed and even when some of them are proved, the punishment awarded can be sustained. It is well settled principle of law that when number of charges are framed and even when some of them are proved, the punishment awarded can be sustained. Assuming for a moment, that other charges framed against the petitioner are not proved, except the charges mentioned above, surely the petitioner cannot deny that he has not acted prejudicial to the interests of the bank. In view of that, I do not think that this Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the respondent bank. 9. That apart, I do not think that there is any substance in the argument of the learned counsel that the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the loans were used for agricultural purposes which was not attempted at all and as such the order of the appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Even though the order of the appellate authority is not happily worded, yet, on the circumstances of this case, as narrated above, I do not think that the order of the appellate Authority can be interfered with. 10. For the reasons stated, I find no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.