Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. After hearing the matter finally it is disposed of by passing the following judgment. On the following charges a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner : "articles OF CHARGE AGAINST shri BANKEY BIHARI SINGH/sub-ACCOUNTANT WORKING AT OUR PATNA BRANCH shri Bankey Bihari Singh, Sub-Accountant, while working at Patna branch committed following acts and omissions : 1]. Shri Singh on 11.6.91 alongwith five other staff members of the branch entered the chamber of Chief Manager, shri H. S. Madan at 11 a. m. where Shri vipin Kapoor, Chief Officer was also sitting. Shri Singh in course of discussion with regard to change of duty of Shri p. S. Gupta, Clerk suddenly became violent and began shouting at Shri kapoor. Shri Singh threatened to beat shri Kapoor thoroughly. Shri Singh during discussion became so violent that he pulled Shri Kapoor out of the chair and manhandled him in the presence of shri H. S. Madan, Chief Manager. He thereby acted in gross violation of office discipline, which is highly unbecoming of Bank Officer. This is being examplified in statement of Imputation of Misconduct (Annexure-ll) attached herewith.2]. Shri Singh again on 11.6.91 at 3.10 P. M. alongwith other staff members entered the Chief Managers chamber where Shri Kapoor was also sitting. Shri singh again during couse of discussion regarding duty change of Shri P. S. Gupta, clerk all of a sudden became so violant that he pounced upon Mr. Kapoor and caught hold of shirts collar of Shri kapoor and gave a forceful blow on his neck, thereafter Shri Kapoor could be saved by his other companions. Shri Singh thereby failed to maintain proper conduct and office discipline and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer. " 2. In respect to the said charges the petitioner filed his reply and thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed on 29th december, 1992 and after full fledged enqiry the said enquiry officer has submitted his report. The concluding portion of the report are set out below :- "i concur with the views of the presenting Officer that it was a clear case of union struggle against an administrative order and the defence witnesses were motivated to depose in favour of the CSO. The concluding portion of the report are set out below :- "i concur with the views of the presenting Officer that it was a clear case of union struggle against an administrative order and the defence witnesses were motivated to depose in favour of the CSO. I also agree that emotions often lead to unwarranted behaviour and action and as the CSO did not succeed in getting the office order changed, he resorted to such actions which are unbecoming of an officer and out of dejection to indulge in riotous behaviour including manhandling of Mr. Kapoor by pulling him out of his chair and giving him a blow on his neck. I take the report of the Chief manager and complainant of the Chief officer as correct and hold that the charges against mr. B. B. Singh are proved. " 3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding of the enquiry officer by an order dated12th March, 1993 the Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reduction by one stop in time scale of basic pay scale of the petitioner. 4. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. Challenging those orders, namely, the order of punishment and its confirmation by the appellate authority, the petitioner came before this Court by filing this writ application some time in 20th August, 1993. The matter was kept pending in admission stage till about 12th January, 1995 when the same was admitted by a learned Single judge of this Court. 6. During the pendency of this writ application a review proceeding was initiated by the appropriate authority by issuing a notice dated 6th October, 1993 upon the petitioner to the effect that on certain grounds the reviewing authority wants to review the order of punishment. 7. The reviewing authority issued a notice to show cause which is dated 10th december, 1993. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice the petitioner gave a reply, and after consideration of the said reply of the petitioner and after analysing the evidence on record the reviewing authority imposed upon the petitioner the enhanced penalty to the extent of reduction by six stages in the pay scale of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice the petitioner gave a reply, and after consideration of the said reply of the petitioner and after analysing the evidence on record the reviewing authority imposed upon the petitioner the enhanced penalty to the extent of reduction by six stages in the pay scale of the petitioner. This review proceedings have also been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner by filing an amendment petition 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the appellate authority while passing the order has not recorded any reason and as such acted in violation of the principles decided in the case of R. P. Bhatt vs. Union of india an others reported in 1986 (2) S. C. Cases page-651. In the said judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the order passed toy the appellate authority must show due application of mind. In the case of Bhatt (supra) the order passed by the appellate authority was not in conformity with the requirements of Rule-27 (2) of CCS (CCA)Rules. But in the instant case the appellate authority merely confirms the original order and in doing so it has complied with the requirements of Rule-17 (ii) of the relevant rule. Judging by the principles of Bhatts case (supra) this Court on examination of the order of the appellate authority does not find any infirmity in the order. In this case the appellate authority has agreed fully with the findings of the disciplinary authority and as such it has recorded that the appella ate authority does not find any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded. 9. As the order of the reviewing authority has also been challenged in the facts of this case, this Court has also examined the said order released by the reviewing authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the reviewing authority has passed the order without taking into account any further materials on records and without examining any further evidence. The other ground for challenging the order of the reviewing authority is that the said order has been passed beyond the statutory period of six months during which such order has to be passed. 10. The other ground for challenging the order of the reviewing authority is that the said order has been passed beyond the statutory period of six months during which such order has to be passed. 10. The review provisions which are under the scrutiny in this case are contained in Clause-18 of the Central Bank of India, Officers, Employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulation, 1976. The said provision of Rule-18 is set out below- "review : Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such order thereon as it may deem fit : provided that :- (i) If any enhanced penalty, which the reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in clauses (a), (f), (g) or (h) of regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under regulation 6 has not already been held in the case the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper : (ii) If the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of regulations, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee. " 11 From a perusal of the said rule it appears that the reviewing authority may call for the records of the case within six months of the date of final order. 12. In this case final order namely the order of the appellate authority was passed on 5th July, 1993. Therefore, the power for initiating a review proceeding has been exercised within a period of six months from the said order. This Court is therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review proceeding is initiated beyond the period of six months. 13. Therefore, the power for initiating a review proceeding has been exercised within a period of six months from the said order. This Court is therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review proceeding is initiated beyond the period of six months. 13. On the next ground of challenge that the reviewing authority cannot pass the order in question without taking further evidence, this Court finds that the reviewing authority has jurisdiction to impose enhanced penalty and if at the time of imposition of such enhanced penalty the reviewing authority finds that the penalty to be imposed is a mojor penalty and the enquiry as provided under Regulation-6 has not been held in that case the reviewing authority shall direct the enquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the regulation-6. 14. In the instant case, such an enquiry admittedly has been held. Therefore, in this particular case the provisions of rule-18 Sub-Clause (2) of the proviso is attracted and in accordance with the said procedure, the reviewing authority has is sued a show-cause and thereafter taking into account the petitioners reply filed pur suant to the show-cause notice the authority has passed the order for enhancement. 15. In this case, practically no challenge could be made to the findings of the enquiry officer. The charges against the petitioner stand proved by the report of the enquiry officer and the said report could not be assailed before this Court. 16. It is well settled that unless conclusion of the enquiry is patently perverse or unless it can be said that no reasonable person, instructed in the legal provision, could have come to the conclusion arrived at, this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer. After going through the conclusions of the enquiry officer, this Court is unable to interfere with the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer. If conclusion, reached by the enquiry officer cannot be interfered, as in this case, to interfere with the quantum of punishment on those conclusions is virtually beyond the domain of this court under Article-226 of the constitution. This position has been amply made clear by the Supreme Court in various judgments. If conclusion, reached by the enquiry officer cannot be interfered, as in this case, to interfere with the quantum of punishment on those conclusions is virtually beyond the domain of this court under Article-226 of the constitution. This position has been amply made clear by the Supreme Court in various judgments. Therefore, the question whether reduction by one increment or reduction by six increment is required to be imposed on the basis of the conclusions of the enquiry officer is left to the discretion of the respective authorities of the Bank under the said regulation. This Court, however, may interfere if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges but here that is not the case. 17. In that view of the matter, this court is unable to interfere with the decision of the reviewing authority as it finds no error in the decision making process of the reviewing authority. 18. This writ petition is therefore dismissed as being devoid of any merit. There will, however, be no order as to costs.