JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an ex employee of the Central Bank of India (for short the "Bank" and was last posted at Khatoli Branch as Branch Manager, has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed in the services of the Bank on 12.2.1970 as a clerk after regular selection. He was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. the date of his appointment. The petitioner was promoted as Sub-Accountant on 27.2.1978 and thereafter confirmed on the said post. Subsequently he was posted as Branch Manager at Khatoli Branch of the respondent-bank on 24.7.1980 after qualifying the requisite test. 2. While the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Khatoli a memorandum dated 11.11.1985 was served upon him at the behest of Regional Manager of the respondent-bank, Kota (respondent No. 3). After a gap of about 71/2months, a memorandum containing the articles of charge dated 19.6.1986 was served upon the petitioner. As a consequence thereof the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid memorandum on 10.10.1986 wherein he requested the concerned authorities to permit the petitioner for inspection of the records so as to enable him to file a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet which was granted by the respondents vide their letter dated 24.7.1986. Thereafter the petitioner requested the authority to make available to him the list of documents and the witnesses for the purpose of submitting his reply. In the meantime enquiry officer as well as presenting officer were appointed by the disciplinary authority on 10.9.1986 in terms of Regulation 6(6) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1976"). Immediately thereafter the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3 stating therein that his earlier representation dated 25.7.1986 had not been dealt with properly, i.e., he was not permitted to inspect the documents at Khatoli Branch, District Kota and as a result of which he could not submit his reply to the charge-sheet. Immediately thereafter the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3 stating therein that his earlier representation dated 25.7.1986 had not been dealt with properly, i.e., he was not permitted to inspect the documents at Khatoli Branch, District Kota and as a result of which he could not submit his reply to the charge-sheet. Since no reply was received to the said communication from the respondent-bank, the petitioner submitted another representation to respondent No. 3 on 10.10.1986 and in response to which the enquiry officer as referred to above, was appointed and the petitioner was duly informed in this regard vide bank's communication dated 18.10.1986 that the preliminary enquiry shall commence w.e.f. 20.11.1986. 3. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the enquiry officer as well as the presenting officer and the said objections were overruled by the respondents vide order, dated 12.11.1986 on the ground that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of more than 3 months for submitting his written statement in defence but since he failed to do so after the expiry of the said period, his objection to the appointment of enquiry officer and the presenting officer was not sustainable. Perusal of the said document (Annexure 10) dated 12.11.1986 reveals that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the bank to inspect the relevant records and having availed the same, it is not open to the petitioner to plead to the contrary. The petitioner was also given ample opportunity to submit his written statement of defence to the charge-sheet but he failed to avail the same and this fact is fully borne out from the said document. From the perusal of (Annexure 11) it is ample clear that the preliminary enquiry commenced against the petitioner w.e.f. 20.11.1986 had earlier been served on the petitioner by the then Regional Manager, Regional Office, Kota, i.e. disciplinary authority. The petitioner had participated in the said enquiry and was given full liberty to clarify his position in defence. Perusal of Annexure 11 which contains the gist of the proceedings conducted before the enquiry officer appointed by the bank further reveals that the enquiry officer had given full opportunity to the petitioner not only to put forth his case in defence, but was also given liberty to produce the witnesses in his defence and also to lead evidence and also the relevant material in answer to the charges framed against him. The petitioner had specifically contended before the enquiry officer that since he had not been able to arrange any defence nominee despite opportunity having been given to him, he sought leave from the enquiry officer to defend himself by leading evidence in his defence without the assistance of any defence nominee. Hence I am of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was not afforded any proper opportunity either to defend himself or to put-forth his case in defence by production of necessary evidence in defence before the enquiry officer. 4. A regular enquiry commenced against the petitioner w.e.f. 9.12.1986 on day-to-day basis and stood concluded on 15.12.1986 without any delay. A result of the above discussion prima-facie, I am of the opinion that since a very fair procedure was adopted by the respondents in having conducted the enquiry against the petitioner by affording him full and proper opportunity of hearing, his defence cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any account. 5. At this stage I deem it appropriate to refer to the memorandum dated 19.6.1986 containing articles of charge against the petitioner as framed by the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 3) as referred to herein below : "Ref. No. RO/PRS/DAD/86/387 19.6.1986 MEMORANDUM Shri M.P. Saxena, Branch Manager (under suspension), Branch Officer, Khatoli is hereby informed that it is proposed to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him in regard to the imputation of misconduct set out in the enclosed articles of charge (Annexure-1). Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of articles of charge is also enclosed (Annexure-2). 2. Shri Saxena is hereby directed to submit within 7 days of receipt of this memo by him, a written statement of defence. 3. He is informed that the enquiry will be held only in respect of the articles of charge not admitted by him. He should, therefore, specifically admit to deny each articles of charge. 4. He is informed that he will be given full opportunity at the enquiry to inspect the documents which will be filed by the management, along with all opportunity to lead evidence, documentary as well as oral. Shri Saxena if he so desires, may take the assistance of any officer employee of the Bank in presenting his case before the enquiry authority. 5. Shri Saxena if he so desires, may take the assistance of any officer employee of the Bank in presenting his case before the enquiry authority. 5. He should note that if he does not submit his statement of defence within the period specified in para-2 above, the enquiry may be held against him in the absence of such written statement as per Regulation 6(4) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 6. He is further informed that if he does not in person appear before the enquiry authority on the dates intimated to him or otherwise fails to/refuses to comply with the orders and directions issued in pursuance of the said enquiry, the enquiry is liable to be held ex-parte and such orders as may be passed thereon will be binding on him. 7. Shri Saxena should note that the articles of charge listed would constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulations 3(l) read with Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 attracting penalties under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal), Regulations, 1976" The gravamen of the charge served on the petitioner vide Annexure 1 dated 19.6.1986 was to the following effect: "Ref. No. RM/PRS/DAD/85/315 11.11.1985 MEMO Mr. M.P. Saxena, Branch Manager, Khatoli, Distt. Kota is hereby informed that since certain gross commissions and omissions on his part have been reported against him which are of serious nature, he is hereby suspended from the service of the Bank with immediate effect under Regulation 12 (1) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 in contemplation of enquiry/investigation and pending enquiry/investigation against him. An enquiry against him will be held in due course of time. Mr. M.P. Saxena, is also informed that during the course of his suspension from the service of the Bank he will be paid subsistence allowance according to Regulation 14 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Mr. M.P. Saxena is further advised that he should not leave the headquarter (Khatoli) without prior permission from the management." 6. Mr. M.P. Saxena is further advised that he should not leave the headquarter (Khatoli) without prior permission from the management." 6. It will be seen from the perusal of the above memorandum that the petitioner as a branch manager had in utter disregard of the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him, had failed to perform the same by causing undue financial loss to the bank and undue gain to himself and his conduct was thus obviously unbecoming of as a branch manager of the bank and amounted to misconduct within the ambit of the Regulations attracting the penalties as envisaged under Regulation 4 of the said Regulations. 7. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted in their reply that the petitioner had not only failed to protect the interest of the bank but had also failed to discharge the duties entrusted to him as manager of Khatoli Branch with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence inasmuch as he had committed various acts of misconduct attributed to him by the Disciplinary Authority by committing gross irregularity in the matter of advancing loans without verification and execution of the proper documents such as the mortgage deed etc. and also sanctioning the loans to various parties in excess of the sanction limit for advancing of the loans for purchase of tractors, trollies and agricultural implements etc. without obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority. From the statement of the imputations of misconduct (Annexure 11) it is apparent that in certain cases the petitioner had deliberately with some ulterior motives failed to submit mortgage deeds executed by the concerned parties to the Sub-registrar for the purpose of creation of bank's charge on the amount subject to bank's encumbrance within stipulated time as required under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulty) Act, 1974 and in one of such cases, surprisingly enough the mortgage-deed was sent to Sub-Registrar on 3.6.1983 ; whereas the loan amount was disturbed to the concerned party on 19.4.1923, i.e. about 2 months in advance of the execution of the deed contrary to the rules. In one of such matters loan of Rs. 54,439.00 was outstanding in the loan account of the said party as on 29.4.1986 thereby causing substantial loss to the bank. In one of such matters loan of Rs. 54,439.00 was outstanding in the loan account of the said party as on 29.4.1986 thereby causing substantial loss to the bank. Similar irregularities were committed by the petitioner as against several other clients of the bank thereby causing substantial monitory loss to the bank which amounts to gross misconduct under the Regulations. It is under these circumstances that the memorandums dated 11.11.1985 and 19.6.1986 containing articles of charge were served on the petitioner by the bank and the Competent Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service which amounts to a major penalty under regulation 4 (h) of the Regulations. 8. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the entire proceedings initiated against him by the bank as void abinitio, illegal and contrary to Regulations on the grounds inter-alia that the impugned order dated 25.6.1987 (Annexure 15) awarding punishment of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority suffers from vice of legal infirmities as having been passed in total breach of Regulations and natural justice. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind of the disciplinary authority with regard to the enquiry proceedings held against him and having been passed in most cryptic manner and also on the ground of the same being non-speaking. The petitioner has further contended that the said order does not contain any reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the charge inasmuch as a bald conclusion has been recorded by the disciplinary authority purporting to agree with the report of the enquiry officer was not supplied to the petitioner, obviously it cannot be said as to how the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order of dismissal from service on the ground that the disciplinary authority had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner without notice as stipulated in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Regulations. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order of dismissal from service on the ground that the disciplinary authority had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner without notice as stipulated in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Regulations. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order on the ground of variation between the findings of the enquiry officer and that of the disciplinary authority, since the disciplinary authority had in its own wisdom found the petitioner to be guilty and had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service which amounts to violation of the regulations and further that the Enquiry Officer had prepared the report on the basis of written proof submitted by the presenting officer to which the petitioner had not been able to controvert and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be declared as void and the proceedings stand vitiated on this as well as other grounds. The petitioner was not supplied with the list of documents and the witnesses and hence the charge-sheet deserves to be set aside. The petitioner has sought the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 9. In their reply to the writ petition filed in this court the respondents have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the bank for inspection of the documents and was given specific date to attend the office for the said purpose but the petitioner deliberately did not care to attend the office and as such it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was denied opportunity of inspecting the documents. The respondents had at no stage denied the said permission to the petitioner and hence it is not open to the petitioner to agitate this ground before this court at this belated stage, particularly when he did not even file written statement of defence within the stipulated time despite opportunity having been given to him. The respondents have further contended that they were left with no alternative except to appoint enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner for which he was given due intimation by the enquiry officer to file his reply to the charge-sheet and it is not for the bank to compel an employee to file or not to file reply to the charge-sheet as it is his sweet will and volition. 10. 10. In their reply the respondents have further contended that from the perusal of the proceeding of the preliminary enquiry from 20.11.1986 to 24.11.1986 it is amply clear that the relevant copies of the documents and the list of the management's witnesses were duly supplied to the petitioner and this fact has also not been disputed by him. This fact is also borne out from the report of the enquiry officer marked (Annexure 11) to the writ petition wherein the petitioner had not disputed this fact and rather admitted the receipt of the relevant documents and this fact is also borne out from para 17 of the reply filed by the respondents. 11. With regard to the petitioner's contention that the presenting officer had not submitted his written proof to the enquiry officer within time, the respondents in para 20 of their reply have contended that the said contention is wholly unfounded in view of the fact that the enquiry officer had not relied upon the written proof relied upon by the presenting officer as the same was submitted after the expiry of stipulated time by observing as under : "despite remaining the Presenting Officer/Management representative failed to submit his written brief to the enquiry officer. These findings are submitted in absence of the written brief from his side while taking into consideration the proceedings held in captioned enquiry." 12. This clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer had not entertained the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer after the stipulated time and as such the allegations made by the petitioner against the Enquiry Officer are entirely false, baseless and un-founded. 13. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 25.6.1987 vide (Annexure-15), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 10.8.1987, which was finally heard and decided on 10.12.1988 vide (Annexure 17). The Appellate Authority while confirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 25.6.1987 has observed in the appellate order that the appellant in his appeal had not come-out with any new facts and whatever he had discussed in the appeal have already been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order. The Appellate Authority in the appellate order further observed with regard to the disbursement of loans by the Bank for purchases of Eicher Tractors. The Appellate Authority in the appellate order further observed with regard to the disbursement of loans by the Bank for purchases of Eicher Tractors. It has been proved in the enquiry that there has been variation for the sanction from which the approval of higher authorities was not taken by the appellant nor had he advised the regional office in this regard and had also disbursed payments to the parties in excess of the sanctioned loan amount, which had neither been approved by the regional office prior to the disbursement of loan nor the same had been confirmed subsequently. Consequently the appellate authority while confirming the findings of the Disciplinary Authority held that charges proved against the appellant regarding mis-appropriation of the Bank's funds by not making full payment of the sanctioned amount to the borrowers were correct. Consequently the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal confirmed the award of punishment of 'dismissal from service without notice' awarded by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 4 (h) of the regulations. 14. In support of his contentions, advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of State of Maharashtra v. Bhaishankar Avalram Joshi and another reported in A.I.R 1969 S.C. page 1302 : [1969 SLR 113 (SC)] , S. Vardha Rajan v. The Special Officer, T.U.C.S. Limited, Madras-5 & Ors. reported in 1986 (1) S.L.R. page 65 , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. page 506 , Board of Technical Education, U.P. and others v. Dhanwantri Kumar and others reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. page 271 , Keshri MI v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 (3) S.L.R. page 1 , Inspector- General of Police, Bhubaneswar & Anr. v. Sukanta Kumar Nayak reported in 1993 (3) S.L.R. page 547 . 15. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts as referred to above and in my view the same are not attracted to this case. I am further of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case on merits for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the question of applicability of the principles of natural justice would not arise. 16. I am further of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case on merits for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the question of applicability of the principles of natural justice would not arise. 16. My observations are fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Rajapandian reported in 1995 (1) S.C.C. page 216 : [1994(5) SLR 745 (SC)] . In this matter the respondent joined service as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu and was subsequently promoted as Inspector. The tribunal for disciplinary proceedings at Madras after holding a departmental enquiry found certain charges proved against the respondent and consequently he was dismissed from service. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set-aside the order of dismissal solely on re-appreciation of evidence recorded by the Enquiry Authority and arrived at the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. 17. In appeal before the Apex Court preferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Apex Court observed as under : "The Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of the Supreme Court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the enquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the functions of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the enquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the enquiring authority. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to go into the merits of appreciation of evidence by the two authorities as the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the enquiring authority. Hence, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the order dismissing the respondent is upheld." 18. Hence, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the order dismissing the respondent is upheld." 18. Likewise in the matter of Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur reported in A.I.R. 1972 (4) S.C.C. page 618 : 1972 (2) S.C.R. page 218 : [1972 SLR 355 (SC)] , the Apex Court while dealing with the proposition regarding the scope and functions of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of the writ petitions arising out of challenge to the disciplinary proceedings held that the High Court should not sit as a Court of appeal over a decision arising out of a findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. It was further observed by the Apex Court that where there are some relevant material which the authority has accepted and which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent in guilty, it is not the function of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the said materials. If the enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy of reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. 19. Likewise in the matter of Union of India v. Parmananda reported in 1989 (2) S.C.C. page 177 : 1989 (2) S.C.R. page 19 : [1989(2) SLR 410 (SC)] , the Apex Court confirmed its above view by observing that the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction and it is not open to the Tribunal to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer or Competent Authority, where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse and if the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the Authority. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the documents on the record. 21. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the documents on the record. 21. Prima-facie, I am of the view that in view of the adverse conduct of the petitioner in having committed gross financial irregularities and financial impropriety in having disbursed loans to the borrowers in excess of the sanctioned limit without obtaining the prior approval of the higher authorities, he deserves to be deprecated in strongest terms inasmuch as instead of discharging his duties as a Branch Manager of the Bank diligently, the petitioner had wilfully and with ulterior motives had involved himself in various illegal activities which were unbecoming of his conduct as an officer of the Bank. It was not a single stance for which the major penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner by the Competent Authority but the decision of the Competent Authority in imposing such punishment under the regulations of the Bank was the cumulative effect of series of acts, which proved to be grossly violative of the Bank's regulations and for which the competent authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation 4(h) of the Regulations on the petitioner.21-A. I do not find any justification in taking contrary view of the matter and it is not the province of this Court to embark upon a discussion regarding findings of the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority since the said exercise will tantamount to appreciation of evidence recorded by the said forums which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. I am further of the opinion that even on merits the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to enter into re-appreciation of evidence recorded and confirmed by the departmental authorities. The scope of judicial review is also restricted in the sphere of administrative matters unless there are some impelling reasons to interfere with the decisions of the Administrative Authorities and this is not the case in which this Court should interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. The scope of judicial review is also restricted in the sphere of administrative matters unless there are some impelling reasons to interfere with the decisions of the Administrative Authorities and this is not the case in which this Court should interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that on account of proven misconduct of the petitioner, the findings of both Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority by. which the petitioner was found guilty for having committed violation of the Regulations of the respondent-Bank and awarded the punishment of dismissal vide the impugned order dated 25.6.1987 (Annexure-15) deserve to be confirmed and same are accordingly confirmed. 24. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit it is dismissed with no of s to costs.Petition dismissed. *******