Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-The petitioner, while working as clerk-cum-cashier incharge, Punjab National Bank, Dhamani Market, Jaipur, was put under suspension vide order dated November 17, 1986. Thereafter, charge sheet was served on the petitioner on February 16, 1987. Since no reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner, however submitted his written statement before the Enquiry Officer. After receiving the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated November 24, 1988 and a copy of the enquiry report was also enclosed therewith. Thereafter, in absence of any reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated December 27, 1988, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the above order of dismissal however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated July 13, 1989. The order of punishment as well as the order of appellate authority are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the charges have not been proved against the petitioner and further on the ground that punishment order as well as the appellate order are not speaking orders. It has further been alleged that looking to the nature of charges, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. While making their submissions, learned Counsel for the parties have referred to various Judgment s, however, after having considered the submissions at Bar and having gone through the material on record, I am of the opinion that the Judgment s referred to above by both the sides need no consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present ease. 3. No material irregularity has been alleged by the petitioner in holding the departmental enquiry in which the petitioner had been given full opportunity to defend himself . 4. Themain charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner transferred large amounts from the accounts of different customers of the Bank to his own account on various dales without any authority and in contravention of procedure of the Bank. It has further been alleged that there were 8 instances and, on 7 occasions of such unauthorised withdrawal from the accounts of customers and crediting the same in his own account, which he also withdrew on the same day. The Enquiry Officer has held all the charges proved against the petitioner. It has further been alleged that there were 8 instances and, on 7 occasions of such unauthorised withdrawal from the accounts of customers and crediting the same in his own account, which he also withdrew on the same day. The Enquiry Officer has held all the charges proved against the petitioner. 5. Since both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the objection in regard to speaking order docs not require any further consideration. After having carefully considered the material on record and also the enquiry report looking to the seriousness of the charge, looking to the nature of working of the respondent bank, wherein, interest of the public at large is involved, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this Court under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.