This writ application has been filed by a person who has been removed from service. The petitioner herein was an employee of the State Bank of India (hereinafter called the Bank for the sake of brevity). The petitioner joined the service in the year 1991. The respondent No. 4 on 25.4.1994 issued a charge sheet against the petitioner, that is Annexure A to the writ application. The allegations against the petitioner were as follows : “Annexure II: Statement of imputation of lapses and misconduct alleged against Shri N. Hazarika, OJM ex Passing Officer and Cash Officer/Offg Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dibrugarh and Sangsangyu Branches respectively in relation to the Articles of Charges (Charge I) framed against him vide Annexure I. Allegation I: It is alleged that although the withdrawal form for Rs. 12,700 drawn on Savings Bank Account No. 0-27/16577 of Smti Binita Pegu was tendered at the Bank on 26.07.1991 by a third party without the relative pass book, you did not obtain the third party's signature on the reverse of the withdrawal slip before passing the same for payment as per the laid down systems and procedures of the Bank. Allegation II: It is alleged that although the impugned withdrawal slip was drawn on SB Account No. 0-27/16577, which was a dormant account, you did not enter/arrange to have the same entered in the Cheques Referred and Returned Register and obtain the necessary approval of the appropriate authority before passing the same for payment. Allegation III : It is alleged that you did not verify the genuineness of the drawer's signature appearing on the impugned withdrawal slip before passing the same for payment. Allegation IV: It is alleged that the cash payment against the said withdrawal slip was taken by you yourself from the cash counter and no discharge was obtained from the bearer (third party) who had tendered the same for payment at the Bank. Annexure III: Statement of imputation of lapses and misconduct alleged against Shri N. Hazarika, OJM ex Passing Officer and Cash Officer/Off Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dibrugarh and Sangsangyu Branches respectively in relation to the Articles of Charges (Charge II) framed against him vide Annexure I. Allegation I : It is alleged that you remitted an amount of Rs. Annexure III: Statement of imputation of lapses and misconduct alleged against Shri N. Hazarika, OJM ex Passing Officer and Cash Officer/Off Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dibrugarh and Sangsangyu Branches respectively in relation to the Articles of Charges (Charge II) framed against him vide Annexure I. Allegation I : It is alleged that you remitted an amount of Rs. 12,7000 by means of Bank Draft No.640040 dated 18.09.1992 favouring Smti Binita Pegu drawn on our Dibrugarh Branch by unauthorisedly debiting IRDP Subsidy Account No.SB 1/91 (New No.6/53) meant for the IRDP beneficiaries for the year 1989-90 maintained at Sangsangyu Branch as per the detail given below: Name of beneficiaries Amount debited Credited to 1. Shri Bemut Rs. 5,000 Drafts account for issue of draft on Dibrugarh Branch favouring Smt Binita Pegu. 2. Shri S. Wango Rs. 5,000 3. Shri M. Ymlong Rs. 12,700 2. The petitioner submitted his written statement vide Annexure B. It is not necessary to quote the entire written statement as in the enquiry only the following charges were found to be proved: (i) Allegation No. 1 (ii) Allegation No. II (iii) Allegation No. Ill not proved. (iv) Allegation No. IV not proved. (v) Additional allegation No.I found to be proved. So in the written statement the petitioner with regard to allegation No.I submits, inter alia, as follows : “I admit that I did not ascertain about the signature of the third party on the reverse of the instrument, as I have no reason to suspect or doubt that the Counter Clerk or Deputy Manager, PBD would overlook the same at the time of issuing the Bank Token.” 3. With regard to allegation No.n his defence is as follows: “Allegation II: It is the duty of the Counter Clerk, to enter the instrument in the Cheque Referred and Returned Register for approval of appropriate authority. When I received the withdrawal slip, I found the initial of the Deputy Manager, PBD at the bottom left hand side, as is the usual practice. Naturally, I assumed that the withdrawal slip was entered in the Cheque Referred and Returned Register d and duly approved for payment after verifying the records as required. As the withdrawal slip was received through proper channel, I had no reason to ascertain any further whether the account was dormant. Naturally, I assumed that the withdrawal slip was entered in the Cheque Referred and Returned Register d and duly approved for payment after verifying the records as required. As the withdrawal slip was received through proper channel, I had no reason to ascertain any further whether the account was dormant. Further, I did not find in the ledger sheet the endorsement 'Dormant A/c as in the case of dormant account the stamp 'Dormant A/c' is put in the ledger sheet.” 4. With regard to allegation No.I of charge No.II he admits as follows : “I admit that the Draft for Rs. 12,700 was issued by debit to the IRDP Subsidy Account No. SB 1/91, because it was not possible to arrange such amount within 5 days in a interior place, as instructed by the Chief Manager, SBI Dibrugarh Branch vide his letter No.CM 38-192 dated 24.08.1992. Further, I could not come to Dibrugarh Branch to verify the withdrawal slip personally as there was no other official to whom I could hand over the Branch Key. Under these circumstances the said amount was remitted by me by means of Draft No.640040 dated 18.9.1992 drawn on plaintiff of Dibrugarh Branch by debit to the IRDP Subsidy Account No. SB 1/91 meant for the IRDP beneficiaries for the year 1989-90 maintained at our Sangsangyu Branch. Also I respectfully submit that I never intended to violate the instructions deliberately, I became a victim of the peculiar circumstances and I will deposit the amount without causing any loss to the Bank or to anybody.” 5. On enquiry the learned Inquiry Officer found with regard to charge No.I that allegation Nos I and II were proved and with regard to charge No.II he found that allegation No.I was proved. A copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner and thereafter on 13.9.1995 vide Annexure E, the order of removal was passed. An appeal was filed vide Annexure 6 and that was rejected by the authority vide Annexure H. Hence this writ application. 6. I have heard Shri AK Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner, none appears for the respondents. One Mr. KK Barua, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for the respondents, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. No record has been produced. Shri Goswami urges as follows : (i) That the findings arrived at by the enquiry authority are against the evidence on record. 6. I have heard Shri AK Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner, none appears for the respondents. One Mr. KK Barua, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for the respondents, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. No record has been produced. Shri Goswami urges as follows : (i) That the findings arrived at by the enquiry authority are against the evidence on record. (ii) That the finding are absolutely biased findings, (iii) There are palpable errors of records. (iv) That the penalty of removal from service is grossly disproportionate with the gravity of the misconduct. 7. Regarding the first submission, the learned counsel draws my attention to the following facts: The petitioner vide his letter dated 26.7.1995 stated that the observations are based on no evidence inasmuch as nowhere in the enquiry in question it was indicated that the initial was put for permitting withdrawal from a dormant Govt account. Nothing was proved before the enquiry that the account in question was a dormant one. Vide Annexure D it was stated by the General Manager (Operation), disciplinary authority as follows: “I observe that the findings of the Inquiring Authority are perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Your contention that you assumed the drawer's signature to be in order as the Deputy Manager (PBD) had initialed on the instrument cannot be accepted. The initial was for permitting withdrawal from a dormant account, and this in no way absolves you of your primary responsibility as passing official of verifying the signature of the drawer, before passing an instrument for payment.” 7A. In reply to this letter vide Annexure E the petitioner pointed out as follows: “(a) That nowhere the prosecution during departmental enquiry did mention that the said account was a dormant account. (b) That the Deputy Manager (PBD) was not examined in the departmental enquiry and therefore, the contention "the initial was for permitting withdrawal from a dormant account" is not based on any evidence, rather it is based on conjectures and surmises and hence is not sustainable. (b) That the Deputy Manager (PBD) was not examined in the departmental enquiry and therefore, the contention "the initial was for permitting withdrawal from a dormant account" is not based on any evidence, rather it is based on conjectures and surmises and hence is not sustainable. (c) Even if the contention is accepted that the said Deputy Manager's initial was for permitting withdrawal for a dormant account, then the Deputy Manager (PBD) must have exercised his authority in terms of Bank's laid own instructions as contained in para (33) of the Chapter (3) read with para (65) of Chapter (2) of Book of Instructions which envisaged that the concerned officer before permitting withdrawal from a dormant account should personally verify that the debit or cheque is in order in all respects. The phrase reading 'in all respects' also includes verification of the drawer's signature. Therefore, my assumption that the signature .of the drawer to be in order cannot be rejected, especially when the payment order was given by Deputy Manager (PBD) who was my senior and under whose direct control, I was working as passing official. 2. That Sir, in view of the foregoing submission, it is crystal clear that the finding of the concerned Inquiring Authority is based on the antecedent facts and circumstances of the case and the materials of the departmental enquiry on record. Therefore, the said finding reading 'the allegation is not proved' ought to be sustained to meet the ends of justice. I therefore, fervently request you kindly upheld the said finding and exonerate me from the unfounded baseless allegation.” 8. The finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to allegation Nos I and II are as follows : “(i) Allegation I: The relative withdrawal slip for Rs. 12,700 tendered at the Bank on 26.07.1991 by a third party without the relative Pass Book. Shri Naren Hazarika did not obtain the third party's signature on the reverse of the withdrawal slip before passing the same for payment as per the laid down system and procedures of the Bank. Shri Naren Hazarika, the charged officer cited in his defence that he withdrawal slip bore a Token No. issued by the counter clerk and necessary pay order was given by the Deputy Manager (Personal Banking Division) and so there was no suspicion on the withdrawal slip. Shri Naren Hazarika, the charged officer cited in his defence that he withdrawal slip bore a Token No. issued by the counter clerk and necessary pay order was given by the Deputy Manager (Personal Banking Division) and so there was no suspicion on the withdrawal slip. From his own statement given in defence it is proved that he did not obtain the third party's signature on the reverse of the withdrawal slip before passing the same for payment. The allegation is proved. (ii) Allegation II : The impugned withdrawal slip was drawn on Saving Bank Account No. 027/16577 which was dormant account. Sri Naren Hazarika the charged officer did not enter/arrange to have the same entered in the Cheques Referred and Returned Register and obtain the necessary approval of the appropriate authority before passing the same for payment. The Cheque Referred and Returned Register which was in use during the material time bears the evidence in this regard. Sri Naren Hazarika (the charged officer's) statement in defence citing usual practice prevailing at the branch and his assumption that the withdrawal was in order and all the necessary formalities had been observed by the Deputy Manager (Personal Banking Division) while giving the pay order speaks that the allegation is correct. In other way, he admitted the allegation. The allegation is proved.” And the finding with regard to allegation No.I of charge No. II is as follows: “6B: Charge II : (i) Allegation I : The Presenting Officer adduced the evidences to substantiate the charge/allegation levelled against Shri Naren Hazarika. Shri Naren Hazarika, the charged officer, has admitted the charge/allegation. The charge/allegation is proved.” 9. The next error of record urged by Shri Goswami is that respondent No. 3 before arriving at a decision to remove the petitioner from service did not apply his mind to the materials on record. He submits that it was indicated in the order dated 13.9.1995 that the petitioner had not submitted any statement in defence which is contrary to materials on record. Further the conclusion of the appointing authority that the petitioner had misappropriated the money of the customer and subsequently tried to make good the amount is a finding for which no charge was leveled. In order to appreciate this contention of Shri Goswami, let us have a look at the order dated 13.9.1995. The order is available at page 35. Further the conclusion of the appointing authority that the petitioner had misappropriated the money of the customer and subsequently tried to make good the amount is a finding for which no charge was leveled. In order to appreciate this contention of Shri Goswami, let us have a look at the order dated 13.9.1995. The order is available at page 35. It is stated there, inter alia, as follows : "That Shri Hazarika has mis-appropriated the money of a customer and subsequently tried to make good the amount, fraudulently.” “No statement of defence was submitted by Shri Hazarika” this is not correct, (ii) That Shri Hazarika has misappropriated the money of a customer and subsequently tried to make good amount, fraudulently.” This findings is also absolutely a perverse one as there was no charge of misappropriation against the petitioner. The appellate authority also did not apply its mind to this aspect of the matter. So the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate , authority regard to charge Nos I and II are found to be based on no evidence and as such they can not be the basis of removal of the petitioner from service. 9A. With regard to allegation No.I of charge No.II, that is admitted by the petitioner. So that must be held to be proved. But the question which remains still unanswered is whether the petitioner is to be removed from service for the charge which has been established. Shri Goswami in support of his contention places reliance on the following decisions : 1988 (Suppl) SCC 436 (MA Khalsa vs. Union of India & others). That was a case where money was misappropriated by an employee and received the same by making false claim for honorarium payable to another employee. The charge was proved in the enquiry. The Supreme Court by the aforesaid order held that in view of long period of service of the person reinstatement in service would be proper. The Supreme Court imposed a punishment withholding two increments with cumulative effect with a consequence of loss of seniority, but without break in service for the purpose of pension. 10. (1991) 2 SCC 488 (Laxmi Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India & others). That also was a case of an order of dismissal from service. The Supreme Court imposed a punishment withholding two increments with cumulative effect with a consequence of loss of seniority, but without break in service for the purpose of pension. 10. (1991) 2 SCC 488 (Laxmi Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India & others). That also was a case of an order of dismissal from service. In that particular case the petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the Central Police Reserve Force and for his negligence two under trials escaped from the custody of the petitioner. The Supreme Court found that the enquiry was proper, but the Supreme Court pointed out that there are mitigating circumstances inasmuch as the person rendered 20 years of service and no act of negligence or misconduct was attributed to him and the Supreme Court pointed out that the circumstances made it necessary for the authority to consider the question of awarding a lesser sentence as and when representation shall be filed by the person. 11. 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 643 (MK Agarwal vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank & others). That was the case of a Bank Manager, where there was allegation against the integrity and of negligence towards duty and as such it was followed by termination. The Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that case ordered reinstatement, but imposed some other punishment. 12. Before we proceed further we should bear in mind certain things which are well established. (i) The question as to whether the changes were established on the materials available is beyond the scope of judicial review as the Court is not an appellate authority over the departmental authority. (ii) The Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusion. (iii) The technical rules of evidence have no application to the disciplinary proceeding as the authority is the best judge to consider the materials on record. (iv) Judicial review is not an appeal, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court. The only touch-stone which the Court can apply in its power of judicial review is whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence by applying this yard-stick. The only touch-stone which the Court can apply in its power of judicial review is whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence by applying this yard-stick. 13. On this basis, I hold that charge No. I was not established, but charge No. II is established. 14. Next comes to the question of punishment. The law regarding punishment is that it should be commensurate with gravity of offence (see (1987) 4 SCC 611 , Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India; State of Maharastra vs. MN Mazumdar, (1988) 2 SCC 52 ). In (1997) 6 SCC 415 (State of TN vs. M. Natarajan), the Supreme Court directed reinstatement in service of two Police Constables, who were earlier removed from service. The allegation made against them was that the police men outraged the modesty of two women, took them to lock-up at night and also beat two persons who intervened. Disciplinary proceeding and criminal case were instituted against them. In ex party disciplinary proceeding the police men held guilty of the charges and, therefore, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service, though the Inquiring Officer recommended stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The criminal case was, however, withdrawn. The Supreme Court set aside the penalty of removal and the disciplinary authority was directed to impose penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. 15. To the same effect is a decision in (1997) 2 SCC 523 (State of Punjab vs. Prakash Chand). That was a case where in the departmental proceeding there was no finding that the misconduct was gravest one in terms of Rule 16 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The order of removal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the authority was directed to impose a lesser penalty keeping in view the nature of the misconduct established in the departmental enquiry. 16. In the instant ease as will be seen that the authority told the petitioner that he can pay back the money of Rs. 12,700 for which the Bank suffered loss and for that he was given very short time. The petitioner being posted at an interior place was not in a position to comply with this order and it is in this back ground alone that he committed the next wrong. 12,700 for which the Bank suffered loss and for that he was given very short time. The petitioner being posted at an interior place was not in a position to comply with this order and it is in this back ground alone that he committed the next wrong. Taking the fact that the petitioner has put up more than 14 years of service and he is aged about only 40 years in 1996,1 quash the order of removal and direct the authority to impose any other punishment either major or minor save and except compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal as provided in Rule 49 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service immediately. Whether the petitioner shall be entitled his pay, wages or not that will be decided by the authority, but the period shall be counted towards service benefit for pension. This shall be done by the authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall obtain the certified copy of this order and shall produce before the appropriate authority to do the needful in terms of this order. 17. With this observations, this petition shall stand disposed of. 18. I have heard Shri AK Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.