Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner who is an officer of the respondent-Bank has challenged in this petition the impugned order of penalty Annex. 9 dated 12.02.86 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and the appellate order dated 25.07.86 (Annex.-10) whereby the appellate authority modi- fied the order of penalty and reduced the same from stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of only 1 annual increment for the year 1986 and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to pay Rs. 28,500/- in convenient instalments, if requested by him, for the loss caused to the Bank for his negligence. (2). Shri Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the departmental inquiry inasmuch as the defence-assistant was given to him much later in the course of the inquiry. This submission of Mr. Saluja has no substance. When the petitioner asked for the assistance of a defence-counsel then he was extended that opportunity. The petitioner himself participated in the inquiry in the absence of his defence-counsel and, later on, the defence-counsel conducted the inquiry on his behalf. From the record it is clear that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, therefore, this submission of Mr. Saluja is rejected. (3). The second submission raised by Mr. Saluja was that the documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to him thereby it has resulted into gross prejudice to the petitioner. In support of his submission, Mr. Saluja had tried to rely upon the letter addressed by his defence-counsel to the Inquiry Officer at page 40. From the said letter it is clear that the petitioner had never asked for any such document for verification. What is stated in the letter is that the petitioner was not provided 4 documents mentioned in it. This sort of argument was raised before the Inquiry Officer on the conclusion of the inquiry. It was too late in a day to make such demand for supply of documents or raise such objection. That apart, on the facts of this case it is clear that on non-supply of the documents no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in his defence. It was too late in a day to make such demand for supply of documents or raise such objection. That apart, on the facts of this case it is clear that on non-supply of the documents no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in his defence. In this case, the charge levelled against the petitioner was that two forged drafts dated 24.05.80 for Rs. 20, 000/- and 26.04.80 of Rs. 8, 500/- were cleared by the petitioner, who was the passing-officer, due to sheer negligence of the petitioner. The finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer that the drafts were forged was not at all disputable as the Bank suffered in all a loss of Rs. 28, 500/- by getting those forged drafts cleared by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner alone was not competent to pay draft of Rs. 20, 000/- was sufficient to hold that he was negligent because he was obliged to have the signature of some another Officer of the Bank on it which he failed to do. In that view of the matter, the non-supply of documents would lose all its significance. The second submission of Mr. Saluja is rejected. (4). Mr. Saluja then argued the case before me as if he was arguing an appeal. He tried to submit that the Inquiry Officer has wrongly appreciated the finding on the witnesses examined during the inquiry. I am afraid this Court cannot go into the appreciation of evidence and the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence cannot be lightly interfered with. If two views are possible and the view taken by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner is reasonable then this Court will not interfere with the finding of guilt arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in its writ jurisdiction. (5). Mr. Saluja then contended that the petitioner was discriminated by the Bank as no charge-sheet was issued either to Shri Mital who was supposed to sign the draft alongwith the petitioner or against Shri Sodhi was has been cited as the star- witness against him nor their explanations were called for. The petitioner has not to decide that who should be prosecuted departmentally by the Bank and who should not be. All the circumstances show that is was only the petitioner who was at fault in dealing with the forged instruments. The petitioner has not to decide that who should be prosecuted departmentally by the Bank and who should not be. All the circumstances show that is was only the petitioner who was at fault in dealing with the forged instruments. It must be stated that before those two drafts were cleared signature of another Officer Shri I.S. Sodhi was never circulated and still the petitioner cleared those drafts. Mr. Saluja submitted that he had an occassion to see the signature of Mr. I.S. Sodhi on other drafts and he found the signature of Mr. Sodhi on those two drafts were similar therefore, he cleared them. This submission of Mr. Saluja cannot be accepted because one cannot remember by memory the signature of any person. Unless signature of such person is circulated and present before him. In that view of the matter, this submission of Mr. Saluja is also rejected. (6). Mr. Saluja then submitted that the impugned order of penalty at Annex. -9 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a speaking order inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded his own finding. In support of this contention Mr. Saluja tried to rely upon regulation 7. I am afraid this submission of Mr. Saluja cannot be accepted as in this case the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry and found that charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved beyond any doubt and because of the negligence of the petitioner the Bank suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs. 28, 500/-. In fact, the Disciplinary Authority was very much considerate to the petitioner and imposed a lesser penalty of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect looking to his young age. (7). Mr. Saluja then contended that the order passed by the appellate authority is not a speaking order inasmuch as the authority has not dealt with his defence. This contention of Mr. Saluja cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellate authority has considered all the material evidence on record and passed a brief re- asoned order. It cannot be said to be a non- speaking order. Hence, this submission of Mr. Saluja is also rejected. (8). The last submission raised by Mr. Saluja was that the appellate authority imposed two punishments which is not permissible in law. It cannot be said to be a non- speaking order. Hence, this submission of Mr. Saluja is also rejected. (8). The last submission raised by Mr. Saluja was that the appellate authority imposed two punishments which is not permissible in law. In fact, the appellate authority took a lenient view of the matter than the Disciplinary Authority and redu- ced the penalty of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect to a lesser punishment of stoppage of only one annual increment for the year 1986 and, that too, without cumulative effect. While reducing the punishment, the appellate authority has only observed that the officer may be given the facility of payment of the amount of Rs. 28, 500/- (which was the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank be- cause of the negligence of the petitioner) in convenient instalments, if requested by him. This cannot be said to be a punishment imposed against the petitioner. If the Bank has suffered a pecuniary loss then the Bank can certainly recover the same from the petitioner in any manner. In this case, the appellate authority was so much considerate and lenient to the petitioner that it had even suggested that the said amount may be recovered from the Officer in convenient instalments, if requested by him. It may be stated that stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect could have resulted in suffering loss of more than one lakh rupees by the time of retirement of the petitioner looking to his young age at the present. But, instead of that, the appellate authority has only ordered him to pay Rs. 28,500/- in convenient instalments. instead of paying that amount the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.