BILAL NAZKL, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is pending in the Courts from 1983. Three times the High Court decided the matter and on appeal each time, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court. Now, this is the fourth occasion that the matter is being heard by this Court. For the first time the high Court pronounced its judgment in writ Petition No. 194 of 1983 on 26th november, 1987. The petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer Grade-I on 7-12-1971 by the Executive Committee of the Bank and confirmed against the said post. In pursuance of a disciplinary enquiry he was dismissed from service for charges of misconduct by an order dated 22-12-1982. This order had been passed by the Chief General Manager. The order was challenged and the High Court quashed the order on the ground that the Chief General manager was not competent authority to pass the order of dismissal. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Chief general Manager was in fact competent authority as he was the appointing authority and the order of dismissal had not been passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority, therefore the supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the Writ petition on other points. Thereafter the matter came to be heard again by the High court and a second judgment was pronounced on 29-3-1991. Very short judgment was passed by the High Court. Relying on its earlier judgment in Writ appeal No. 1835 of 1988 decided on the same day, the Writ Petition was allowed, dismissal order was set aside and it was directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service in accordance with regulations with full backwages and other attendant monetary benefits. The second judgment of the High Court was passed on the principle laid down by the High Court in W. A. No. 1835/88 that the enquiry had been vitiated on the ground that the report of the Enquiry had not been supplied to the petitioner. This judgment also came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while deciding Civil appeal No. 295/91 again remanded the matter to the High Court. This judgment also came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while deciding Civil appeal No. 295/91 again remanded the matter to the High Court. The Supreme court held;"the appeal is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted to the High court for considering the Writ Petition of the respondent on other grounds urged by him to assail the order of dismissal. Since the matter has been pending since long the High Court is requested to take up the matter for hearing expeditiously and dispose of the same preferably within a period of six months. "thereafter, the High Court heard the matter again and third judgment was pronounced by the High Court on 3-2-97 again quashing the order of dismissal. This order was again challenged before the Supreme Court and supreme Court passed yet another order of remand on 24-10-97. In the Supreme Court the appellant contended that an additional affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner had been taken into consideration by the High court which was in fact not part of the record. The Writ Petitioner had contended that this additional affidavit had been filed in the Supreme Court but it was found that the affidavit had not been filed in the supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court the Writ Petitioner contended that he had sent the affidavit to the Advocate on record therefore he was under bonafide belief that the affidavit had been filed but factually that was not true. The Supreme Court found that since the High Court got influenced by the affidavit therefore the judgment was set aside and the case was remanded again to the High Court. So, now it is for the fourth time that the matter is being heard by this Court. ( 2 ) WHILE hearing the matter on an earlier occasion this Court found that the petitioner had also filed a petition under Rule 51 (2) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) service Rules which had been dismissed by a cryptic order on 22nd December, 1982 by the Local Board of the State Bank of India. This Court, therefore, passed an order on 9th December, 1998. This Court held that, charge No. 2 could not be sustained on account of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, passed an order on 9th December, 1998. This Court held that, charge No. 2 could not be sustained on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It also found that the order passed by the appellate authority is laconic and non-speaking, therefore the order passed by the appellate authority could not sustain. Therefore, while keeping the Writ Petition on board, this Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal both in regard to sustainability of charge No. 1 and also with regard to the quantum of punishment. The Court directed the appellate authority to pass a fresh order. The appellate authority thereafter passed an order again dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing once again. ( 3 ) NOW, it is only the Charge No. 1 and the findings thereon which will have to be considered by this Court. Charge No. 1 contains seven allegations. It is reproduced:"1. (a) While you were working as a field Officer at Eluru Branch, you had, in collusion with your close relative Sri pokala Tata Rao, Sarpanch, Pedalanka village fraudulently obtained the signatures of Shri G. V. Hanumantha rao of the same village on blank loan application forms, making him believe that he was signing application forms for securing a job in the Bank. You had subsequently got these blank forms filled in for fraudulently obtaining loans from the bank towards working capital needs expenses of the charcoal manufacturing unit to be started by shri Hanumantha Rao at antervedugudem, under self- employment scheme. (b) As the advance proposal relating to the above Charcoal Manufacturing unit appraised by you and submitted by Eluru Branch to the Controlling authority was not sanctioned and certain clarifications were sought for by it on the said proposal, you had, subsequent to your transfer to tadikalapudi village Branch as Branch manager, obtained the file of correspondence relating to the loan application referred to in item (a) above from Elugu Branch on the pretext that the unit s location was nearer to Tadikalapudi village Branch and financing a Charcoal manufacturing Unit would be first of its kind, with the mala fide intention of utilizing the proceeds thereof with that aforesaid Shri Tata Rao for the personal benefit of both of you. (c) After your controlling authority had sanctioned a cash credit (Mundy type) limit of Rs. (c) After your controlling authority had sanctioned a cash credit (Mundy type) limit of Rs. 24,000/- and a clean cash credit limit of Rs. 4,400/- to the charcoal Manufacturing Unit standing in the name of Shri G. V. Hanumantha rao, you had on the 21st February, 1977 made Shri Hanumantha Rao to draw a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- on his cash credit account, sign another blank cheque and prepare a credit voucher for Rs. 4,000/-, After the cheque for rs. 25,000/- was debited to the account and passed for payment and an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was adjusted towards the credit voucher from the proceeds of the above cheque, the balance amount was utilized by you and Shri Tata Rao for the personal benefit of both of you. You had also intentionally not delivered to Shri hanumantha Rao, the cheque book issued to him for drawing on his account. (d) It is further alleged that on the 21st February, 1997 the borrower shri G. V. Hanumantha Rao and your relative Shri Tata Rao called at your house in the night on that day and shri Tata Tao paid, in the presence of shri Hanumantha Rao a sum of rs. 2,000/- to you from the proceeds of the loan amount referred to in item (c) above as consideration for releasing rs. 25,000/- from the advance, and utilized the proceeds of the above for the personal benefit of himself and yourself. (e) On the 10th June, 1977 you had fraudulently used the blank cheque you got signed by Shri Hanumantha rao on the 21st February, 1977 and referred to in item (c) above, for debiting his account with a further sum of Rs. 10,760/- without his knowledge and consent and misappropriated the proceeds thereof for your personal benefit knowing fully well that the manufacturing activity was not at all started nor where there any stocks of raw material to cover the advances. (f) By disbursing the amount of rs. 25,000/- on the 21st February, 1977 you had committed the following irregularities. (i) Although you were well aware that there was no charcoal manufacturing unit at antervedigudem in the name of shri G. V. Hanumantha Rao, you have released the loan amount with the mollified intention of using the proceeds for the personal benefit of yourself and Shri Tata rao. 25,000/- on the 21st February, 1977 you had committed the following irregularities. (i) Although you were well aware that there was no charcoal manufacturing unit at antervedigudem in the name of shri G. V. Hanumantha Rao, you have released the loan amount with the mollified intention of using the proceeds for the personal benefit of yourself and Shri Tata rao. (ii) The security documents were obtained by you from the borrower on the 16th February, 1977 although the loan was not disbursed on that date. You had therefore obtained the security documents without consideration. (iii) Whereas your controlling authority had sanctioned a cash credit (Mundy type) limit of Rs. 24,000/- separately, as you had obtained the security documents for the composite limit of Rs. 28,400/- and opened only the account in the branch Books, instead of obtaining 2 sets of appropriate security documents and opening separate accounts are as per the nomenclature of the advances sanctioned. (iv) You had not obtained any stock statement from the unit and attached it to the cash credit form c General dated the 16th february, 1977 nor had you furnished thereon the particulars of stock position as required, indicating thereby that either at the time of obtaining the security documents or at the time of disbursing the loan, no stock were pledged by the borrower. (v) The loans were required to be released only after recovering the margin money of Rs. 3,5507- from the borrower, whereas you had only deducted a sum of rs. 4,000/- from the proceeds of the first cheque for Rs. 25,000/- paid to debit of the account. Thus there was no investment of margin money by the borrower before the advance was disbursed as per the terms governing the advance. (g) You had fraudulently claimed travelling expenses for allegedly inspecting the charcoal industry of shri Hanumantha Rao at antervedigudem and received payment thereof, knowing fully well that there was no such charcoal unit owned and run by Shri Hanumantha rao and without undertaking the alleged visits. "the enquiry had been ordered on 18th august, 1979. On conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 3rd March, 1981. Four charges were framed against the petitioner. The enquiry Officer found him guilty of Charge no. 1. He found him not guilty for Charges 3 and 4. On Charge No. 2 he was found partially guilty. On conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 3rd March, 1981. Four charges were framed against the petitioner. The enquiry Officer found him guilty of Charge no. 1. He found him not guilty for Charges 3 and 4. On Charge No. 2 he was found partially guilty. The report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and now since the charge No. 2 has already gone and the petitioner has only been punished on the ground that Charge No. 1 has been proved against him, we need not go into the Charge no. 2. ( 4 ) DURING the enquiry 17 witnesses were examined by the department. The petitioner examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 150 documents. The punishment given to the petitioner has been challenged on the following grounds: (1) That, the findings of the Enquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority are based on no evidence. (2) That, the material witnesses were not examined by the department. (3) That, the material and the evidence placed by the petitioner before the enquiry Officer was not considered and the original records were not produced. (4) That, although an important witness, P. W. 9, was termed hostile, its effect was not considered. So also, P. W. 3 s evidence although in favour of the petitioner was not considered. (5) That the documentary evidence on record was ignored and oral evidence was taken into consideration; and (6) Exhibits were not properly proved during the course of enquiry as none connected with the same were examined; yet, they were relied upon. ( 5 ) VARIOUS judgments have been cited at the Bar by the respective sides. Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of judicial review in the present matter. There is a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court and a reference is not needed to be given to all the cases but some judgments need to be referred to. In Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin bank vs. Bhola Nath Singh the Supreme court laid down the parameters for the judicial review in matters like the one before us. In para 6 of the judgment the court held;"6. In Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin bank vs. Bhola Nath Singh the Supreme court laid down the parameters for the judicial review in matters like the one before us. In para 6 of the judgment the court held;"6. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the High court would be correct in law to appreciate the evidence and the manner in which the evidence was examined and to record a finding in that behalf. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High court, in the proceedings under article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. . . . . "in another judgment Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority the supreme Court held;"3. Shri B. D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that for proof of the charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any opportunity was given to cross- examine them and the petitioner has disputed his liability, As a consequence, the entire enquiry was vitiated by manifest error apparent on the face of the record. We find no force in the contention. The thrust of the imputation of charges was that he had not discharged his duty as a responsible officer to safeguard the interest of the Bank by securing adequate security before the grant of the loans to the dealers, and had not ensured supply of goods to the loanees. It is based upon the documentary evidence which has already been part of the record and copies thereof had been supplied to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. It is then contended that no reasons have been given in support of the conclusions to substantiate the charges. The Enquiry Officer had elaborately discussed each charge and given reasons which were considered by the disciplinary authority and reached the conclusion that the charges were proved. So had the appellate authority. They are not like a civil Court. It is then contended that no reasons have been given in support of the conclusions to substantiate the charges. The Enquiry Officer had elaborately discussed each charge and given reasons which were considered by the disciplinary authority and reached the conclusion that the charges were proved. So had the appellate authority. They are not like a civil Court. " ( 6 ) WITH regard to the scope of judicial review the same view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court also in chief G. M-cum-D. A, State Bank of India vs. S. Yesudas. The Supreme Court also found in Zora Singh vs. Shri J. M. Tandon that the judicial review would not be permissible if the disciplinary authority had considered irrelevant or invalid reasons also along with the valid reasons in arriving to the satisfaction and this could not be a ground for invalidating the decision of the disciplinary authority if the decision could be sustained on the valid and relevant evidence. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the import of all these judgments this Court would not be in a position to reappreciate the evidence collected against the petitioner and come to its own conclusions. However, we agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if it is found that the order of dismissal was based on no evidence during the enquiry then, perhaps, it would be a case where this Court could intervene. But, in the light of the evidence adduced during the enquiry it cannot be said that this was a case of no evidence. ( 8 ) THE charge against the petitioner was that he had obtained signatures of sri Hanumantha Rao fraudulently on a blank loan application form giving him an impression that the applications was being signed by him for securing a job in the bank. This application for grant of loan was processed by the appellant while working as Field Officer at Eluru Branch. Later on, when he was transferred to Tadikalapudi village branch, he obtained file from Eluru branch and loan amount was released to sri Hanumantha Rao but was utilized by the petitioner and one Tata Rao. The other sub-charges to Charge No. 1 broadly relate to the same charge. Later on, when he was transferred to Tadikalapudi village branch, he obtained file from Eluru branch and loan amount was released to sri Hanumantha Rao but was utilized by the petitioner and one Tata Rao. The other sub-charges to Charge No. 1 broadly relate to the same charge. ( 9 ) STATEMENTS of witnesses need not be referred to by this Court in detail, only gist of the statements is referred because this court is conscious that it cannot re- appreciate the evidence. ( 10 ) F. W. 1 was Mr. Hanumantha Rao. He stated that, in connection with his employment he had met Sarpanch of the village Sri Tata Rao who took him to Z. P. Office, Machilipatnam and Samithi Office, kaikalur but there were no posts vacant. Then, he was taken to State Bank at Eluru and was introduced to Vijaya Kumar (petitioner ). Vijaya Kumar advised him to see him later as there were no posts vacant. After few days, Tata Rao came to him and took him to Eluru where they again met vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar got his signatures on some papers and asked Tata rao to see him after few days. After ten days Tata Rao sent a word to him for accompanying him to Eluru. After meeting tata Rao the witness along with Tata Rao went to Eluru. Tata Rao told him that the signatures obtained from him by Vijay kumar were not in connection with getting employment but in connection with starting some business. The witness stated that he did not agree for business, but Tata Rao assured him that there was nothing to worry, Vijay Kumar was his sister-in-law s son and he would look after the matter carefully. The witness was told by Tata Rao that he would have nothing to do but only to supervise the business. The witness told him that he had no experience in the business but Vijay Kumar also persuaded him to supervise the business. The witness was told that he would be paid salary. Then, Vijay Kumar asked him to meet the director of Industries and also informed him that he would talk to the Director on telephone. Thereafter, he went to meet the director of Industries and there also he put his signatures on some papers. The witness was told that he would be paid salary. Then, Vijay Kumar asked him to meet the director of Industries and also informed him that he would talk to the Director on telephone. Thereafter, he went to meet the director of Industries and there also he put his signatures on some papers. When he was asked as to whether he knew that a bank loan had been sanctioned in his name, he showed his ignorance. When he was asked as to when did he go to the tadikalapudi Branch for the first time he stated that on 21-2-1977 Tata Rao took him to the Bank. On the earlier day during the night he and Tata Rao had met Vijay kumar in his house and had stayed with him during the night and some more signatures were taken from him. Vijay kumar advised him to go to Tadikalapudi next morning. He admitted having signed d. A. D. P. note dated 16-2-1977 for rs. 28,4007 -. This was executed by hanumantha Rao in favour of Pokala venkachamma and Pokala Satyanarayana rao and endorsed in favour of the Bank. He also admitted having signed agreement of cash credit on 16-2-1977. Although these documents bear the date 16-2-1977 but the witness stated that they had been signed by him on 20-2-1977 at the residence of Vijay kumar. He further stated that on 16-2-77 he was attending to his mother who was admitted in a hospital at Akiveedu. On 21-2-77, he stated that, Vijay Kumar gave him a cheque book. He was asked to sign on two cheques, one cheque was for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, he did not fill up the second cheque. After the witness signed it, he states that, the cheque was taken by the petitioner and he had given it to Tata rao to take the cash. Then, the petitioner put a figure of Rs. 4,000/- and odd on some blue or yellow paper and took his signatures. Then, Vijay Kumar took him for meals to his house. When he was in the house of Vijay Kumar, Tata Rao came with cash and told him that he had taken rs. 20,000/- and odd, then Vijay Kumar advised them to go to Eluru by bus and promised that he would join them later. At about 2. 00 hours they reached their house. When he was in the house of Vijay Kumar, Tata Rao came with cash and told him that he had taken rs. 20,000/- and odd, then Vijay Kumar advised them to go to Eluru by bus and promised that he would join them later. At about 2. 00 hours they reached their house. Half-an-hour later Vijay Kumar also came and after few minutes he asked Tata Rao for money. At that time, the wife and children of Vijay Kumar were present in house. Tata rao gave 20 hundred rupee notes in his presence. The witness was given Rs. 200/- and he was asked to get the Suvega repaired. ( 11 ) IN the light of evidence of this witness the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that by playing fraud signatures were taken from the witness, he was given to believe that he will be given a job in the bank, but later on he was told that it was not possible to employ him in the Bank, therefore, Tata Rao and the petitioner will run a business which will be managed by the petitioner and he will be paid salary, He also came to the conclusion that all norms for advancing the loan were violated. The advance money of Rs. 4,000/-and odd which had to be deposited by the loanee before the loan was sanctioned was also not deposited, but this amount was deducted from the sanctioned loan. Therefore, the charge was held to be proved. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 is one of the persons who had signed on D. P. note dated 16-2-77. He was a medical Practitioner. He was asked whether he had put his signature on D. P. Note and form-I special on 16-2-77. He stated that he had not come to the Bank on 16-2-77 and in fact he never went to the Bank. He admitted his signatures and stated that the President tata Rao took the documents to his hospital at Pedalanka and got his signatures and took them away. While signing the papers tata Rao told him that he was running a business in the name of Hanumantha Rao and he wanted the signatures as a witness. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 is a teacher and Branch Post master of the village in which Hanumanta rao was supposed to have set up the charcoal Manufacturing unit. While signing the papers tata Rao told him that he was running a business in the name of Hanumantha Rao and he wanted the signatures as a witness. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 is a teacher and Branch Post master of the village in which Hanumanta rao was supposed to have set up the charcoal Manufacturing unit. He stated categorically that Hanumanatha Rao did not do any charcoal business and no charcoal was manufactured. There is some discrepancy in his evidence on the aspect whether and how many times the petitioner visited the village for inspection. Contrary to what he stated before the Vigilance officer, he stated in the enquiry that the petitioner visited the village, according to hanumanata Rao. Hence, he was treated as hostile. Although this witness has been termed as hostile by the Enquiry Officer, his evidence that the grantee of loan did not start the Unit can still be taken into consideration. The rules provided under the evidence Act for a civil or criminal proceeding may not be relevant for the purpose of the domestic enquiry. ( 14 ) IN the light of this evidence, it cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence. It has been found during the evidence that under a deception Hanumantha Rao was made to sign documents, loan was advanced in his name but it was shared by tata Rao and the petitioner. It is also established that no unit was in fact established and manufacture of coal was not started at all at any point of time. Further evidence shows that, whole of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given in one go which was against the Banking norms and such loans were Mandi type loans. The utility certificates had not been produced. All these charges were held proved on the basis of evidence which mostly consists of the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 9. ( 15 ) IT is contended that the evidence of p. W. 3 Clerk-cum-Cashier who was working in Tadikalapudi Branch at the relevant time, read with the Bank s records were not given due weight. The petitioner s counsel submits that the records show that the grantee of loan Sri Hanumantha Rao himself drew the cash against the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- on 21-2-1977 in respect of cash credit account and made payment of rs. The petitioner s counsel submits that the records show that the grantee of loan Sri Hanumantha Rao himself drew the cash against the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- on 21-2-1977 in respect of cash credit account and made payment of rs. 4,000/- by way of credit voucher and this fact was confirmed by P. W. 3. The appellate authority considered this aspect and commented that the statements of p. W. 3 in the cross-examination and re- examination were at variance and therefore, his evidence was not relied upon by the enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority while giving their findings. P. W. 1 deposed that he was not present in the Tadikalapudi Branch on the date of encashment of the cheque. The appellate authority drew the inference that the signature of P. W. 1 (borrower) was obtained in the cheque-issue-register and two blank cheques were got signed by him to facilitate the withdrawal of loan amounts at the instance of the petitioner. Here again, the question of appreciation of evidence is involved and we cannot say that the approach of the fact-finding authority was perverse and therefore, the findings are vitiated. ( 16 ) FOR these reasons, we do not consider that it is a case of no evidence. The appellate authority had also considered all the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the charge was proved against the delinquent official. ( 17 ) SECONDLY it was contended that Tata rao was an important witness and he had not been examined. We do not think that non-examination of Tata Rao would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Even without his statement there was sufficient material before the authorities to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. Tata Rao who is in the position of an accomplice could not have come forward to give evidence against the petitioner. ( 18 ) WITH regard to third contention that some of the original documents viz. , letter requesting for sanction of loan in which p. W. 1 signed on the blank paper, the inspection reports and stock statements were not marked, the E. O. pointed out that the first document could not be traced and the inspection reports were also not available. As regards the stock statements it was pointed out by the E. O. that the petitioner did not ask for the same. As regards the stock statements it was pointed out by the E. O. that the petitioner did not ask for the same. If the petitioner wanted to rely on them, he could have made specific request. The C. B. I, report was no doubt referred to by the appellate authority in a cryptic manner, but it does not appear that the conclusions were reached on the basis of that report. The findings on charges, as already observed, rest on other evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that insofar as the inspection reports are concerned, as there was no unit, the question of inspection does not arise and the evidence on record amply proved this fact. The production of first loan application would not have made any difference as it is nobody s case that no such application was submitted. The imputation being that it was signed in blank by P. W. 1, the production of original letter requesting for loan could not have thrown any light on this aspect. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the respondent s Counsel. ( 19 ) AS regards the non-consideration of material evidence, we have not been able to find any evidence which was material and not considered by the E. O. The appellate authority no doubt did not refer to the defence evidence. But the fact remained that most of the defence evidence is relevant to the second charge. As regards the first charge, apart from self-serving statements of the petitioner, there is no other evidence which really helps the petitioner. It is settled law that non-consideration of any and every piece of evidence may not vitiate the proceedings if the conclusions are arrived at on the basis of other relevant evidence. ( 20 ) COMING to the assertion that some documents were ignored and oral evidence was taken into consideration, we are not able to find any documents which were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. ( 21 ) COMING to the contention that certain documents were relied without their being exhibited by the witnesses, we find it difficult to express our agreement with this contention. The documents which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner should not have been relied upon for want of proof are Exs. B-8, B-67, B-70 to b-72. ( 22 ) EX. The documents which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner should not have been relied upon for want of proof are Exs. B-8, B-67, B-70 to b-72. ( 22 ) EX. B-8 letter was referred to by the appellate authority as a corroborating piece of evidence while discussing the charges l (c) and (d ). P. W. 1 identified that letter which was written by Tata Rao to his close relations which was delivered by p. W. 1 himself. It is P. W. 1 who produced that letter as it was written to him. Hence, it cannot be said that it was not proved. Ex. B-67 is a letter written by Tata Rao to the regional Manager, S. B. I, stating that he utilized the amount and he would repay it shortly. This was referred to in para 6 (J) of the appellate authority s order. As the letter was addressed to the Regional Manager of the Bank, it was part of the Bank s record and therefore, the criticism that it was not properly proved, cannot be accepted. The documents need not be proved in a traditional way as the provisions of evidence Act do not apply. ( 23 ) COMING to Exs. B-70 to B-72, which were referred to by the appellate authority at para 6 (1), they are the letters addressed by the petitioner to the Field Officer by name Rajababu and Tata Rao. Marking of these letters was not objected to by the petitioner nor were they denied in the course of enquiry. ( 24 ) WE are therefore of the view that no principles of natural justice have been violated. In any case, we accept the contention of the learned senior Counsel for the respondent that even after the aforementioned letters are eschewed from consideration, the findings can reasonably be supported by the other evidence on record. The dicta laid down in Zora Singh vs. J. M. Tandon (supra) applies in such a situation. ( 25 ) FOR all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.