Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12109 of 1998 dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant against the order of discharge passed by the Assistant General Manager-cum-Dis- ciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Purnea (Annexure-2 to the writ application) and upheld by the Deputy General Manager-cum-Appellate authority (An-nexure-1 to the writ application). 2. The appellant was working as a Teller in the Kishanganj Branch of the State Bank of India. On the basis of allegations, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant with regard to three following charges; (i) A joint Savings Bank Account No. 57/12716 in the name of Himani Singh & Pallavi Singh was opened at Kishanganj Branch on 20.03.1984 duly introduced by you with an initial deposit of Rs. 3600/-. The pass book of the said Savings Bank A/C was accepted by you and not handed over to the above named account holders with your some ulterior motives. (ii) You also yourself received payment of six withdrawals aggregating of Rs. 36,035/- from the joint Saving Bank Account No. 57/12716 of Himani Singh & Pallavi Singh after forging the signatures of the above named account holders and presenting these instruments for payment on various dates as under : SI. No. Date of with drawals Amount 1. 2.11.84 Rs. 19,500/- 2. 20.1.86 Rs. 4,000/- 3. 24.2.86 Rs. 500/- 4. 21.3.86 Rs. 10,000/- 5. 8.4.86 Rs. 1,500/- 6. 13.1.87 Rs. 535/- Total Rs. 36,035/- (iii) You made a fake entry of Rs. 30,000/- on 20.7.90 in Savings Bank Account No. 1469A of Dr. Md. Anwar Alam who is your relative with your some ulterior motives. 3. One Mr. RP.R Jacob, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, but on his transfer Sri Ravi Prakash, Chief Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer on behalf of the State Bank of India. Sri Jeevan Sahay, S.M. G.S. IV was appointed as a Presenting Officer. Sri S.K. Chattorai, President, State Bank of India Staff Association defended the case on behalf of the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer. Copies of all the relevant documents were supplied to the delinquent and one Sri S.K. Verma was examined on behalf of the Bank and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted inquiry report dated 21.2.1996. Sri S.K. Chattorai, President, State Bank of India Staff Association defended the case on behalf of the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer. Copies of all the relevant documents were supplied to the delinquent and one Sri S.K. Verma was examined on behalf of the Bank and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted inquiry report dated 21.2.1996. Show cause notice was sent to the appellant annexing a copy of the proceeding and the findings asking to show cause against the proposed punishment. The appellant submitted his show cause and was also personally presented his matter. The disciplinary authority alter considering the entire materials on the record including the inquiry report passed an order of discharge on 4.1.1997 in terms of paragraph 521 (5) (e) of Shastri Award instead of proposed punishment of dismissal as mentioned in the show cause. The appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority also dismissed the same by order dated 1.3.1997. 4. The learned Single Judge found that the departmental proceeding was conducted following the principle ot natural justice and there is no legal infirmity either in the order of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority and accordingly dismissed the writ application Hence this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised three points. Firstly, he submitted that. Smt. Himani Singh and Pallavi Singh who were important witnesses with regard to allegation nos. 1 and 2 in the charge memo were not examined and in absence of their examination, the said charges cannot be said to have been proved. Secondly, he submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are vitiated because of non-consideration of the materials brought on behalf of the appellant in his show cause. In other words, he submitted that by cryptic order, the authorities have disposed of the matter which is not permissible in law. Thirdly, he submitted that according to the provisions of Shastri award, the opportunity of hearing has to be given by the appellate authority which was denied to the appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules consistent with the requirement of natural justice. Thirdly, he submitted that according to the provisions of Shastri award, the opportunity of hearing has to be given by the appellate authority which was denied to the appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules consistent with the requirement of natural justice. The documentary evidence and the evidence of the Branch Manager was sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant and it was not at all necessary to examine the aforesaid two ladies, namely, Himani Singh and Pallavi Singh. Sufficiency of the material cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to judge the validity of the order passed in the departmental proceeding. The appellant was discharged and was not dismissed and as such it was not, at all, necessary to give him a personal hearing. 7. The charges against the appellant are two fold, namely, that he fraudulently withdrew huge amount from the Saving Bank Account of Himani Singh and Pallavi Singh. He is also alleged to have made a fake entry in the Saving Bank Account of one of his relatives. 8. The departmental proceeding is neither a civil suit nor a criminal trial. The strict rules of Evidence Act is not required and even evidence which is not admissible in stricto sensu under the provisions of the Evidence Act can be relied upon in a departmental proceeding to arrive at a finding. Even the hearsay evidence in some cases and even the confession made before the police which are not admissible in the criminal trial, are taken to be the relevant material for arriving at a conclusion in the departmental proceeding. 9. In the case of State of Haryana and anr. V/s. Rattan Singh [1977 (1) Service Law Report, 750], the Apex Court held that "in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act." 10. In the case of Kuldip Singh V/s. State of Punjab and ors. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act." 10. In the case of Kuldip Singh V/s. State of Punjab and ors. [(1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 659], the Apex Court held that the confession before a police which is not admissible in the court of law, if found to be made voluntarily, can be relied upon and acted upon by the disciplinary authority. 11. The power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the judicial review and not of an appeal. This Court has only to see as to whether in decision making process the authority has committed an error meaning thereby the Court has to only consider the manner in which the decision has arrived at. In a case of an order passed in a departmental proceeding, the Court is required to see as to whether the disciplinary authority was competent to pass an order of punishment or not; whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority and in conducting the inquiry, the relevant rules consistent with the principles of natural justice have been followed or not and whether the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have passed an order in terms of the statutory provisions or not. The Court can neither go into the sufficiency of the material nor can arrive at a different conclusion after appreciating the evidence. The power of judicial review in the words of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after recording fair treatment reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. [See (1994) 2 SCC 537 ; State Bank of India & ors. V/s. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another] 12. in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India & others [(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749], the Apex Court considered the power of judicial review in a departmental proceeding in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgement which are reproduced below. V/s. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another] 12. in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India & others [(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749], the Apex Court considered the power of judicial review in a departmental proceeding in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgement which are reproduced below. "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a man-] ner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode ol inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. II the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. "The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. "The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings of evidence or reliability of evidence be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. in Union of india v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued." 13. Now the first question to be considered is whether the non- examination of the two aforesaid ladies, namely, Himani Singh & Pallavi Singh, who according to the allegation were defrauded by the appellant, has vitiated the inquiry. 14. As stated above, the pass books were opened by the appellant and were kept by him. He withdrew huge money on different occasions. The appellant made a long statement where he has admitted that the pass books of the aforesaid two ladies were kept by him. Withdrawals forms were also prepared by him and the signatures on the withdrawal forms were found to be forged according to the opinion of the handwriting expert. The aforesaid ladies complained to the Branch Manager who has supported the said fact as P.W. 1 in the departmental proceeding. Thus, the Enquiry Officer after consider- ing the evidence and materials on record has arrived at a conclusion that charge Nos. (i), (ii) (partly) and (iii) were proved. Non-examination of the aforesaid two ladies in such a situation cannot be said to be a serious infirmity. The Enquiry Officer has not relied upon their statements to arrive at a conclusion of misconduct. 15. In the case of State of Haryana V/s. Rattan Singh (supra), a bus conductor was found to have allowed the passengers to travel in the bus without tickets though they had paid the fares. A departmental proceeding was initiated and punishment of termination was awarded. One of the points raised by him was that the passengers with regard to whom tickets were not issued, were not examined. The said contentions were negatived and it was found that there were other materials to justify the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority. 16. A departmental proceeding was initiated and punishment of termination was awarded. One of the points raised by him was that the passengers with regard to whom tickets were not issued, were not examined. The said contentions were negatived and it was found that there were other materials to justify the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority. 16. Thus the said submission is devoid of any substance. The disciplinary authority has considered ail the relevant materials including the plea taken by the appellant and as such it cannot be said that the case of the appellant was not considered at all by the disciplinary authority while imposing the order of punishment. 17. Admittedly, an award which properly knowm as "Shastri Award" applies with regard to disciplinary proceeding against the Bank employees. Paragraph 521 deals with the procedure for taking disciplinary action. Paragraph 521(10) provides that the disciplinary authority will give an opportunity of hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him. Admittedly the disciplinary authority has given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter he has passed the order. No doubt, the order is not an elaborate one, but it is well settled that when the disciplinary authority has agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, there is no obligation to record a detailed reason. The same approach has been taken by the appellate authority and as such the said order cannot be faulted with on the ground urged on behalf of the appellant. (See, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and others V/s. Prabhudayal Grover, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 279). It appears that in this case, the disciplinary authority has heard the appellant in detail and has gone through the entire records and applied his mind before passing the order and as such the order of disciplinary authority is not vitiated on the ground urged on behalf of the appellant. 18. The learned counsel for the Bank is right in submitting that the appellant has not been dismissed, on the other hand, he has been discharged from service and in such case paragraph 521 (10) (c) applied which provides that discharge shall not be deemed to be a disciplinary action. 18. The learned counsel for the Bank is right in submitting that the appellant has not been dismissed, on the other hand, he has been discharged from service and in such case paragraph 521 (10) (c) applied which provides that discharge shall not be deemed to be a disciplinary action. Admittedly, the appellant has not been dismissed from service, on the other hand, he has been discharged which does not amount to disciplinary action in terms of paragraph 521(10)(c) the Shastri Award and as such there was no requirement, at all, of hearing by the appellate authority as urged on behalf of appellant. 19. Thus there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 20 I agree.