Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20 September, 2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 6489 of 2000 : Ramesh Prasad V/s. The State Bank of India and Ors. 2. In so far as the facts are concerned, they are sufficiently dealt with in a very detailed judgment by the learned Judge on the writ petition which had been dismissed as he was not inclined to grant the relief, in effect, that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 3. In so far as the record is concerned, the petitioner himself in his explanations, for instance, dated 14 March, 2000 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) calls himself as clerk/cashier. 4. The issue whether an amount had been misappropriated or it had been incorrectly entered in the pass book so that the entry as made was otherwise than the record of the bank, became the subject matter of a very detailed disciplinary inquiry of the charges which were levelled against the petitioner, he offered a detailed reply. The Court notices from the reply that the petitioner appellant evaded reply to specific charges but was raising issues on procedures. The learned Judge has noticed, and it is otherwise on record, that in the explanation by the petitioner he accepts that the charges as made may be treated as minor aberrations and lapses and the punishment reduced. In his explanation the petitioner accepts that he used to make entries of money credited to the account but on the pass book of the customers on the basis of the counter-foils tendered by them across the counter as a prevalent practice at the Branch. This aspect is in the petitioners explanation dated 13 March, 1995 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). 5. The issue is not that what the petitioner did in the discharge of his duties was a prevalent practice at the bank but the question is whether the pass book should be entered from the ledger which records the posting of credit and debit entries or the counter-foil. The entries in the pass book must conform to the amounts shown in the ledger of the bank. The petitioner appellant may treat this as minor aberrations so as to have a minor penalty but the question is whether the bank has lost confidence in the petitioner appellant. 6. The entries in the pass book must conform to the amounts shown in the ledger of the bank. The petitioner appellant may treat this as minor aberrations so as to have a minor penalty but the question is whether the bank has lost confidence in the petitioner appellant. 6. Other submissions made were to the effect that as recorded in paragraph 15 of the order, what the learned Judge has recorded, were not the submissions made and they have been recorded incorrectly. On this aspect this Court will not make any comment as it is entirely up to the petitioner appellant to take his remedy on this particular submission. In so far as the memoranda of appeal is concerned, these aspects have not been denied. 7. In so far as the cases cited, they were the same cases as were cited and noticed in paragraph 20 of the. order of the learned Judge. 8. In the circumstances, fully relying on the judgment of the learned Judge, this Court is not inclined to interfere on this Letters Patent Appeal. 9. Dismissed.