JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated i.e. (1) 12.7.1998 (Ann 5) asking for his explanation against complaints lodged by accounts holders of the Punjab National Bank (respondent), (2) 31.8.1990 (Ann 11) issuing a notice with inquiry report to show cause as to why a major punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed against him, (3) 3.12.1990 (Ann 2) imposing punishment of dismissal from service against him, (4) 9.5.1991 (Ann 14) dismissing his appeal against punishment order. Initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on 19.3.1982, where after he was promoted as a result of his qualifying the requisite test and joined as Clerk cum Cashier on 26.9.1988. However, some of customers and accounts holders of the respondent Bank lodged complaints inter alia that their amounts for being deposited in the respective recurring bank accounts were collected by the petitioners but were not got deposited with the Bank and therefore, his explanation was called for by letter dated 12.7.1988 (Ann 5), to which reply (Ann R-2) was submitted by him on 24.9.1988. Ultimately a charge sheet (Ann-6) was issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1989, to which reply (Ann R-5) was filed by the petitioner on 13.3.1989 and inquiry officer was appointed on 6.4.1989 (Ann). The inquiry was concluded on 6.3.1990 & its report (Annex-6) was submitted to the disciplinary authority, which issued a notice (Ann 1 1), along with inquiry report to he petitioner for showing cause as to why a major punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. On 24.4.1990 the petitioner submitted his written arguments (Ann10) and he appeared on 30.1.1990 and personal hearing was afforded to him. However, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of his dismissal from service by order date. 3.12.1990 (Ann 2). Copy of complete enquiry proceedings and report has been filed as Annexure R/7. Against the punishment order (Ann 2) the petitioner preferred an appeal (Ann13) on 21.1.1991 but his appeal was dismissed after hearing him by order date. 9.5.1991 (Ann 14). Hence this writ petition. 2. 3.12.1990 (Ann 2). Copy of complete enquiry proceedings and report has been filed as Annexure R/7. Against the punishment order (Ann 2) the petitioner preferred an appeal (Ann13) on 21.1.1991 but his appeal was dismissed after hearing him by order date. 9.5.1991 (Ann 14). Hence this writ petition. 2. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned charge sheet does not state as to under which Rules or Act, it had been issued that the charge sheet was issued on the complaint made by one Narpat Singh but before the enquiry officer, Narpat Singh stated that he had never moved any complaint before any authority nor did give Rs. 800/- to the petitioner for its deposit in the Bank and similarly, other defence witness Hariram Meena stated that entries made in the A/c of the was not in the handwriting of the petitioner, which has been corroborated by the evidence of Basantilal (D.W.2). Thus, according to Shri Lodha, the inquiry officer has no jurisdiction or authority to disbelieve defence version of the complainant himself and in this view of the matter, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that charge No.1 stood proved, is not sustainable. That apart, the enquiry officer has not reached to a definite finding that the charge No. 1(b) is proved whereas has finding is that it seems to be proved and similarly, charge No.2 has been based upon surmises and conjectures inasmuch as there is no cogent evidence to prove it rather the enquiry officer, himself failed to conclude that charge No.2 was proved. As regards charge No.3 with regard to allegation of wilful absence from duty was also not proved on record. 3. Shri Lodha further contended that the disciplinary authority failed to consider material facts and evidence on record and therefore, the order of punishment of removal from service is not sustainable, inasmuch as the statutory appeal against punishment order has been dismissed by the appellate authority without a reasoned & speaking order, Shri Lodha cited the decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ( AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 (3) SCC 398 ) : [1985(2) SLR 576 (SC)] , Ramachandran v. Union of India ( 1986 (3) SCC 103 ) : [1986(2) SLR 608 (SC)] , & Devki Nandan Sharma v. Union of India (2001 (5) SCC 404):12001(2) SLR 606 (SC)] . 4. 4. Lastly Shri Lodha urged that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate, excessive to the gravity of the imputed charges whereas it ought to have been is commensurate with the misconduct. Shri Lodha placed much reliance upon the decision in State Bank of India v. Samrender Kishore (1994 (2) SC 537) : [ 1994(1) SLR 516 (SC)] and Babulal v. State of Rajasthan, ( 2000 (3) WLC 529 ). 5. Per contra, Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondent Bank contended that this writ petition reserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, even after admission, reply & rejoinder in this case, because the petitioner is a workmen as defined under section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Secondly Shri Maloo urged that the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity to defend himself and therefore, principles of natural justice & statutory rules have been duly followed during the disciplinary proceedings against him wherein the findings as to the guilt of the petitioner have been arrived at after examining six witnesses of the Bank besides adducing documentary evidence on record as against leading of defence evidence of five witnesses by the petitioner, inasmuch as the Bank's witnesses were cross examined including Handwriting Expert produced by the Bank to prove handwriting of the complaint (Narpat Singh). That apart, the inquiry officer has given a reasoned report after considering & discussing the entire evidence on record., to which also disciplinary authority has also applied its mind hetore passing the order of punishment impugned herein, after having considered the facts that charges related to misappropriation of public money, fabrication of accounts, falsification of account of the Bank which resulted in tarnishing the Bank's image, Shri Maloo has also placed much reliance upon the catena of decisions in support of his arguments on the aspect of judicial review as well as interference in the order of punishment so also the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Before I advert to the controversy, let me delineate a resume of imputation of the charges. Charge No. 1(A) relates to a complaint of Narpat Singh alleging that 16 installments each of Rs. 50/- totalling to Rs. 6. Before I advert to the controversy, let me delineate a resume of imputation of the charges. Charge No. 1(A) relates to a complaint of Narpat Singh alleging that 16 installments each of Rs. 50/- totalling to Rs. 800/- were given to the delinquent petitioner so as to get them deposited every month in R.D. A/c No. 2065 (Narpat Singh's), but no such amount whatsoever was deposited in that A/c by the r-titioner and contrarily its entries were made by the petitioner in the pass book of Narpat Singh on 28.1.1987. Charge No. 1(B) relates to similar charge with the allegation that the petitioner took a sum of Rs. 200/- from Suresh Chand Gupta on 31.3.1986 & 30.8.1986 for its deposit in a pass book of his daughter (Kumari Hemlata) of R.D. A/c No. 2088 but he ( petitioner) did not deposit that amount rather its entries were made in the pass book of R.D. A/c No. 2088. Charge No. 2 does also relate to the imputation of misappropriation, fabrication & falsification of Bank account and where under the charge is that the petitioner took loan in excess of his capacity thereby a cheque No. P.S.W. 031761 of his Current A/c No. 477 was issued on 10.9.1987 to Gordhan Singh for a sum of Rs. 13252/- which was presented by Gordhan Singh in his Bank but the petitioner while working as Officiating clerk on the fateful day, did not make entry of pay in slip of that cheque in the ledger of the Bank but retained that cheque unauthorised. However, charge No. 3 relates to the allegation of absence without leave but since this charge No. 3 was not held proved by the inquiry officer, there is no need to delineate further herein. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and considered rival contentions of both the parties, relevant material placed on record so also the catena of decisions cited at the bar, I must hasten to say that in disciplinary matters any review thereon should have been made not only with great care and circumspection, but confining strictly to the parameters of great care and circumspection, but confining strictly to the parameters of judicial review. This Court in its writ jurisdiction ought not to have snipped off the decision of the disciplinary authority as if it had appellate powers over the decision of the disciplinary authorities and thus this Court cannot exceed its decision of the jurisdictional forntiers by interfering with such disciplinary decisions. The enquiry is primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges imputed against him and also to afford the punishing authority with the materials collected in such enquiry as well as the views expressed by the enquiry thereon. Further the conclusions of the enquiry officer are only his opinion on the material, but they are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the decision making authority is the punishing authority which can conclude at its own bearing in mind the views expressed by the enquiry officer but it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the enquiry officer, otherwise it would get disciplinary authority relegated to a subordinate level. 8. In my considered view duly fortified by series of decisions of the Apex Court, interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted in exercise of jurisdiction U/Art. 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice or of statutory regulations/rules prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. The departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. It is trite that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or every reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition. 9. Bearing in mind the bound of power of judicial review available to this court while exercising writ jurisdiction over a departmental/disciplinary enquiry proceedings, I have to examine, whether on the evidence led before the enquiry officer, the impugned conclusion punishing the petitioner would follows or not? 10. 9. Bearing in mind the bound of power of judicial review available to this court while exercising writ jurisdiction over a departmental/disciplinary enquiry proceedings, I have to examine, whether on the evidence led before the enquiry officer, the impugned conclusion punishing the petitioner would follows or not? 10. It is an admitted case of the petitioner in his own reply dated 13.3.1989 (Ann.R5) to the charge sheet that complaint (M.Ex1) was filed against him by Narpat Singh (D.W.3). There was an evidence of J.P. Jain (M.W.5) that complaint was received during his service posting time at the Branch of the Bank. Handwriting Expert's report (Ex.26A to E) proved that entries No. 6 to 21 in pass book of R.D. A/c No. 2065 of Narpat Singh were made by the petitioner. No doubt Narpat Singh (complainant) was produced in defence but resiled by stating that he did not file any complaint against the petitioner but it does not mean that the entire charge stood not established, inasmuch as during evidence he himself admitted that letter dated. 7.2.1988 (Ex.M2) was albeit written by him but such a complaint was filed by mistake. Be that as it may, other part of evidence on record proved that 16 installments each of Rs. 50/- given by Narpat Singh was not deposited with the Bank by the petitioner, nor it was his evidence or statement that he had not given these 16 instalments to the petitioner and that the petitioner got these 16 installments deposited with the Bank. Once the entries No. 6 to 21 made by the petitioner in R.D. A/c No. 2065 were proved by the handwriting expert (M.W.6) & his report (Ex.26A to E) which remained un-controverted, and there is no evidence that 16 instalments entered by the petitioner in pass book of R.D. A/c. No. 2065 were deposited with the Bank, charge No. 1(A) stood proved after having considered entire material of documentary & oral evidence on record. Similarly Charge No. 1(B) is also proved on the evidence of three witnesses of the Management (Bank) because it stood established by handwriting expert in his report that entry No. 10 to 15 is pass book of R.D. A/c No. 2088 (M. Ex7) were made by the petitioner (Saheb Singh) which proved that he took money from Suresh Chandra Gupta but did not deposit in the Bank. Under charge No. 2 it has also been established from the evidence on record that the petitioner took loan in excess of his capacity & got issued a cheque in question under his current account on 10.9.1987 for a sum of Rs. 13,252/- to one Gordhan Singh and when Gordhan Singh deposited that cheque in the Bank the petitioner did not make entry of pay slip and in any ledger of the Bank rather he retained the cheque with him unauthorisedly. This charge No. 2 is duly proved by the evidence on record. Thus it stood proved that the petitioner made false entries in account books of the Bank which amounted to forgery and he misappropriated Bank's customer money in his own pocket and thus not only cheated the Bank as well as its A/s holder. 11. In my considered view, the enquiring authority based its conclusions on materials available on record and after considering the defence put forth by the petitioner. The conclusions have been drawn in a reasonable manner and objectively, which cannot be termed as perverse or not based on any material, nor it is a case where there has been any non application of mind on the part of the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority of appellate authority. The impugned order of disciplinary or non application of mind nor that it was tainted by malice. The report of the enquiry officer and the impugned order of punishment in the case at hand cannot be faulted with, on any of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. There is some evidence to reasonably support conclusions of enquiring authority and thus viewed, it is not the function of this court to review evidence ad to arrive at its own independent finding. 12. That apart, even the benefit of promotion to the petitioner would not stand as an impediment to take disciplinary action and to take appropriate decision so as to pass an order consistent with the finding of proved misconduct. 13. As regards quantum of punishment , having regard to the gravity of the proved misconduct, it is the punishing authority which had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. Thus the penalty is not open to review by the High Court U/Art. 226. 13. As regards quantum of punishment , having regard to the gravity of the proved misconduct, it is the punishing authority which had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. Thus the penalty is not open to review by the High Court U/Art. 226. Once it stands established that the disciplinary authority and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline, they are invested with the discretion to imposee appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the proved misconduct. However, the High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of power of the judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It is trite that only in case the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience in judicial nature, it may appropriately mould the relief either directing the competent authority (disciplinary or appellate) to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional & rate cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. (See. B.C. Chaturvedy v. Union of India, (1995 (5) SCC 778) : [ 1995(5) SLR 778 (SC)] . 14. Nationalised Banks being prime source and pillars for establishment of socio economic justice, its employees & officers bear responsibility & owe duty to the society for effectuation of socio economic empowerment. Therefore, their acts &conduct should be in discharge of that constitutional objectives and if they derelict in the performance of their duty, its impinges upon the enforcement of constitutional objective and the goals under the rule of law. The disciplinary measure should therefore, aim at eradication of compute proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in public offices including those in Banks. Any conduct that damages, destroys, so as to effectuate the object of constitutional objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at the cost of the society. Any conduct that damages, destroys, so as to effectuate the object of constitutional objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at the cost of the society. Bearing in mind the constitutional objective and in view of the gravity of the misconduct, namely the petitioner having been found to have made false entries, misappropriation of money of the customer and account holders of the Bank i.e. public money, fabrication of accounts, falsification of Bank, the interference with the imposition of punishment impugned herein is wholly unwarranted. 1 find no merit in this writ petition.Resultantly this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. *******