R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, an employee of the Corporation Bank is challenging Annexure-A, an order passed by the Corporation Bank ordering his removal from the services of the Bank. Petitioner also challenges annexures-D and E orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the reviewing authority confirming the removal of the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed in the Bank as a clerk and was promoted as an officer in the year 1994. He was working at Manipal in the year 1998. He was on deputation to Udupi for a few days. During his deputation to Udupi, the vigilance Officer visited the Manipal Branch and checked certain records in the absence of the petitioner. On the basis of the vigilance check, petitioner was kept under suspension for certain misconduct on his part. Petitioner states that the allegations against him were at the instance of some of the officers and customers of the Bank who were not in good terms with the petitioner. Petitioner states that thereafter he personally approached the higher officers and they have assured the petitioner that they would look into the matter and after a few days the higher officers advised him to give an admission letter so that the matter could be closed. It was in these circumstances, petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him. In the light of the admission, respondents passed an order at Annexure-A removing him from the services of the Bank. The same is confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the reviewing authority. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging these orders on the ground that the removal is bad in law and that he had no opportunity to defend himself. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued pursuant to which respondents have entered appearance. They say that the petitioner committed several omissions and commissions and in these circumstances, proceedings were initiated culminating in his removal. They justify their action. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued before me in support of his prayers. The essential contention is that the termination on the basis of admission is unsustainable in law. His further allegation is that the admission was based on an assurance and therefore, he has been made a scapegoat in the matter. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The essential contention is that the termination on the basis of admission is unsustainable in law. His further allegation is that the admission was based on an assurance and therefore, he has been made a scapegoat in the matter. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 5 ) PETITIONER was charged with serious charges of irregularities committed by him during his tenure at Manipal Branch. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under: "the charges/allegations levelled against the officer in the aforesaid letter of charge dated 15-9-1998 are as follows. That Shri Prashant Bhatia, a constituent of the Branch, was maintaining a Continuous Deposit Account (CDS) No. 1158, at the branch, comprising of the following deposits: A/c Amount Date Maturity value 1/94 Rs. 20,883/- 18-4-1994 Rs. 23,277/- 2/94 Rs. 3,074/- 18-4-1994 Rs. 3,426/- 4/94 Rs. 26,000 10-6-1994 Rs. 26,459/- 5/94 Rs. 9,000/- 27-9-1994 Rs. 9,934/- that the said deposits had matured for payment on 7-8-1994, 22-8-1994, 10-9-1994, 27-9-1995 respectively. That the deposits had become overdue and were transferred to Overdue Continuous deposits Account (ODCDS A/c. No. 5/1996) on 5-2-1996 and an aggregate of Rs. 63,096/- was outstanding in the said overdue deposit account since 5-2-1996. That on 8-8-1998, without any authority from the depositor, the officer debited the aforesaid ODCDS Account with a sum of rs. 63,096/-, duly noting therein that the account was renewed on 8-8-1998 and renewed the full amount in the name of Shri prashant Bhatia, under New Continuous Deposit Account No. 2010. That in the account opening form pertaining to continuous deposit No. 1158 of Shri Prashant Bhatia, the officer rounded off the deposit amount of Rs. 4,000/- originally written and wrote the amount of deposit as 5-2-1996 to 22-8-1998. That under the column for special instructions in the said account opening form, the Officer added the words 'issue PO on 22-8-1998'. That all the relevant vouchers in connection with the above transaction were prepared and authenticated by the officer. That the renewed deposit fell due for payment on 22-8-1998. That on 26-8-1998, the officer unauthorisedly debited a sum of Rs. 29,734/- to interest paid on continuous deposit account and credited the aforesaid amount to continuous deposit account No. 2010 of Shri Prashant Bhatia thereby raising the balance outstanding in the account to Rs. 92,830/ -. That the renewed deposit fell due for payment on 22-8-1998. That on 26-8-1998, the officer unauthorisedly debited a sum of Rs. 29,734/- to interest paid on continuous deposit account and credited the aforesaid amount to continuous deposit account No. 2010 of Shri Prashant Bhatia thereby raising the balance outstanding in the account to Rs. 92,830/ -. That on the same day, i. e. , 26-8-1998, the officer unauthorisedly debited a sum of Rs. 92,830/- to the aforesaid CDS account No. 2010 with the narration "to CDS account closed and p. O. issued". That in the ledger folio of Continuous Deposit account No. 2010, the officer made the entry regarding the transaction as "to SB 8792". That however, the officer failed to credit the said amount to SB Account No. 8792 of Shri Bhatia. That instead, in gross abuse of his official position and also with the mala fide intention to make undue pecuniary gain for himself, the Officer routed the amount to pay slips payable account by preparing 2 credit vouchers purportedly for issuing two pay orders bearing Nos. (1) 430/98 favouring Manipal Education Network for rs. 42,830/- ; and (2) 431/98 favouring MAKE for Rs. 50,000/ -. That all the vouchers pertaining to the above transactions were prepared and authenticated by the officer. That in the said credit challans prepared for issuance of pay order, the officer noted the narration "by Prashant G. Bhatia" as the source of credit. That, thereafter, the officer prepared and issued 2 pay orders no. 430/98 for Rs. 42,830/- bearing printed serial No. 632868 in favour of Manipal Education Network and another pay order with the same number i. e. , 430/98 for Rs. 42,830/- with printed SI. No. 632869 in favour of Sri Devadas Shettigar. That however, with the intention of concealing the facts, the officer had noted the name of payee and the amount as "manipal Education Network - Rs. 42',830/-" in the counterfoil of PO with printed SI. No. 632868 and as "make - Rs. 50,000/- in the counterfoil of PO with printed SI. No. 632869. That the officer had not issued any pay order for Rs. 50,000/- although he had prepared the relevant credit voucher. That the pay order No. 430/98 for Rs. 42',830/-" in the counterfoil of PO with printed SI. No. 632868 and as "make - Rs. 50,000/- in the counterfoil of PO with printed SI. No. 632869. That the officer had not issued any pay order for Rs. 50,000/- although he had prepared the relevant credit voucher. That the pay order No. 430/98 for Rs. 42,830/- favouring Sri devadas Shettigar was presented for payment through clearing by karnataka Bank, Ambagilu Branch on 28-8-1998 and was honoured by debit to pay slips payable account. That the said pay order was authorised for payment by this officer. That the investigation in the matter revealed that the officer owed money to the electrician Shri Raviraj Hegde and to Shri devadas Shettigar, who has supplied cement to him for the construction of his house and that with a view to meet his financial obligations, and to satisfy the creditors, the officer fraudulently issued the aforesaid pay order favouring Devadas shettigar for settlement of his dues. That during the investigation, the officer informed that the pay order with printed serial No. 632868 was destroyed by him on 26-8-1998, by tearing it into small pieces. That after the irregularities committed by him came to light, on 4-9-1998 the officer remitted cash amounting to Rs. 42,830/- at the branch towards the amount fraudulently misappropriated by him. It was alleged against the officer that by his aforesaid acts and omissions, he failed to take at all times all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1982". ( 6 ) WHEN he was asked to submit his explanation, he has admitted these charges. He has also stated that he owed some money to some parties and on account of the pressure by the said parties, and in order to clear them, he committed these acts. Taking note of his admission, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order. The theory of 'no admission' cannot be accepted in view of his explanation as per annexure-C. He also admits in the petition that he did admit the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the bank is right in removing him in the light of his clear admission. In the light of the admitted charges, no enquiry is necessary. The theory of 'no admission' cannot be accepted in view of his explanation as per annexure-C. He also admits in the petition that he did admit the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the bank is right in removing him in the light of his clear admission. In the light of the admitted charges, no enquiry is necessary. Any enquiry if held is wastage of time and money of everybody concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of dharmarathnakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational institution v Educational Appellate Tribunal and Another, has ruled that an enquiry is not necessary when one admits his misconduct. Therefore, the Bank is right in passing the orders of removal. ( 7 ) THE contention of assurance, to my mind, is only an afterthought. Petitioner has nowhere stated in the petition the details of the so-called assurances. No material is placed before this Court that any such assurance is given by anyone. Therefore, the theory of assurance is rejected. Even the theory of scapegoat has to be rejected in the absence of any details with regard to officers/customers who are supposed to be not in good terms with the petitioner. Both the contentions are not based on facts. In these circumstances, Annexure-A cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioner. With regard to Annexures-D and E, which are the appellate order and the review order, the Appellate Authority after considering the material on record has accepted the removal order. The reviewing authority after noticing these two orders has found that no case is made out for reviewing. In fact the reviewing authority has noticed the fraudulent transfer of funds from the account of the customer and the usage of the same for personal ends. The reviewing authority rightly held that the banking business is based on trust and confidence and the officers who are supposed to be the custodian of public money resort to such acts it will go to the very root upon which the banking business is held. ( 8 ) THE reviewing authority also has rightly concluded that no encouragement is shown to such fraudulent acts. I entirely agree with the observations of the reviewing authority. The banking business is purely based on trust and confidence. If such acts are encouraged, it would certainly result in the public losing confidence in the system itself. ( 8 ) THE reviewing authority also has rightly concluded that no encouragement is shown to such fraudulent acts. I entirely agree with the observations of the reviewing authority. The banking business is purely based on trust and confidence. If such acts are encouraged, it would certainly result in the public losing confidence in the system itself. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Bank has taken a right decision in removing the petitioner on the facts of this case. ( 9 ) IN the result, petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .