JUDGMENT Per Tapen Sen, J.- The Petitioner in this case has prayed for quashing the order of punishment dated 20.9.2002 as contained in Annexure-5 by which the Respondent No. 3 (Chief Manager-cumDisciplinary authority of the Bank of India, Ranchi) dismissed the Petitioner from service thereby confirming the proposal of such punishment given in the second show cause notice dated 14.9.2000. By reason of the aforementioned order, it was further directed that no amount over and above what has been paid to him by way of subsistence allowance was payable any further. The Petitioner further prays for quashing the appellate order dated 16.7.2001 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Zonal Manager) confirming the order dated 20.9.2000. 2. Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has submitted and stated that the Petitioner ensured that the Bank did not suffter any loss and with that object in mind, he therefore deposited the entire money in the Bank, albeit after some delay. 3. In the backdrop of such an argument, the charges which were levelled against the Petitioner are necessary to be dealt with at the first instance. 4. There were two charges against the Petitioner. Charge No. 1 related to fraudulent misappropriation. The charge was that on 14.12.1999, the Petitioner had received a total amount of Rs. 1,85,538.35 Paise from the Bank's cash safe but at the end of the day, he submitted accounts which fell short by Rs. 57,299.97 Paise. However, on the next day Le. on 15.12.1999, he deposited the sum of Rs. 57,300.00. Thus the charge was that he had fraudulently misappropriated the sum of Rs. 57,299.97 Paise on 14.12.1999 although he made good the said amount by depositing the same on 15.12.1999. 5. Charge No. 2 related to acceptance of various sums of money amounting to a total sum of Rs. 18,000/- on different dates from various recurring deposit accounts holders. However, with dishonest intention he did not account for the said amounts in the books of records of the Branch and thereby misappropriated the same to the detriment of the Bank's interest. He further made bogus credit entries of Rs. 1,000.00, Rs. 1,000.00 and Rs. 1,500.00 in Account Nos. 18,000/- on different dates from various recurring deposit accounts holders. However, with dishonest intention he did not account for the said amounts in the books of records of the Branch and thereby misappropriated the same to the detriment of the Bank's interest. He further made bogus credit entries of Rs. 1,000.00, Rs. 1,000.00 and Rs. 1,500.00 in Account Nos. 343, 344 and 350 and when the account holders complained about non reflection of their money deposited by them, the Petitioner paid back the money to the account holder of Account No. 396 directly and the balance of Rs. 13,500.00 was deposited in the extension counter on 21.2.2000. Upon perusal of the chargesheet (relevant page-33) it is evident that in so far as the other account holders are concerned, they had given the money to the Petitioner on different dates between May to October, 1999 but the said money was deposited by the Petitioner in the extension counter on 21.2.2000. Thus, according to the chargesheet the petitioner had defrauded the amounts. 6. An enquiry was conducted and report submitted on 14.8.2000 (Annexure2) in which the charges were found to be proved. The Petitioner was then asked to submit a show-cause as to why the punishment of dismissal be not inflicted upon him vide letter dated 14.9.2000 as contained in Annexure-3. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 19.9.2000 (Annexure-4) but thereafter the punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the Petitioner by order dated 20.9.2000 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal but by order dated 16.7.2001, the appellate authority confirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal. 7. The Petitioner has challenged the first order of punishment on the ground that the disciplinary authority merely accepted the findings given in the enquiry report but did not apply his mind independently. He has further argued that no discussion has been made with regard to charge no. 2 which according to the Petitioner, was formulated at the time of submission of the charge-sheet after receiving fake complaints from different customers. 8. This Court does not agree with any of the submission made by the Petitioner or by his learned counsel. He has further argued that no discussion has been made with regard to charge no. 2 which according to the Petitioner, was formulated at the time of submission of the charge-sheet after receiving fake complaints from different customers. 8. This Court does not agree with any of the submission made by the Petitioner or by his learned counsel. In relation to the 2nd charge, it is evident that a number of account holders had given money to the Petitioner on different dates between May to October, 1999 for depositing it in the Bank but the same was deposited by the Petitioner in the extension counter only as late as 21.2.2000. Reading this Charge, it cannot be said that the intention 01. the Petitioner was either honest or bona fide. Keeping somebody else's money which was given for deposit so that thn same could earn interest cannot be passed off as a mere trifle and that too, when the petitioner deposited the same after so many months thereby depriving the account holders of the benefit of calculation of interest from the day of the deposit. 9. Banking is a systematic activity which is carried on between the Banker and its customers and the only ingredient which attracts the customer to such an activity is total and complete faith. The Officers and employees of the Bank are regarded by a customer as the custodian of his money and he, with good faith and expectations of honesty, entrusts such a valuable asset of his life to an officer of the Bank expecting that his money is, at last, safe in the hands of a noble, honest and dedicated officer representing the institution of which every employee is a part and parcel. If such faith receives the slightest dent on account of the conduct of an officer/employee, then such an officer/employee of this institution has no-right to call himself a part of the Bank. 10. Moreover, the order of dismissal as also the order of the appellate authority do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Both are well reasoned orders. This Court does not consider the punishments to be shockingly disproportionate. 10. Moreover, the order of dismissal as also the order of the appellate authority do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Both are well reasoned orders. This Court does not consider the punishments to be shockingly disproportionate. Let it be recorded that the order of dismissal has been passed after following the due process of law and therefore, to that extent, this Court will not embark upon a process of setting aside a proceeding where evidences were led and findings recorded. A Writ Court under Article 226 will not exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Judgment cited by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of "Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer Etc:' reported in "2003 AIR sew 1813" cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioner because in that case the proportionality of punishment was weighed on the basis of procedural lapses. The instant case is not a case of procedural lapse but one which establishes a deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner to with old money belonging to others. Both the charges when read together make out a serious misconduct which cannot be overlooked. It is true that in so far as the first charge is concerned, the Petitioner deposited the money on the next day but the second charge shows that the money, though small in amount, was kept by the Petitioner for months thereby depriving the account holders from the benefit of interest w.e.f. the date of deposit. How can this therefore be said to be a case where the quantum is disproportionate? On the contrary, this Court does not consider that the punishment which has been inflicted is either unwarranted or shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Application. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.