JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition is preferred against the order dated 26-3-99 by which, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the bank services. The petitioner also challenged the enquiry report dated 14-12-1998 and the appellate authority order dated 14-5-99. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Bank Service on 7-1-85 as an officer at Udippi, Karnataka recruited directly after due selection. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide letter dated 22-9-97 issued by the Industrial Relation Cell under Regulation No. 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short, Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976). After issuing the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer was also appointed by the Bank on 12-10-98 and the enquiry officer recorded the statements of witnesses and after considering the witnesses, the enquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of negligence in discharging his duties. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. 3. Vide order dated 26-3-99, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and was also relieved from the service on 31-3-99. Against the order dated 26-3-99, the petitioner preferred appeal to the appellate authority on 12-4-99 which resulted in dismissal on 14-5-99. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a case where disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiring officer on certain articles of charges, then before it records its findings of such charge, it is duty bound to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give the same to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent, before it ultimately records its findings ? 5. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry authority found the petitioner only as negligent in discharging his duties and disciplinary authority did not agree with this finding, therefore, if disciplinary authority wanted to disagree with it then it should have recorded its reasons for such disagreement and that too after giving opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this argument, as the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice as per Regulation 7(2) of the Staff Regulation, referred the judgment reported in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 : (1998 Lab IC 3012) : 1998(3) SCT 833 (SC) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the Disciplinary Authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its findings. The Principles as Natural Justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the Disciplinary Authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard." 7. Mr. Rastogi also cited a judgment reported in SBI v. Arvind K. Shukla, 2001(3) SCT 776 (SC) : 2001(4) JT 415 (SC) , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has taken same view. 8. Mr. Rastogi also submitted that punishment of compulsory retirement has been shown as a major penalty as per the provisions contained in the Regulations of 1976. The compulsory retirement order has not been passed treating the petitioner as dead wood or unsuitable for the service since neither the petitioner completed 20 years of service nor he attained the age of 50 years at the time of compulsory retirement. 9. Mr. Rastogi further submitted that disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had not applied their minds while considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and in a mechanical manner the order inflicting severe penalty of compulsory retirement has been passed. 10. To substantiate his arguments he referred the judgments reported in S.K. Giri v. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1995(4) SCT 597 (SC) : 1995(6) JT 154 (SC) : ( AIR 1996 SC 350 ) , Colour Chem. 10. To substantiate his arguments he referred the judgments reported in S.K. Giri v. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1995(4) SCT 597 (SC) : 1995(6) JT 154 (SC) : ( AIR 1996 SC 350 ) , Colour Chem. Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar, 1998(1) SCT 757 (SC) : 1998(1) JT 455 (SC) and UPSRTC v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, 2000(2) SCT 314 (SC) : 2000(3) JT 173 (SC) . In all these cases, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that "even if some delinquent is found guilty in disciplinary proceedings even then the punishment order should not be shockingly disproportionate to his guilt. 11. Mr. Rastogi also gave much emphasis on the issue of judicial review and in this regard relied on the judgment in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, 1999(4) SCT 403 (SC) : (1999) 7 SCC 739 , where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that "If the findings given by departmental authorities are perverse and not supported by evidence on record, then the High Court can interfere in the matter." 12. Learned counsel appearing for Syndicate Bank did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the Bank as an officer in the year 1985 and worked at different branches but he does not agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that his work always remained satisfactory and he gave illustration that during the period between 18-2-87 to 28-12-89 when he was posted as Branch Manager at Bachraum branch, he committed certain credit irregularities and was awarded with the punishment of "Stoppage of Next one increment." 13. When the petitioner was working at Gangeshwari branch from 4-1-90 to 3-10-90 he committed various credit irregularities misusing his powers vested with him and was punished with a reduction in basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay vide order dated 30-9-93. 14. When the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Srinagar branch during the period between 10-1-91 to 10-9-94 again he committed irregularities by misusing power vested with him for which he was punished with reduction in basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years vide order dated 28-6-97. 15. 14. When the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Srinagar branch during the period between 10-1-91 to 10-9-94 again he committed irregularities by misusing power vested with him for which he was punished with reduction in basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years vide order dated 28-6-97. 15. The petitioner was also served with the charge-sheet dated 22-9-97 under Regulation No. 6 of the Regulations of 1976 for committing irregularities while he was working as Assistant Manager at Srinagar Branch during the period 10-9-91 to 10-9-94. 16. In the financial year 1992-93 again irregularities have been committed by the petitioner and loss was being caused to the respondent bank and a charge- sheet was issued. Preliminary enquiry was conducted on 24-8-98 and thereafter regular enquiry was also conducted on 12-10-98 at Zonal Office, New Delhi and, it was found that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty and as such the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. 17. Show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority on 19-2-99 which was replied by the petitioner on 3-3-99 and after recording statement and considering the reply the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on 26-3-99. On 31-3-99 the petitioner was relieved from service and vide order dated 14-5-99 the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 18. The respondents also submitted that the grounds taken in this writ petition were never taken before the disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are absolutely based on records and evidence and after full application of mind and as such he submitted that the High Court should not review the evidence while exercising power under Article 226 as held in AIR 1993 SC 1723 and (1995) 6 SCC 749 especially when there is some legal evidence on which the finding can be based as in the instant case is. 19. Mr. Agarwal also referred a Constitutional Bench judgment reported in 1964 SC 364 whereby the Supreme Court has held that the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer whereas in the present case there is no adverse finding given by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report. 19. Mr. Agarwal also referred a Constitutional Bench judgment reported in 1964 SC 364 whereby the Supreme Court has held that the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer whereas in the present case there is no adverse finding given by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report. The findings are not perverse and are fully supported by evidence. 20. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and after careful perusal of the material available on the record as well as the judgments referred by the parties and also carefully gone through the provisions of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 and Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976. 21. As per Regulation 3 of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. 22. Resolution 24 deals with acts of misconduct which stipulates that a breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976. 23. In Regulation 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976, minor and major penalties are classified and compulsory retirement is shown under the head of major penalty. Regulation 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 provides procedure for imposing major penalties which stipulates that "no order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Regulation 4 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this regulation. Regulation 7 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 speaks about action on the enquiry report and the relevant sub-clause (2) reads as under : "the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose." 24. In the light of the Regulations now I will have to examine the enquiry report and the appellate authority's order. 25. In the light of the Regulations now I will have to examine the enquiry report and the appellate authority's order. 25. As evident by the Regulation 3 of the Conduct Regulations 1976 every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. In this light if the conduct and track record of the petitioner is examined it is found that the petitioner's services were never found satisfactory as while discharging duties as Branch Manager at Bachraum branch, he was given punishment of stoppage of next one increment vide order dated 28-10-95. While working as Branch Manager at Gangeshwari branch he was given punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay vide order dated 30-3-93. Thereafter he was appointed as Assistant Manager at Srinagar branch and despite of improving himself he again discharged his duties in contravention of Regulation 3 and was punished with reduction in basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years vide order dated 28-6-97. A charge-sheet was also issued on 22-9-97 under Regulation 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 for committing irregularities as Assistant Manager at Srinagar Branch. Thus, the petitioner was found guilty of committing irregularities in discharging his duties and overall perusal of the record of the petitioner reveals that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is absolutely in the interest of the public as also of the bank. I have also perused the enquiry report. The petitioner wanted to challenge such and every submission made before the enquiry officer and referred certain portions of the witnesses and part of the enquiry report only which helps the petitioner. 26. As such, the petitioner has persistently committed irregularities and also misused the power vested with him and he has proved himself to be a deadwood. Therefore, recommendation made by the enquiry officer is not contrary to any of the Regulations of Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 and also not contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. 27. Therefore, recommendation made by the enquiry officer is not contrary to any of the Regulations of Discipline and Appeal Regulations of 1976 and also not contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. 27. Upon careful perusal of the judgment Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra (supra) referred by the petitioner it reveals that the Supreme Court was of the view that principle of natural justice should be followed as the principle of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. Here, in the instant case, opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and show cause notice was also issued to him and he was given ample opportunity of hearing and the petitioner represented his case before the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. It is not the case that without hearing the petitioner, order of compulsory retirement has been passed. 28. The disagreement shown by the petitioner regarding observation made by the disciplinary authority with the finding given by the enquiry authority is not tenable. There is no material disagreement with the finding given by the authority and order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is only misconception of the petitioner by reading the statement and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer between lines. As such, judgment referred to this effect is not applicable to the instant case. 29. The petitioner also referred the judgment of S.K. Giri v. Home Secretary , Ministry of Home Affairs (supra) for the purpose to establish his case that the punishment which has been imposed is shockingly disproportionate to his guilt. As already observed hereinabove, the petitioner was consistently found negligent in discharging his duty. Looking to this fact and conduct of the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement is not shockingly disproportionate to his guilt, thus, the judgments referred by the petitioner are also not applicable to the instant case. 30. As already observed hereinabove, the petitioner was consistently found negligent in discharging his duty. Looking to this fact and conduct of the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement is not shockingly disproportionate to his guilt, thus, the judgments referred by the petitioner are also not applicable to the instant case. 30. As such, after enquiry, speaking order has been passed by the appellate authority and in such circumstances plea of judicial review by the petitioner cannot be accepted and power under Article 226 does not at all require to review the evidence as held by the Apex Court in the cases reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996(1) SCT 617 (SC) : (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 31. Thus, it is undisputed that the past track record of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory inasmuch as he was also guilty in earlier three occasions prior to issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner for various charges levelled against him for contravening Regulation No. 3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of the Conduct Rules, 1976. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out his case. 32. Thus, as a result of above discussion and observation it is clear that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected with no orders as to cost.Petition dismissed. *******