JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was posted as Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) in Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Samitee. 2. On 9.12.1996 he was put under suspension on certain charges leveled against him in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. 3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The enquiry report was submitted on 20.6.1997. 4. The second show cause notice thereafter was served on the appellant on 25.6.1997. On receiving the said notice, instead of filing 2nd show cause, if any, the appellant went to Patna and filed a petition on 27.6.1997 for extending the time to file reply to the second show cause notice, which was not entertained by the Administrator, the respondent No. 2. According to the appellant, not only the principle of natural justice was violated in the proceeding, a reasonable opportunity of hearing was also not given to him before serving second show cause notice. 5. The disciplinary authority passed final order on 30.6.1997, dismissing him from the services of the bank with specified direction that for the suspension period, he will not be entitled to get any thing more, besides the subsistence allowance. 6. The departmental proceeding, according to the appellant was not at all conducted fairly and proper opportunity was not given to him to defend his case. 7. The appellant challenged the said order dated 30th June, 1997, in this Court in CWJC No. 2349 of 1997 (R). According to him against twenty-six documents, which he had asked to be supplied to him, only four documents were made available and simply on the basis of direction/clarification obtained by the Enquiry Officer from the Administrator, enquiry report was submitted stating therein that the charges were well proved. Secondly, on 17.6.1997 second show cause notice was issued to him to submit show cause by 25th June, 1997. He prayed for extension of time for submission of his reply, but that too was rejected and proper opportupity was not granted to him to file his second show cause. 8. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the bank stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner while being posted at Dal-miangar in Rohtas district embezzled and misappropriated huge amount of Bank money and thereby object of the bank to provide loan to the needy agriculturist was frustrated. 8. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the bank stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner while being posted at Dal-miangar in Rohtas district embezzled and misappropriated huge amount of Bank money and thereby object of the bank to provide loan to the needy agriculturist was frustrated. He was also party to grant of loan to fictitious persons, number of which was calculated to be 71 and in this manner a huge sum of Rs. 12,98,608/- was misappropriated. In the aforesaid circumstances the writ-petitioner was suspended on 9.12.1996 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. 9. The order of suspension dated 9.12.1996 was challenged by the appellant in CWJC No. 944 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of on 19.3.1997, with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding within three and half months. On the direction of this Court, the conducting officer proceeded with the matter and issued a show cause notice to the appellant, but it could not be served on him on account of his absence from the H.Qrs. He received the said notice only on 25.6.1997, which was the date fixed for filing the second show cause, if any. 10. In CWJC No. 2349 of 1999 (R), the learned Single Judge found that the writ-petitioner deliberately avoided to receive the notice only for the reason that the enquiry be not completed within the time fixed by this Court. The prayer made by the petitioner thereafter to extend the time of tile second show cause was rightly rejected. 11. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, it appears that he failed to demonstrate that, in fact, the conducting authority did not allow him to examine the witnesses, rather it appears that he himself avoided active participation in the proceeding and failed to examine any witness on his behalf in his defence. 12. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the materials produced, observed that all the relevant documents required for defending himself in the enquiry had been duly furnished to the writ petitioner. It was never pointed out that a particular document, which was necessary to be supplied to the appellant was not made available to him in course of the enquiry. 13. It was never pointed out that a particular document, which was necessary to be supplied to the appellant was not made available to him in course of the enquiry. 13. This Court in its writ jurisdiction was not sitting in appeal against the order of termination of the appellants services. He did not choose to go for departmental appeal, if any, provided under the Banks Regulation. The enquiry was conducted according to the established rule and reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It was a case of an employee of bank, who was supposed to discharge his duty to safeguard the interest of the bank by securing adequate security before granting loan. 14. Here we find that the Enquiry Officer, has elaborately discussed each and every charge and the disciplinary authority also considered the same and the appellant was rightly charged for granting loan to fictitious persons and for committing various irregularities, which were based mostly on the records of the bank. In its writ jurisdiction, this Court was not expected to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority as an appellate Court. 15. Considering the nature of the charges, leveled and established against the appellant, it being a case of defalcation in bank, those charges were proved on the basis of the documents. 16. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677 , wherein following was held :-- "It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 on this count under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of Judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in is stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the superior authority." 17. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2.3.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWJC No. 2349 of 1997(R). 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, having no merit. No costs.