Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, Prem Narayan Srivastava working as Head Cashier-E, was placed under suspension and was chargesheeted, as many as 11 charges were levelled against him. The charges were in relation to his misdemeanor, misdeeds and misconducts. The petitioner after service of the chargesheet submitted his show cause and took part in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave proper opportunities to the parties and submitted his report on 27.12.2000 finding that some of the charges were proved and some were not proved. After receiving the enquiry report the disciplinary authority showing its concurrence with the enquiry report issued second show cause notice alongwith the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause and submitted that the enquiry report was lopsided, the findings were perverse and were contrary to the records available with the Enquiry Officer. The defence and the arguments of the petitioner did not find favour with the disciplinary authority who vide his order dated 2.5.2001 contained in Annexure- 7 dismissed the petitioner from service under clause 19.6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement amended up-to-date. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said punishment submitted his appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 10th January, 2002 (Annexure-8) concurred with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority but however modified his dismissal into discharge from sevice with superannuation benefits as would be due otherewise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the award of the said punishment has come to this Court. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority so also the appellate authority have not considered the matter in their true perspective and also failed to observe that certain instructions made by the Bank were abandoned in their practice, the action of the petitioner were later on verified and approved by the Branch Manager, therefore, the findings of his guilt could not be recorded. It is submitted that in any case the award of the punishment by the appellate authority is disproportionate, therefore, this Court must interfere in the matter. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents-Establishment submitted that a perusal of the charges would clearly show that the petitioner was acting in most unfair manner, he was destroying the accounts of the Bank and in fact was indulged in misconducting himself. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents-Establishment submitted that a perusal of the charges would clearly show that the petitioner was acting in most unfair manner, he was destroying the accounts of the Bank and in fact was indulged in misconducting himself. It was submitted by him that the charges are not simple but are of grave nature. Referring to the charges he submitted that the petitioner, in fact, destroyed the vouchers, made bogus and fraudulent entries in the accounts book and made certain subsequent entries to cover his lapses. 5. I have heard both the parties. 6. From a perusal of the order contained in Annexure-7 it would clearly appear that in fact serious charges were levelled against the petitioner. The charges were that he received cash from sundry depositors on different dates, posted the concerned vouchers in the respective accounts and later on the said vouchers were destroyed without recording the same in the Days Transaction Book and in fact in many cases he himself had released/confirmed the entries. The charge also was that he committed fraud by destroying the vouchers after making entries in the ledgers and did not reflect the transaction in the books of account, whenever he happened to be Incharge of the Branch in absence of the Branch Manager with the sole intention to hide the misdeeds. The charge also was that he received cash from sundry depositors on different dates, posted the same vouchers in the respective accounts but the same were not reflected in the books of account such as Day Transaction Books. The charges also were that he made temporary embezzlement of Banks money by accepting cash from depositors on various dates by merely posting the entries in the ledgers on the date of cash receipt but the cash was not accounted for on the said date. Further charge was that he prepared adjustment vouchers on 31.5.1996 to adjust the amount of sundry HSS parties whose money was temporarily embezzled by him. The charge also was that he made entry fraudulently and committed various frauds in the HSS accounts, i am not referring to the charges for which he has been exonerated or for which censure was proposed as punishment. 7. A perusal of aforereferred charges would clearly show that the petitioner was facing serious charges and the Bank had lost its total faith in him. 7. A perusal of aforereferred charges would clearly show that the petitioner was facing serious charges and the Bank had lost its total faith in him. It is not the case of the petitioner that due and proper opportunity to defend was not given to him. His only submission is that the Enquiry Officer should and must have recorded some other findings after appreciating the facts in their true perspective. It is also his submission that in his appeal he has raised various points in his defence but on facts those were not considered. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be interfered with simply on the ground that yet another view is possible. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the findings only if the procedural lapses which led to an illegal order are committed by the Enquiry Officer, proper and due opportunity to defend him is not given, second show cause notice is not issued or the enquiry report is not sent or in a case where the Enquiry Officer has exonerated him, the proposed findings for reversal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not supplied to him. The High Court does not sit as an appellate authority. The jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Officer are self-contained. If they record a finding then unless the findings are shown to be perverse or the process/procedure followed has adversely affected because of the lapses, the High Court would not interfere in the matter. The findings must be held to be valid. 9. So far as the question of award of the punishment is concerned, this Court must immediately observe that an employee of the Bank has to discharge his duties in a sacrosanct manner. He cannot be allowed to say that he committed small lapses though held the position of Head Cashier, therefore, the lapses must be condoned. If the Bank looses faith in its employee and it cannot bank upon him then the authority would be entitled to show an exit to its employee. If the Bank authorities have given due and proper reasons for proposing dismissal or discharge from service as punishment then the High Court would not interfere in the matter. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.