RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a case wherein the petitioner was serving as a Branch Manager as Scale-II Officer of the respondent-Bank at Halvad from 1984 to 1987. While he was Branch Manager at Halvad, by an order dated 1st June, 1985, the Regional Manager-II asked the petitioner that he shall confirm having noted the instructions given to him during his visit (petitioners visit) to the Regional Office on 30th and 31st May, 1985, for immediate compliance. The letter reproduces as many as five paragraphs incorporating various instructions. For our purpose, instructions contained in paragraph- (iv) are material, which read thus,"the Branch Manager should under no circumstances consider proposals for advances except those sponsored under Govt. agencies but consolidate the advances proposals. All such proposals must be referred to the Regional Office only and no discretionary powers must be exercised by you which are suspended by us forthwith until further instructions. " (emphasis supplied)1. 1 despite this letter dated 1st June, 1985, the petitioner continued to act according to his own will and, therefore, he was issued chargesheet on 20th November, 1989. The chargesheet read thus, "it is reported that you have committed certain acts of misconduct during your tenure as Branch Manager of Banks Halvad Branch in the year 1984, 1985 and 1986 for which I, K. Thanu Pillai, Chief General Manager, State Bank Of Saurasthra, Head Office, Bhavnagar, do hereby charge you as under:- (1 ). Withdrawal of discretionary powers: You have disobeyed the instructions conveyed to you vide the Controlling Authoritys letter No. RM-II/aud/sl/91 dated 1st June, 1985, withdrawing your discretionary powers to sanction the advances. Defying the above instructions, you continued to sanction, renew with enhancement and release advances to fresh and existing borrowers. . . . . . . . . . "1. 2 the Chargesheet then sets out the details of ten borrowers to whom the total amount to the tune of Rs. 69,654. 15 was advanced, which was blocked, and there was likelihood of the Bank suffering financial loss to the extent of the sum advanced and the interest accrued thereon. 1. . . . . . . . . "1. 2 the Chargesheet then sets out the details of ten borrowers to whom the total amount to the tune of Rs. 69,654. 15 was advanced, which was blocked, and there was likelihood of the Bank suffering financial loss to the extent of the sum advanced and the interest accrued thereon. 1. 3 the petitioner filed reply to the said Chargesheet, which was not found acceptable and, therefore, a departmental inquiry was ordered and the Inquiry Officer, in his well considered, long drawn, running into 21 pages inquiry report, found that: [i] Charge No. 1 : Partly proved; [ii] Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4 : Not proved; [iii] Sub. Charge-1 of Charge No. 5 : Partly proved; [iv] Sub. Charge-2 of Charge No. 5 : Partly proved; [v] Sub. Charge-3 of Charge No. 5 : Not proved; [vi] Sub. Charge-4 of Charge No. 5 : Not proved; [vii] Sub. Charge-5 of Charge No. 5 : Partly proved; [viii] Sub. Charge-6 of Charge No. 5 : Proved; [ix] Charge No. 6 : Partly proved; [x] Charge No. 7 : Not proved; [xi] Charge No. 8 : Proved; [xii] Charge No. 9 : Partly proved; [xiii] Charge No. 10 : Proved; [xiv] Charge No. 11 : Not proved. 1. 4 the matter was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal on 30th August, 1991, which was communicated to the petitioner by communication dated 3rd September, 1991 by the General Manager (Operations ). 1. 5 the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 29th February, 1992, which was communicated to the petitioner by communication dated 4th March, 1992. At this juncture, the relevant extracts from the order of disciplinary authority are required to be reproduced for the ready reference:". . . . . . . . . I am satisfied that before arriving at conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has properly evaluated the evidences and that his findings are well reasoned. I, therefore, do not see any reason to disagree with his findings. . . . . . . . . I am satisfied that before arriving at conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has properly evaluated the evidences and that his findings are well reasoned. I, therefore, do not see any reason to disagree with his findings. Shri Trivedis defence and representation against the Findings of the Enquiry Officer is not convincing to me looking to the facts which are clearly revealed from the oral as well as documentary evidences laid at the enquiry that inspite of withdrawal of Shri Trivedis discretionary powers for advances except for advances recommended by Govt. Agencies, he sanctioned/released loans, in utter defiance of his Controlling Authoritys instructions, that too when he was on the verge of retirement. The circumstances of the case leads me to believe that he deliberately disobeyed his Controlling Authoritys instructions. He cannot escape punishment for such serious misconduct by subsequently sending control returns in some accounts for releasing advances for which he was not at all authorised. There is no evidence to show that the Controlling Authority had confirmed the alleged unauthorised advances made by Shri Trivedi. Moreover, I also found that in several accounts, apart from committing "grave" irregularities, Shri Trivedi did not initiate proper steps for follow-up and recovery, which may cause the Bank financial loss of lacs of rupees. I, therefore, decide to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 2/. After careful consideration of the whole matter and circumstances of the case as well as serious nature of gross misconduct committed by Shri Trivedi, I am of the opinion that if severe punishment is not imposed on such Officers, the confidence of the public in the Bank will be shaken and some other staff of the Bank may become tempted to indulge in committing serious irregularities during last few years of service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) similarly, the relevant extracts from the order of the Appellate Authority are also reproduced for ready reference :"3/. I have gone into the entire records and proceedings of the case afresh and on independent examination thereof, I concur with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. I have carefully considered the appeal dt. 14. 10. 91 submitted by Shri Trivedi and do not find any merit in points raised therein. I have gone into the entire records and proceedings of the case afresh and on independent examination thereof, I concur with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. I have carefully considered the appeal dt. 14. 10. 91 submitted by Shri Trivedi and do not find any merit in points raised therein. Also, there has been no violation of State Bank of Saurashtra (Officers) Service Regulations-1979, as alleged by Shri Trivedi. 4/. Considering all this and looking to the gravity and seriousness of the charges proved in the enquiry, such as utter defiance of the Controlling Authoritys instructions and granting unauthorised advances etc. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss Shri Trivedis appeal and confirm the punishment of "dismissal from the Banks service" imposed on Shri Trivedi by the Disciplinary Authority. " (emphasis supplied) ( 2 ) IN light of these facts, Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, strenuously urged the only point for the consideration of this Court that, `the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate and disproportionate to the extent that it must shock the conscience of the Court. The learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the documents like order of dismissal, chargesheet, Inquiry Officers report, order in appeal, documents pertaining to ten accounts, which are produced on the record of this case. The learned Advocate emphatically submitted that the petitioner had taken all care, while advancing the loans, to see that the interest of the Bank is not jeopardised and this is clear from the documents produced pertaining to ten accounts, which are also referred to in the Chargesheet. He submitted that the documents, under which these advances were made, are on the record and perusal of these documents reveals that in each case, the petitioner took care to take security. In the case of Mansukhbhai Jethabhai Patel of Village:ranumalpur, agricultural land admeasuring 5 Acres 41 Gunthas valued at Rs. 25,000=00 against an advance of Rs. 5,000=00 for various purposes like seeds, fertilisers, irrigation, labour was taken as security. Mr. Mehta submitted that this security was more than sufficient by any stretch of imagination, not only for the sum advanced in this transaction, but even for the outstanding loan to the same party for an oil engine, to be installed in the well, which was to the tune of Rs. 11,893. Mr. Mehta submitted that this security was more than sufficient by any stretch of imagination, not only for the sum advanced in this transaction, but even for the outstanding loan to the same party for an oil engine, to be installed in the well, which was to the tune of Rs. 11,893. 65 and thus, there was no fault at all on the part of the petitioner, much less a fault which could have been termed as misconduct. ( 3 ) THE Honourable the Apex Court in the matter of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, reported in (1996) 9 S. C. C. 69, almost in identical facts, had an occasion to observe as under:"7. . . . . . . . . . The findings of the Inquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in a number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a bank for that matter, in the case of any other organisation -- every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority -- that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances -- is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. ACTING BEYOND ONEs AUTHORITY IS BY ITSELF A BREACH OF DISCIPLINE AND A BREACH OF REGULATION 3 (in the present case, Regulation 50 ). It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit -- huge profit, as the High Court characterises it -- they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterise them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class I Officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that in spite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that in spite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterised as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24. " (emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) MR. MEHTA, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, to convince this Court on the point that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not only disproportionate, but, is of such magnitude that it must shock the conscience of this Court, relied upon the following authorities, namely, [i] 1986 G. L. H. (U. J.) 49; [ii] 23 (2) G. L. R. 410; [iii] 20 G. L. R. 109; [iv] 1992 (2) G. L. H. 311; [v] 1981 (I) L. L. J. 57; [vi] judgement of this Court dated 23rd February, 2001 (Coram: M. S. Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 4472 of 1987; [vii] judgement of this Court dated 17th April, 2003 (Coram:acting Chief Justice J. N. Bhatt [as he then was] and K. A. Puj, J.) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 251 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 4472 of 1987; and, [viii] (2000) 10 S. C. C. 280. The learned Advocate pointed out the relevant portion from these decisions, but, in the considered opinion of this Court, these decisions are rendered in the given set of circumstances, which are not similar to that of the case on hand and, therefore, these decisions are of no help to the petitioner. The learned Advocate pointed out the relevant portion from these decisions, but, in the considered opinion of this Court, these decisions are rendered in the given set of circumstances, which are not similar to that of the case on hand and, therefore, these decisions are of no help to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner, at one point of time, submitted that the incident of alleged misconduct is the solitary instance in the entire service career of the petitioner and even on that account, a lenient view be taken in the matter, more particularly, when the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation on 1st February, 1991, some sympathy be shown and the petition be entertained on the solitary ground of quantum of punishment. ( 6 ) MR. DEEPAK C. Raval, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank, invited the attention of the Court to the contents of paragraph-19 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Bank. "19. . . . INCIDENTALLY, it also be stated that after issuance of the chargesheet dated 20-11-89 the petitioner has been served with another chargesheet for mis-conduct committed by him at Banks Surendranagar (Main Branch ). Besides this, a Criminal Case filed by C. B. I. in the fraud case involving large amount is also pending in the Court. Due to suspected involvement of the petitioner in this fraud case of SBS Surendranagar (Main Branch), the petitioner was placed under suspension. "mr. Raval also submitted that Special Civil Application No. 3184 of 1991 is also filed by the present petitioner, challenging another chargesheet dated 31. 12. 1990. The said petition is pending as on date before this Court. The learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned a word about the filing of the said petition in the present petition, though the said Special Civil Application is filed prior to the filing of the present petition, which is filed on 3rd April, 1992. The learned Advocate submitted that this is required to be pointed out to bring out the truth in the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that subject matter of this petition is the only misconduct alleged against him. Be that as it may. The learned Advocate submitted that this is required to be pointed out to bring out the truth in the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that subject matter of this petition is the only misconduct alleged against him. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the Bank Officer defied clear instructions given by his higher authority, and advanced loans, and as the Honourable Supreme Court has observed, "proof of no loss is not necessary," the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. ( 7 ) MR. D. C. RAVAL, the learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank, relied upon the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in [i] (1996) 9 S. C. C. 69; [ii] (1997) 4 S. C. C. 565 [iii] (1997) 7 S. C. C. 463; and, [iv] (2001) 10 S. C. C. 70. The gist of the submissions of Mr. Raval is that, in the case on hand, the misconduct is proved beyond doubt and in view of the decisions referred to hereinabove, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate, much less to be grave enough to shock the conscience of the Court and, therefore, the petition be dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the result, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .