ORDER 1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order Annexure P/8 dated 27.4.1994 by which the petitioner has been terminated from his service. 2. The petitioner- was serving on the post of Clerk as daily rated employee. He was assigned the duty to collect the tax along with Cashier. A receipt book to issue receipts of tax was also given to him. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner collected the tax and issued receipt Serial No. 1 to 26 and the cash as well as the receipt book was deposited in the year 1988. In the year 1989-90 the audit party checked the account and found that there is deficit in the amount. Eventually, the petitioner was noticed and thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs. 460/- though, according to the petitioner, the deficit amount was only Rs. 205/-. 3. Since there was embezzlement of the cash amount, the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry and charge sheet was issued to him on 6.4.1993. The stand of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry was that he deposited the amount of tax which he collected along with the receipt. Even if it is held that he did not deposit the amount, since he had already deposited the amount of Rs. 460/- after the notice issued to him, therefore, at the most .it can be said that he was negligent towards his duty. He has not committed any misconduct. 4. Considered the argument. 5. It be seen that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and specific charge in regard to embezzlement was framed against him. The stand of the petitioner is that he deposited the amount Rs. 460/- after the issuance of show cause notice to him. On going through the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority who was also the enquiry officer, it is gathered that the petitioner did not deposit the cash amount which he collected towards the tax and when there was an audit and it was found that the amount was not deposited, a sum of Rs. 460/- was deposited by the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner deposited the deficit amount later on, would not sweep the misconduct committed by him. 460/- was deposited by the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner deposited the deficit amount later on, would not sweep the misconduct committed by him. The enquiry which was conducted by the disciplinary authority, in the enquiry report categorically held that the there was an embezzlement by the petitioner and he also made forged signature of the Cashier though Cashier R.K. Arjaria who was on leave at the relevant point of time. In this regard the last three paragraphs of the enquiry report are quite relevant. I have also given my anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasonings assigned by the enquiry officer and I find that no illegality has been committed by the enquiry officer in arriving at the finding. The Supreme Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain [ 2005 (3) JLJ 327 = AIR 2005 SCW 95 ] in para 17 has held as under: "17. A Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [1996 (9) SCC 691. it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their al10tted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court." This decision of the Supreme Court is fully applicable in the present case. 6. It is well settled in law that the scope or judicial review is quite narrow and the Court cannot sit over the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority like an appellate authority. 6. It is well settled in law that the scope or judicial review is quite narrow and the Court cannot sit over the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority like an appellate authority. No perversity has been P9inted out. Since the matter pertains to the embezzlement the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. 7. Ab judicatio, this petition is sans substance and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.