ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pankaj Mittal, counsel for the petitioner Sri Prakash Padia appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the removal order dated 27th april, 1992 as also the order of appellate authority dated 7th November, 1992. A further relief has been sought directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts, necessary for disposing of the writ petition, are; the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. In January, 1990, the petitioner was entrusted with the job of cashier. The petitioner worked as Cashier in the Branch office Amroha from 8. 1. 1990 to 29. 5. 1990. A disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner by serving a charge-sheet dated 18th March, 1991. The charge-sheet against the petitioner contained following two charges: "1. That, while working as Cashier in the Branch Office, Amroha from 8. 1. 1990 to 29. 5. 1990, you were careless in collecting and accounting of cash as shown below: (i) On 30th March, 1990 totals of both Cash Column as well as Renewal Premium Column of the Branch Premium etc. Cash Book, are shown less by Rs. 201/ -. As a result, although excess in cash should have been Rs. 201/-, the same become Rs. 500/- for which M. R. No. 73039 dated 30. 3. 1990 has been issued. (ii) On 31. 3. 1990, B. O. C. No. 25:g:4435 was issued for Rs. 300 but entry in the Proposal deposit Cash Book was made Rs. 800/ -. The excess accounting of Rs. 500/- has been adjusted by showing shortage of Rs. 500/- in the totals of Cash and Renewal Premium Column of Branch premium etc. Cash Book. 2. That by showing totals less by Rs. 2000/- in Cash Column of Branch Premium etc. Cash book, you misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2000/- on 18. 4. 1990 and again another amount of rs. 2000/- on 30. 4. 1990. Thus you misappropriated total amount of Rs. 4000/- which was refunded by you only on pointing out to you about the misappropriation. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Cash book, you misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2000/- on 18. 4. 1990 and again another amount of rs. 2000/- on 30. 4. 1990. Thus you misappropriated total amount of Rs. 4000/- which was refunded by you only on pointing out to you about the misappropriation. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Inquiry proceedings were held and the inquiry Officer vide his detailed report dated 29th October, 1991 found both the charges proved against the petitioner. After the inquiry report show cause notice was issued on 20th January, 1992 to which petitioner submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority by the order dated 27th april, 1992 ordered removal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Zonal manager which appeal too was rejected on 7th November, 1992. This writ petition has been filed challenging both the orders. ( 5 ) SRI Pankaj Mittal, counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, raised following submissions:1. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of the amounts a perverse finding. 2. The orders passed by Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are unreasoned which show non application of mind. 3. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge levelled. Sri Mittal has placed reliance on judgment of the apex Court reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 386; Ranjeet thakur v. Union of India. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record. ( 7 ) THE charges against the petitioner, as noted above, were serious alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 2000/- on 18th April, 1990 and again another amount of Rs. 2000/- on 30th april, 1990. While analysing the evidence, which were lead in the proceeding, the Inquiry officer recorded categorical finding that the fact of misappropriation is proved beyond any iota of doubt. The amount of Rs. 4000/- (Rs. 2000/- on 18. 4. 1990 and Rs. 2000/- on 30. 4. 1990) was misappropriated and this was done each time in a set pattern knowingly, wilfully and deliberately. Under casting on both sides in Cash and R. P. Cols, cannot be dismissed merely as a clerical error, for if it be so, the same would have resulted in excess of cash both on 18. 4. 1990 and 30. 4. 1990. 4. 1990) was misappropriated and this was done each time in a set pattern knowingly, wilfully and deliberately. Under casting on both sides in Cash and R. P. Cols, cannot be dismissed merely as a clerical error, for if it be so, the same would have resulted in excess of cash both on 18. 4. 1990 and 30. 4. 1990. From the finding recorded by Inquiry Officer, it is clear that the actual total of cash ought to have been Rs. 24,725. 30p and Rs. 24769. 25p respectively but instead of aforesaid figure the figures mentioned were 22,725. 30p and 22. 769. 25p. The Inquiry Officer rightly observed that even if there was some error in calculation and there was some clerical mistake, there had to be excess amount of Rs. 2000/- on both the occasions. The petitioner had never pointed out any excess amount on both the occasions and only when finger of accusation was pointed out against him he hurriedly deposited the amount of Rs. 4000/- with the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer has considered original documents of the Corporation including the R. P. Cols, and the cash register. The petitioner was also permitted to inspect the documents in possession of the Inquiry Officer. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on materials available on the record mainly on documentary original records of the Corporation. The first submission of counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Inquiry Officer are perverse cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE second submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not applied their mind and both the orders are unreasoned. The order of the disciplinary authority dated 27th April, 1992 is on the record. The Disciplinary authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has also considered the reply of the petitioner and it was held that no valid or convincing reasons has been brought to reconsider the penalty proposed. ( 9 ) MUCH emphasis has been given by the counsel for the petitioner on non compliance of regulation 46 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 which is extracted below: "46. ( 9 ) MUCH emphasis has been given by the counsel for the petitioner on non compliance of regulation 46 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 which is extracted below: "46. (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Regulation 36 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in regulation 39, the appellate authority shall consider- (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these Regulations has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in failure of justice; (b) whether the findings are justified; and (c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and pass orders1. setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or 2. remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: provided that 1. The appellate authority shall not impose any enhance penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose; 2. no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and 3. if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties in clauses (b) to (g) of Regulation 39, and an inquiry under the said Regulation has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the appellant an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such orders as it may deem fit. 4. . . 4. . . " ( 10 ) REGULATION 46 (2), as quoted above, requires the appellate authority to consider whether the procedure prescribed for in the regulations has been complied with and if not whether such non compliance has resulted in failure of justice; whether the findings are justified and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. The appellate order is on the record as annexure-15 to the writ petition, The appellate authority has recorded its satisfaction on these three findings: (a) The Disciplinary Authority has complied with the procedure prescribed under Life Insurance corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960; (b) Findings of the guilt are based on evidence on record and the same are fully justified; and (c) The penalty of removal from service cannot be considered as inappropriate or excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) THE appellate authority has adverted to the requirement of Regulation 46 (2) and has expressed his satisfaction on the aforesaid three grounds. The submission of the petitioner that the appellate authority did not apply its mind and the order is unreasoned cannot be accepted. ( 12 ) THE third submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the penalty is disproportionate to the charge. From the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that misappropriation of the amount of rs. 2000/- twice was knowingly, deliberately and wilfully done by the petitioner, it cannot be said that penalty is disproportionate to the charges. Misappropriation of the amount of a corporation which is dealing with public finance is a serious misconduct, moreso when the employee is an employee of financial institution. The apex Court in Ranjeet Thakurs case (supra) has held that punishment meted on the army personnel in that case was disproportionate to the charge. The charge on the army personnel in the said case was that he refused to eat his meal in spite of the direction by the higher officers. The facts of the present case are not such that any conclusion can be reached that the penalty was disproportionate to the charges levelled. The charge of misappropriation was serious charge which was found proved. The third submission of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ( 14 ) NO order as to coats. . .