ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. A century ago, Martin Luther King has said - "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The abovesaid phraseology appears to be applicable in the present factual scenario of the case. 2. The petitioner who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Cashier/Clerk in the respondent Bank, has challenged the impugned order dated 8-10-2003 (Annexure P/9) passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing him from services of the Bank, which has been affirmed by the departmental appellate authority and the decision of the appellate authority has been intimated to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 1 dated 5-4-2004. 3. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was charged with the following charges:- 4. On going through Annexure P/1, it is gathered on perusal of imputation of charges that on 15-1-1999, one Kunwar Singh deposited Rs. 2,000/- cash in his Account, but the petitioner did not make relevant entry in the ledger on the same date and the amount was deposited on 1-2-1999. Thus, the petitioner temporarily misappropriated and embezzled the said amount of Rs. 2,000/-. On 9-1-1999, while petitioner was serving on the post of Cashier/Clerk, one Mohan Singh deposited Rs. 2,600/- in his Saving Account No. 2180, but the said amount was not deposited on the same day and the same was actually deposited by petitioner on 27-1-1999 and, therefore, w.e.f. 9-1-1999 to 27-1-1999, the petitioner misappropriated and embezzled the said amount. The petitioner on 11-1-1999 made forged entry in ledger mentioning the deposit of Rs. 2,600/-. Thereafter, on 22-1-1999, despite there being no balance in the Account of Mohan Singh, the petitioner allowed withdrawal form for Rs. 2,500/- and the payment was made to the said Mohan Singh. On that day, the balance in the Account of the said Mohan Singh was only Rs. 60/-. The petitioner in order to misappropriate the money, pasted a slip of paper in the relevant column of Saving Account No. 2180 and, therefore, manipulated the ledger of the Bank. On the basis of these imputations, the abovesaid charges were framed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner denied the charges and submitted that neither the money was misappropriated or embezzled by him nor he manipulated any ledger or documents of the Bank. 6. On the basis of these imputations, the abovesaid charges were framed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner denied the charges and submitted that neither the money was misappropriated or embezzled by him nor he manipulated any ledger or documents of the Bank. 6. Shri Shrungarpure, learned counsel for petitioner, by inviting my attention to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the petition, submitted that so far as charge No. 1 is concerned, Kunwar Singh, the husband of Gauribai deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 15-1-1999, but it was the closing of the cash and, therefore, the amount along with payslip was kept in the box provided by the Bank. On that day, petitioner's mother-in-law expired and, therefore, in order to attend her funeral, he could not deposit the same and on the next date as he was on leave. The aforesaid amount was found from the said box when Mr. Mangalchand, the Officer of Jobat Branch came to inspect the Branch. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned, the contention of Shri Shrungarpure is that Mohan Singh gave Rs. 2,600/- to deposit on 11-1-1999 and not on 9-1-1999. However, the said Mohan Singh had written a letter for making the payment to one Somla Keru and, therefore, the said amount was paid to Somla. The petitioner denied the allegations that he made any false entries in the ledger and, therefore, the allegations in regard to charge Nos. 3 and 4 were denied. 7. After holding the departmental enquiry at length, the disciplinary authority found all the charges to be proved and hence, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 8-10-2003 (Annexure P/9) passed order of dismissal of petitioner from service by holding further that the petitioner would not be eligible for future employment. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority (Annexure P/9), petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed by the Board of Directors and the result of the same was intimated to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1l dated 5-4-2004. Hence, this petition. 9. Shri Shrungarpure, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner did not commit any misappropriation or embezzlement even on temporary basis. Hence, this petition. 9. Shri Shrungarpure, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner did not commit any misappropriation or embezzlement even on temporary basis. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that on account of death of his mother-in-law, the amount was kept along with the slip in the box of the Bank which was found in it while the officer of the Bank, Mangalchand on 1-2-1999 came to inspect and on the said date, the amount was deposited. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate and this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its power by passing any lesser punishment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 (3) MPU 258, Arvind Dixit v. Director General of Police and Others and AIR 2005 SC 584 , Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain. 10. Combating the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, it has been canvassed by Shri Kochatta, learned counsel appearing for respondents, that in the departmental enquiry, all the charges were found to be proved and since this is a case of misappropriation and embezzlement, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any sympathy. It has also been put forth by learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner further committed a grave misconduct by manipulating ledgers of the Bank and these charges were also found to be proved and, therefore, the disciplinary authority did not commit any error in passing the punishment order (Annexure P/9) dismissing the petitioner from service and debarring him from future employment and on the same ground, the appellate authority also rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for respondent placed his reliance on 2004 (4) MPU 87, M.C. Mittal v. State of M.P. and Another, 2004 (3) MPU 505, Alakh Sinha v. State of M.P. and Others, 2004 (1) MPU 104, V.K. Kaul v. State of M.P. and Others, 2003 (3) MPU 57, R.K. Shastri v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others, 2002 (1) MPU 289, Geetika Nigam (Dr.) v. State of M.P. and Others. Learned counsel for respondents by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 2407 , Bank of India and Another v. Degala Suryanarayana, submitted that in the departmental proceedings strict law of Evidence Act is not applicable. 11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner has put his entire endeavour in order to show that the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted upon by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate. Learned counsel for petitioner has also invited my attention to Annexure P/8 dated 24-6-2003 wherein the petitioner has stated before the disciplinary authority that his past and present record is unblemished. Petitioner has further stated that on account of the death of his mother-in-law, his mental condition was not in equilibrium and due to which he forgot to get the amount deposited and the said amount was kept in the box and the said amount was returned by him to the Branch Manager. He has also stated by quoting an instance that in one matter, on the basis of his skill, the Police recovered an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- which was got stolen from the Bank. 13. It be seen that if the past record of an employee was unblemished and he assisted the Police Officers to get the stolen amount recovered would not wash off all the misconducts which he had committed. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to assist the Police in order to get the stolen amount recovered and, therefore, merely on this basis, the seriousness of grave misconduct committed by him cannot be condoned. On bare perusal of the charges and the imputations in regard to charges, it is luminously clear like a noon day that on 15-1-1999, the petitioner did not deposit the amount and the same was deposited only on 1-2-1999. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out that on account of death of his mother-in-law, for how many days, the petitioner was on leave. Thus, if the mother-in-law of the petitioner expired on 15-1-1999, why he did keep the said amount with him upto another 16 days and was deposited on 1-2-1999. Similarly, on 9-1-1999 i.e., earlier to 15-1-1999, he passed the withdrawal form of one Mohan Singh for Rs. Thus, if the mother-in-law of the petitioner expired on 15-1-1999, why he did keep the said amount with him upto another 16 days and was deposited on 1-2-1999. Similarly, on 9-1-1999 i.e., earlier to 15-1-1999, he passed the withdrawal form of one Mohan Singh for Rs. 2,600/- while the balance was only Rs. 60/- in his Account. It is also proved in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner manipulated the Bank ledgers by making forged entries on 10-1-1999 as well as he also pasted a slip in the relevant column of the ledger. All these acts of the petitioner which are proved in the departmental enquiry demonstrate that the petitioner committed grave misconduct and if that is the position, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not commit any error in passing the order of punishment order dismissing the petitioner from his services. If any leniency is adopted in such type of cases, it would amount to an uncalled and misplaced sympathy. 14. The charges relating to misappropriation and embezzlement of the money that too by a Bank employee and manipulating and making forged entries in the ledger of the Bank are very serious in nature. These charges were found to be proved in the departmental enquiry and, therefore, no case has been made out by the petitioner in order to hold that the punishment order is shockingly disproportionate. If, in such type of cases where the serious charges in regard to misappropriation and embezzlement of money as well as manipulating the Bank ledgers are proved, any lesser punishment other than dismissal from service is awarded, then it would amount to causing injustice towards the people at large because the money which was misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner was a public money and, therefore, the quotation of Martin Luther King which I have quoted in the beginning of the order, is quite relevant in the present case. 15. The reliance placed on the decisions by learned counsel for respondent are quite relevant and they all are applicable in the present case. 16. So far as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Dixit (supra) relied by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, it is not at all applicable in the present facts and circumstances. 16. So far as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Dixit (supra) relied by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, it is not at all applicable in the present facts and circumstances. So far as the decision of Apex Court in the case of Munnalal Jain (supra) is concerned, indeed it should have been relied upon by the respondents. The said decision is totally against the petitioner. In this case also, there was a charge of embezzlement of money though it was deposited by the employee of the Bank. The disciplinary as well as appellate authority passed the order of removal from service of the employee. The Single Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench by quashing the order of appellate authority directed the said authority to pass a lesser punishment order since the amount was deposited by the Bank employee with 24% interest. Even in that situation, the Apex Court held that in the matter of embezzlement and misappropriation, there cannot be any sympathy with the employee. It would be relevant to quote the paragraph 17 of the said decision which reads thus : 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 69 , 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 allotted 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. 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. If the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Munnalal Jain (supra) is tested on the anvil of present factual scenario, one could easily say that it is fully applicable in the present case in favour of respondent Bank. The Supreme Court in the said case, set aside the decision of the Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the Bank employee was dismissed. 17. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.