( 1 ) THE petitioner has raised challenge to the disciplinary Authority's order Dated 4/3/2000 (Annex. K) imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. Enquiry Officer's report, Dated 12/7/1999 (Annex. J), the Appellate Authority's order, Dated 19/9/2000 (Annex. L) and other orders of the respondents refusing to release certain amounts. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was charged with the misconduct of instructing the Manager, Ahmedabad, M. J. Library Branch to release the term loan of rs. 7. 00 lakhs to one Sri Bhatt without properly appraising and without getting the pre-sanction inspection of the unit done and also without making the viability study of the proposed activity. ( 3 ) THE Disciplinary Enquiry held to look into this charge indicated the petitioner. This culminated in the punishment of compulsory retirement, vide Disciplinary Authority's order, Dated 4/3/2000. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Committee of directors and the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority also confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's request for encashment of privileged leave and for the release of the gratuity amounts was also turned down by the respondents. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has instituted this petition. Sri ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently advanced the following contentions. a) In the absence of any allegation of corruption, the only accusation against the petitioner may at the most be that he committed an error of judgment. A decision arrived at in commercial perception cannot invite the consequences of losing the retiral benefits. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of judicature, Calcutta in the case of Dipankar sengupta and another v. Union Bank of India and others, reported in 1999 (1) Lab LN 728, wherein it is held that mere error of judgment or a mere negligent way of dealing in the matter cannot by itself be termed as misconduct. b) The very initiation of the enquiry proceedings including the issuance of the charge sheet itself is premature. Even before the respondent-bank resorted to the recovery of the amounts in question, a charge is levelled that the petitioner caused loss to the bank. That really amounts to prejudging the issue. c) The petitioner has a flawless and blemishless service record of 41 years. Even before the respondent-bank resorted to the recovery of the amounts in question, a charge is levelled that the petitioner caused loss to the bank. That really amounts to prejudging the issue. c) The petitioner has a flawless and blemishless service record of 41 years. A single or stray or an isolated incident cannot be used to deprive the petitioner of certain retiral benefits. A person, who had rendered distinguished service to the bank, cannot be punished like this when he is on the verge of his retirement. d) The respondents' action of imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and imposing a lighter punishment of censure on the concerned Branch Manager sri E. S. Balasubramanian amounts to hostile discrimination, as it offends Art. 14 to the constitution of India. e) Sri Ramesh has sought to draw the support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, reported in 1987 (4) SCC 611 : ( AIR 1987 sc 2386 ), to buttress his submission that the punishment is not commensurate with the gravity of evidence. It is shockingly and disproportionately high in relation to the gravity of the misconduct. ( 6 ) PER contra, Smt. Subha Ananth, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned orders are absolutely sustainable and hence, warrant no interference at the hands of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Her reply is as follows : a) The petitioner has acted beyond his authority; being the Regional Manager, he had no business to instruct the Branch Manager to sanction the loan and that too without appraising the loan proposal, without holding a pre-inspection and without making a viability study of the proposed activity. This is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. He has violated regulation 3 (1) of Corporation Bank Officer employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, which states that 'every officer employee shall, at all times, take possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. He has violated regulation 3 (1) of Corporation Bank Officer employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, which states that 'every officer employee shall, at all times, take possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Smt. Subha Ananth, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Disciplinary authority-cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 , wherein, it is held that if a bank officer acts beyond his authority in allowing advance and overdrawals, such acts cannot be treated merely as errors of judgment. b) She also relied on the same judgment to repeal the second contention of the petitioner's side. In the said reported judgment, a considered view is taken that proof of any loss is not necessary for proceeding against a deviant bank officer. c) She brought to my notice the contents of paragraph 11 of the respondents' statement of objections. It is stated in the said paragraph that the petitioner's service was not blemishless. Prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in 1998, he was warned in 1981 and cautioned in 1988. Without prejudice to this submission, she also contended that past good service does not give any licence to a bank officer to cause the sanction of the loan giving beyond his authority and that too without complying with the pre-re-quirements. d) (1) That the concerned Branch Manager is let off with a mere censure is no ground for demanding that the quantum of punishment be reduced in the case of the petitioner also. She draws support from a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian oil Corporation Ltd. and another v. Ashok kumar Arora reported in (1997) 3 SCC 72 : ( AIR 1997 SC 1030 ). The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow : "21. The Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him held that the respondent was actively involved and the brain behind procuring false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself but for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims were made by the respondent and other employees. The Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him held that the respondent was actively involved and the brain behind procuring false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself but for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims were made by the respondent and other employees. The Corporation sanctioned these reimbursement claims of the various employees, which had resulted in monetary loss to the Corporation. Before the enquiry Officer except the respondent other employees of the Corporation admitted the charges and consequently a minor penalty was awarded to them. The respondent contested the charges levelled against him and denied that he was instrumental in cheating or committing forgery of the medical bills. On consideration of the report and findings of the enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view in respect of other employees. Having regard to the involvement of the respondent in the entire episode, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the penalty of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent was also affirmed by the appellate authority. Curiously enough, the high Court in its impugned judgment compared the case of the respondent with the other employees who have been awarded a lesser penalty and opined that there is a discrimination resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of awarding the punishment. It is this action of the Disciplinary Authority in awarding the penalty being discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In support of this reasoning, the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in sengara Singh v. State of Punjab and the passage therefrom was reproduced in the impugned judgment which is distinguishable on facts. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27-5-1993 and were of the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The high Court has totally overlooked the findings of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent was instrumental in obtaining forged medical bills not only for himself but also for other employees and he was the main actor behind cheating the Corporation. The high Court has totally overlooked the findings of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent was instrumental in obtaining forged medical bills not only for himself but also for other employees and he was the main actor behind cheating the Corporation. It is because of this finding, the Disciplinary Authority, in our opinion, rightly considered the award of penalty/punishment to the respondent differently than the other employees who although got the benefit of reimbursement on the forged bills but they accepted their guilt before the enquiry Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed serious jurisdictional error while interfering with the quantum of punishment. There is neither any discrimination resorted to by the disciplinary Authority nor the punishment awarded to the respondent was disproportionate to his misconduct. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court, therefore, are unsustainable. " (d) (2) Placing her reliance on another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar mann reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 : (1997 air SCW 1574), she submits that Art. 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals under similar circumstances and without any rational basis in that behalf. There is no invidious discrimination in the instant case. (e) Smt. Subha Ananth, submits that even a single misconduct is sufficient to award a major punishment, when the petitioner has committed a grave misconduct. For this submission of hers, she draws support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Ram singh reported in 1993 (I) LLJ 218 : ( AIR 1992 SC 2188 ). She submits that the request for reducing the punishment is not entertainable, as he has caused the sanction and disbursement of the loan amount, which has become sticky and irrecoverable. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the rival submissions made at the bar, the validity of the impugned orders has to be examined. The petitioner cannot dispute, with any rate of success, that he instructed the Branch Manager to release the loan on 8-12-1995. The petitioner has produced the deposition copies, which are collectively marked as Annexure-G to the writ petition herein. The petitioner cannot dispute, with any rate of success, that he instructed the Branch Manager to release the loan on 8-12-1995. The petitioner has produced the deposition copies, which are collectively marked as Annexure-G to the writ petition herein. Sri E. S. Balasubramanian, the concerned Branch Manager, is examined as mw-3. He has emphatically stated in his ex-amination-in-chief that he was instructed by the petitioner to release the loan. Not even a question or suggestion is put in the cross-examination to discredit or contradict what he has stated in his examination-in-chief. Such an instruction was issued without the loan proposal being evaluated and without examining the viability of the proposed activity. ( 8 ) FURTHER, the petitioner did not instruct the Branch Manager to take the necessary security and observe the other formalities of obtaining the legal opinion, valuation report, etc. On the other hand, he appeared to have given a blanket instruction for the release of the amounts. Subsequently, i. e. , after he is informed of the release of the loan (vide Exhibit M-21), he instructs the Branch Manager to observe the requisite requirements (vide exhibit M-22 ). ( 9 ) I find that the enquiry report at Annex-ure-H is comprehensive touching on all the aspects of the matter. The depositions (Annexure-G) and the Enquiry Report (Annex-ure-H) do not leave anybody in doubt that the petitioner was indeed given the fairest of the fair opportunities to prove his innocence. As the enquiry was conducted observing the principles of natural justice and following the procedure contemplated in the Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has independently appraised the evidence placed on the record of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Au-thority has adequately applied its mind to all the aspects of the matter, more particularly, (a) both the borrower and guarantor were new to the Branch (b) instructing to release the loan amount without observing the basic norms of lending. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has formed a considered view that what the petitioner has done is highly irregular and that therefore the same cannot be considered as a bona fide decision or an error in judgment. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority chose to impose the deterrent penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service of the second respondent-bank. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority chose to impose the deterrent penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service of the second respondent-bank. ( 10 ) THE Committee of the Directors and the appellate authority has also considered all the contentions raised by petitioner's side. By its order dated, 19-9-2000, it had rejected the petitioner's appeal. ( 11 ) ACTING beyond one's authority and without following the pre-requirements for the sanction and release of the loan amount cannot be whished away as an error in judgment. Equally untenable is the contention of the petitioner that the issuance of the charge sheet even before resorting to the initiation of the recovery proceedings against the defaulter is bad. In the light of the judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary authority-cum-Regional Manager and others, to which, a reference is made herein-above, I have no hesitation in holding that the proof of loss is not necessary for the initiation and the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent. There is no substance in the claim of the petitioner that he has a flawless and blemishless service record on 41 years. He invited warning in the year 1981 and caution in the year 1988. However, they did no appear to have had any reformatory effect on the petitioner. The enquiry report indicts the petitioner on absolutely unassailable foundations. Therefore I negative the contentions of the petitioner that he ought to have been let off with a minor punishment that was administered to Sri E. S. Bala-subramanian. As the charge in question is grave, the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be held to be disproportionately high. In cases of departmental enquiries and findings recorded therein, this Court does not exercise the powers of the appellate Court/ authority. Once the domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the disciplinary authority is found to have applied its mind to all the aspects of the matter before the imposition of the punishment, it does not call for any interference from this Court. ( 12 ) I do not find any flaw in the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority's order and the appellate authority's order. As I am not interfering with these orders, the question of quashing the consequent orders at Annexures 'm', 'n', 'q' and 'r' does not arise at all. ( 12 ) I do not find any flaw in the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority's order and the appellate authority's order. As I am not interfering with these orders, the question of quashing the consequent orders at Annexures 'm', 'n', 'q' and 'r' does not arise at all. ( 13 ) I do not see any merit in this writ petition. The impugned orders do not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. They are based on just considerations. ( 14 ) NEEDLESS to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner giving any representation to the respondents for the grant of the monetary benefits. It is upto the respondents to consider his representations in accordance with law. ( 15 ) IN the result, I dismiss this writ petition. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.