Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing report of the Inquiry Authority dt. 10. 10. 1995 (Ann-P/5), order of punishment dt. 29. 2. 96 (Anne-P/7) passed by respondent No. 3, order dt. 19. 7. 96 (Ann-P/9) passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dt. 15. 12. 97 (Ann-P/11) issued by the respondent No. 5. (ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner forthwith for promotion to Scale-III and to promote him giving all his due seniority with all monetary benefits of Scale-III; w. e. f. 01. 01. 1998 and place him above his juniors in cadre and also in postings. (iii) Issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, which this Honble Court deem fit and proper in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Cost of the petition. ( 2. ) THE petitioner joined his services as Rural Development Officer under the establishment of Union Bank of India. The contention of petitioner is that throughout his service career he has rendered his service to the entire satisfaction of his superior with utmost devotion and integrity towards his duty. White the petitioner was posted at Shahdol, he was served with a charge sheet dated 1/3/1994 containing two charges, which are as follows: (i) Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence; and (ii) failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. Copy of the charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure-P/1. ( 3. ) THE petitioner submitted his reply against charge sheet on 18. 6. 1994 denying the charges leveled against him and explained the circumstances and facts that whatever was done by the petitioner while performing his duties was done and performed in the interest of the Bank only. In the reply it was further explained that no loss at any point of time was caused to the Bank on account of the conduct of the petitioner nor he violated any norm of the Bank and as such the charges framed are false and baseless. Copy of reply dated 18/6/1994 is Annexure-P/2. ( 4. In the reply it was further explained that no loss at any point of time was caused to the Bank on account of the conduct of the petitioner nor he violated any norm of the Bank and as such the charges framed are false and baseless. Copy of reply dated 18/6/1994 is Annexure-P/2. ( 4. ) THE services of the petitioner are governed by Union Bank of India Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) and disciplinary action, if any, can be taken only under the said Regulations. Regulation-4 provides for penalties both minor as well as major. Regulation-5 provides the authority to institute or initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalty. Similarly, Regulation-6 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. According to the petitioner, Regulation-6 throws sufficient light that the disciplinary authority has been given powers and in its opinion if there exist ground for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct it may itself inquire into or appoint any other public servant. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that charge sheet dated 1/3/1994 was not issued under the Regulations as in the charge sheet none of the provisions of the Regulations were quoted and, therefore, the charge sheet which was issued to the petitioner is without any authority of law and, thus, the charges were not only vague but has no base also. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that an officer holding the rank of Scale-I i. e. below the rank of petitioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer and this was done only to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 and other authorities were so much preconceived against the petitioner in order to get the petitioner punished any how, a supplementary charge sheet dated 22/11/1994 was submitted when the departmental witnesses were examined and the petitioner also examined himself and, thus, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. Copy of the supplementary charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure-P/4. ( 5. ) THE disciplinary authority vide Annexure-P/7 dated 29/2/1996 passed the penalty order withholding two increments without cumulative effect. A departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner to the appellate authority but the same was dismissed by order dated 19/7/1996. ( 6. Copy of the supplementary charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure-P/4. ( 5. ) THE disciplinary authority vide Annexure-P/7 dated 29/2/1996 passed the penalty order withholding two increments without cumulative effect. A departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner to the appellate authority but the same was dismissed by order dated 19/7/1996. ( 6. ) THE contention of Shri Dhande, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that on going through the findings of the disciplinary authority that till today the petitioner did not submit his submissions on the finding of enquiry authority, is perverse inasmuch as on 22/12/1995 he submitted his reply vide Annexure-P/6 and, therefore, the punishment so awarded is without consideration of his reply. The next contention of his is that that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Scale-III and, therefore, he is also entitled to be promoted w. e. f. 1/1/1998 the date when his juniors were promoted. In support of his contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sikander Singh 2006 AIR SCW 1257, and has submitted that since the enquiry officer has found petitioner only negligent, it cannot amount to misconduct. ( 7. ) SHRI S. K. Rao, learned senior counsel for respondents has submitted that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case against the charges framed against him. By inviting my attention to Annexure-R/10 which is a covering letter dated 22/12/1995 enclosing copy of the report of enquiry officer, it has been contended that since it was sent from Mumbai on 22/12/1995 itself how on the same day i. e. 22/12/95 the petitioner could have received it and on the same day how he could have sent its reply. Thus, the stand of petitioner that vide Annexure-P/6 he sent the reply on 22/12/95 itself appears to be concocted and manufactured document. It has also been putforth by learned senior counsel for respondents that the charge leveled against the petitioner "failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank" was found to be proved. Thus, the stand of petitioner that vide Annexure-P/6 he sent the reply on 22/12/95 itself appears to be concocted and manufactured document. It has also been putforth by learned senior counsel for respondents that the charge leveled against the petitioner "failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank" was found to be proved. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the nature and gravity of the misconduct passed a minor penalty withholding two increments without cumulative effect, cannot be said to be arbitrary or not in accordance with law and under the limited scope of judicial review while exercising writ jurisdiction, since there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record and punishment is also not shockingly disproportionate, this Court cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment. ( 8. ) IT has also been putforth by learned senior counsel for respondents that as soon as the punishment became ineffective after the lapse of two years in August, 2000 the petitioner appeared for promotional process but could not succeed in the interview and thereafter he filed this present writ petition. It has also been putforth by learned senior counsel that promotional process which was held in the year 2002, the petitioner did not participate in the process. In the year 2003 again the disciplinary action was contemplated against him. In March, 2004 he appeared for promotional process and his case was kept in a sealed cover. In the year 2005 again the petitioner appeared in the promotional process but could not succeed for unsatisfactory record and was declared failed. According to learned senior counsel, petitioner kept silence for four years and in between he appeared for promotional process in August, 2000 and when he could not succeed in the interview, he filed this petition after a lapse of four years assailing his order of punishment and for consideration for promotion for which he cannot be permitted. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 10. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 10. ) THERE is no merit in the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after having received copy of the enquiry report he submitted its reply on 22/12/1995 and, therefore, the order of disciplinary authority Annexure-P/7 dated 29/2/96 is bad in law, since it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the delinquent has not submitted his submission on the findings of the enquiry authority and, therefore, it has been held by the disciplinary authority that he has nothing to say on the findings of the enquiry authority. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 22/12/95 itself from Mumbai and, therefore, it cannot be said that it reached to the petitioner at Shahdol on 22/12/95 itself and hence preparing a representation at Shahdol on 22/12/95 itself, appears to be concocted. ( 11. ) SEVERAL contentions have been raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailing the findings of enquiry officer but they are pure finding of facts and under the limited scope of judicial review, I do not find any error in the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure-P/7 dated 29. 2. 1996. The order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-P/9 dated 19th July, 1996. For more than four years the petitioner did not assail his order of punishment by filing petition before this Court and the petition was filed after four years on 30/10/2000. By the impugned order of penalty the petitioner was punished by withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect which ceased after two years. ( 12. ) THERE is merit in the contention of learned senior counsel for the respondents Shri Rao, that when the petitioner appeared in promotional process in August, 2000 and could not succeed in the interview, after four years he approached this Court to get the punishment order set aside. In this view of the matter, apart from the merit of the punishment order, there is laches on the part of the petitioner assailing the punishment order after four years and no sufficient ground has been shown for not filing the petition at an early date. In this view of the matter, apart from the merit of the punishment order, there is laches on the part of the petitioner assailing the punishment order after four years and no sufficient ground has been shown for not filing the petition at an early date. On the contrary there appears to be malafide on the part of the petitioner because he was not promoted In the year 2000 as he could not succeed the requisite marks above cut off marks, hence malafidely he has filed this petition. Thus, the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled for it. The decision of Sikander Singh (supra) placed reliance by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present factual scenario. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.