JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 made in WP(C) No. 972/2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging his order of removal from service has been dismissed. 2. In order to consider as to whether the judgment and order under appeal suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, few relevant facts may have to be noticed. Factual Matrix 3. The appellant while serving as Cash-cum-General Clerk at Dhekial Branch of United Bank of India has been served with a memorandum of charges whereunder certain serious allegations of misconduct have been levelled against him. The memorandum of charges and allegations levelled against the appellant are as under: You were working as Cash-cum-General Clerk at Bank's Dhekial 6.4.1998, you had fraudulently credited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 to your S.B Account No. 600 with Dhekial Branch as "by HBL" In connivance with Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager of the Branch who authenticated the said entry. You have also entered an identical amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 in the Day's sub-cash book under the head "Demand Loan" without creating any corresponding Loan Account, to suppress your above fraudulent entry, in Branch Day's Accounts, for your personal gain and purpose. You withdrew and misappropriated the said amount on different dates for your personal gains and purposes. 3. On 4.5.1998, you fraudulently credited a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 to your S.B. Account No. 600 with Dhekial Branch as "by HBL" through a voucher prepared by you and signed by Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager. You have also entered an identical amount of Rs. 50,000.00 in the Day's sub-cash book under the head "Demand Loan" without creating any corresponding Loan Account, to suppress your above fraudulent entry, for your personal gain and, purpose, you withdrew and misappropriated the said amount on different dates for your personal gains and purposes. 4. You have applied a third time HBL for Rs. 2,44,300.00 making a false undated declaration regarding non-availment of any HBL earlier from the Bank when you have availed first time HBL for Rs. 43,700.00 on 1.8.1984 and second time HBL for Rs. 12,000.00 on 3.8.1998 sanctioned by H.O. on 16.6.1998, you had availed of the so-called above third time HBL for Rs. 2,44,300.00 making a false undated declaration regarding non-availment of any HBL earlier from the Bank when you have availed first time HBL for Rs. 43,700.00 on 1.8.1984 and second time HBL for Rs. 12,000.00 on 3.8.1998 sanctioned by H.O. on 16.6.1998, you had availed of the so-called above third time HBL for Rs. 2,44,300.00 after getting sanctioned by Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager of the Branch in complete violation of Bank's rule by creating another HBL A/c in your name and crediting Rs. 1,50,000.00 to Demand Loan Account for adjustment of your fraudulent credit entries for Rs. 1,00,000.00 and Rs. 50,000.00 on 6.4.1998 and 4.5.1998, respectively in the Day's sub-cash book and also depositing Rs. 94,300.00 to your S.B Account No. 6 00. Thus, for your above acts, Bank has exposed to a financial loss for Rs. 2,44,300.00 along with upto-date interest thereon. 5. You are, therefore, charged for having committing gross misconduct which reads as follows: Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the back in serious loss Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in writing within ten days from receipt of this letter as to why appropriate disciplinary action shall not be initiated against you. Should you fail to submit your explanation in writing as stated above, it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer and in that case the Bank shall reserve the right to take action against you as per rules in force. 4. The appellant submitted his detailed reply, inter alia, denying all the charges levelled against him and accordingly requested the disciplinary authority to drop the 'proceedings initiated against him. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant directed a regular enquiry to be held into the charges levelled against the appellant and accordingly an enquiry officer was appointed for that purpose. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry in accordance with law, submitted his report dated 21st June, 2002 holding the appellant guilty of all the charges levelled against him. 5. The appellant was furnished with the copy of the report together with a further notice requiring him to submit his further representation in the matter, if any. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry in accordance with law, submitted his report dated 21st June, 2002 holding the appellant guilty of all the charges levelled against him. 5. The appellant was furnished with the copy of the report together with a further notice requiring him to submit his further representation in the matter, if any. The appellant accordingly submitted his objections to the enquiry report contending that the charges levelled against him were not proved; the findings were based on mere surmises and conjectures. The disciplinary authority having considered the representation of the appellant and as well as the enquiry report and the materials available on record passed orders dated 25.11/3.12.2002 removing the appellant from service with a superannuation benefits, as would be due otherwise at the appropriate stage, after realizing all dues. The order passed by the disciplinary authority reads as under: Further to my letter bearing No. RO/DBR/VIG/BB/MGT/37/03/2002 dated 21.10.2002 and after going through your written representation dated 21.11.2002 with regard to the proposed punishment, I have carefully considered your submissions in the background of enquiry proceedings, connected papers and documents and enquiry report along with your past records. On due consideration, your submissions have not been found tenable/justifiable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of proved misconduct I find that the proposed punishment has been just and proper and it cannot be reduced/amended. Accordingly, I confirm the proposed punishment and the following punishment is inflicted upon you with immediate effect- Removal from service with Superannuation Benefits, as would be due otherwise a t the appropriate stage, after realising all dues. 6. The appellant herein filed WP(C) No. 972/03 challenging the said order passed by the disciplinary authority on various grounds. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the appellant, however, confined submissions only in respect of proportionality of the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. The contention was that the Bank's loan, in question, has already been liquidated and the loan sanctioned was utilized for the purpose of building his own house and at any rate, the Bank did not suffer from any financial loss whatsoever on account of the alleged misdeeds on the part of the appellant. It was under those circumstances the appellant contended that the penalty of removal from service imposed on him is grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. It was under those circumstances the appellant contended that the penalty of removal from service imposed on him is grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The Bank took the plea that the appellant by his conduct demonstrated his lack of integrity and trustworthiness and it was immaterial as to whether the Bank has suffered any financial loss or not; betrayed the trust imposed on him by the Bank. The appellant conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Bank., who is expected to serve the Bank with utmost integrity and devotion. The Bank is entitled to dismiss its employee from service, if it is found to be guilty of gross misconduct. Findings: 7. The learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter and in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in more than one decision held that the appellant undoubtedly attempted to defraud the Bank for his own personal gain and in fact succeeded in his design to some extent. The learned Judge took the view that it is immaterial as to whether the Bank has suffered any financial loss or not as it is the conduct of the employee working in the Bank which really matters. The learned Judge did not find any error to have been committed by the disciplinary authority in awarding the punishment. The learned Single Judge also found that the disciplinary authority in fact dealt with the matter leniently by providing superannuation benefits to the appellant and, therefore, no further leniency is called for and that too in exercise of the power of judicial review in the absence of any materials justifying the same. The penalty imposed on the appellant by the disciplinary authority according to the learned Single Judge is reasonable and not shockingly disproportionate requiring interference of this Court in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions: 8. Shri S.S. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the same submission that was made before the learned Single Judge and contended that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The Bank did not suffer any financial loss whatsoever on account of the alleged misconduct and in the circumstances the penalty of removal from service is grossly disproportionate. The Bank did not suffer any financial loss whatsoever on account of the alleged misconduct and in the circumstances the penalty of removal from service is grossly disproportionate. Per contra, Shri S. Dutta, learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the appellant conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Bank and has lost its trust. The appellant betrayed the trust of the Bank and acted in self-interest contrary to the established norm's and by his own conduct demonstrated his lack of integrity and trustworthiness. The allegations of temporary misappropriation levelled against the appellant were held proved and, therefore, the disciplinary authority could not have passed any order other than the one which has been passed. The learned Counsel contended that in fact the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view in the matter. Learned Counsel made an attempt to remind the court the limits and parameters of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while judicially reviewing the orders of the disciplinary authority. 9. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether the punishment awarded as against the appellant is totally disproportionate to the proven misconduct? The findings of the enquiry officer, which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, clearly reflect that the appellant acted in gross violation of the norms and established procedures of the Bank. The impropriety on the part of the appellant in the matter of creation of loan A/c in his own favour may be procedural in nature but is so glaring which cannot be ignored. 10. The charges levelled and held proved against the appellant are undoubtedly very serious in their nature. One of the charge levelled against the appellant is in respect of fraudulent credit of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 into the SB A/c of the appellant without their being any corresponding loan account. It is difficult to discern as to how the' appellant could have got the amount directly credited into his own account without there being any proper sanction of the loan account as such. Another charge is that he had applied for the 3rd time house building loan of Rs. 2,44,300 by making a false undated declaration regarding non-availment of any house building loan earlier from the Bank, although, in fact, had already availed house building loan on two earlier occasions. Another charge is that he had applied for the 3rd time house building loan of Rs. 2,44,300 by making a false undated declaration regarding non-availment of any house building loan earlier from the Bank, although, in fact, had already availed house building loan on two earlier occasions. The action on the part of the appellant is undoubtedly in gross violation of the norms and established procedures of the Bank. The appellant, thus, created another house building account in his own name and credited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000. Why these actions on the part of the appellant cannot be considered prejudicial to the interest of the Bank? Do they not amount to gross misconduct on the part of the appellant? 11. In terms of the Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement, the expression 'gross misconduct' shall mean and include apart from other act "doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss. The prejudicial acts need not involve the bank in actual serious loss. Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank amounts to gross misconduct and gross negligence even without involving the bank in serious loss itself amounts to gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 19.6 of the Bipartite Settlement enables the disciplinary authority to dismiss an employee found guilty of gross misconduct. It is no doubt true that the said clause confers discretion upon the disciplinary authority with wide range of choices in the matter of awarding of punishment. The disciplinary authority as the primary reviewing authority in the instant case for good and cogent reasons having found the appellant guilty of misconduct did not pass any order of dismissal but awarded the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and on consideration of the relevant materials available on record, the disciplinary authority exercised its discretion and choice properly and not in any arbitrary and unreasonable manner and accordingly awarded lesser punishment than of dismissal even though the appellant was found guilty of gross misconduct. Doctrine of proportionality: 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and on consideration of the relevant materials available on record, the disciplinary authority exercised its discretion and choice properly and not in any arbitrary and unreasonable manner and accordingly awarded lesser punishment than of dismissal even though the appellant was found guilty of gross misconduct. Doctrine of proportionality: 12. We do not propose to burden this short order of ours with various authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as regards the application of doctrine of proportionality since the law is so well settled that the choice as regards the quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the disciplinary authority. It is no doubt true the decision of the disciplinary authority may be susceptible to be interfered with to quash the award of punishment on the ground that it is 'strikingly to be disproportionate' and shocks the conscience of the court. The parameters of judicial review in the matter of interference with the quantum of punishment 'is extremely limited' is beyond any pale of controversy. 13. Proportionality is a recognized ground for review but not a free standing ground of review. An appropriate test is whether the public body has acted irrationally, i.e., whether it acted in a way no reasonable public body will act. Doctrine of proportionality, illegality/irrationality and procedural impropriety, the grounds of judicial review cannot be divided into watertight compartments. H.W.R. Wade & C. F. Forsyth in their Treatise 'Administrative Law' state that the principles of reasonableness and proportionality cover a great deal of common ground. Proportionality, it is held, requires the court to judge whether the action taken was really needed as well as whether it was within the range of courses of action that could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is, therefore, a more exacting test in some situation and is to be rejected as requiring the court to substitute its own judgment for that of the proper authority. 14. The doctrine of proportionality and its application while judicially reviewing the order awarding punishment in service law has been the subject-matter of discussion in more than one case. In Union of India and Ano. 14. The doctrine of proportionality and its application while judicially reviewing the order awarding punishment in service law has been the subject-matter of discussion in more than one case. In Union of India and Ano. v. G. Ganayutham (2000) II LLJ 648 SC the Supreme Court observed: We are of the view that even in our country - in cases not involving fundamental freedoms - the role of our courts/tribunals in administrative law is purely secondary and while applying Wednesbury and CCSU principles to test the validity of executive action or of administrative action taken in exercise of statutory powers, the courts and tribunals in our country can only go into the matter, as a secondary reviewing court to find out if the executive or the administrator in their primary roles have arrived at a reasonable decision on the material before them in the light of Wednesbury and CCSU tests. The choice of the options available is for the authority; the court/tribunal cannot substitute its view as to what is reasonable. 15. In Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 the Supreme Court held as under: ...it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questioned as "arbitrary" under Article 14, the court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. The court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context. The court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the courts, and such extreme or rare cases can the court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment. 16. The same principle has been reiterated in Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer R. K. Rai Allahabad Bank and Ors. (2003) II LLJ 367 SC. 16. The same principle has been reiterated in Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer R. K. Rai Allahabad Bank and Ors. (2003) II LLJ 367 SC. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant strongly relied upon the decision reported in Kailash Nath Gupta (supra) and contended that every procedural irregularity and more particularly when such irregularity does not cause any loss to the bank cannot be termed as misconduct to warrant extreme punishment. The observation made in Kailash Nath Gupta (supra) cannot be torn out of context and pressed into service as though it is an authority for the proposition that in the absence of any misappropriation of money and any act of fraud the disciplinary authority cannot award punishment of dismissal. On consideration of the facts the court came to the conclusion that various articles of charge levelled the appellant therein go to show, at the most, there was some procedural irregularities not amounting to negligence, but in the case at hand, it is not a case of mere procedural irregularities. The appellant conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Bank, who created a loan account in his favour. The mere fact that it had not resulted in any financial loss by itself may not be of any consequence. The disciplinary authority being the primary authority did not act unreasonably in exercising its choice and, therefore, the decision cannot be said to be not within the range of rationality or reasonable decision. 17. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no mens rea on the part of the appellant and, therefore, extreme punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate requiring interference of this court. 18. In Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. (2003) II LLJ 324 SC Supreme Court held: As noted above, the employee accepted that there was some lapse on his part but he pleaded lack of criminal intent. A bank employee deals with public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. Any carelessness invites action. 19. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. A bank employee deals with public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. Any carelessness invites action. 19. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) II LLJ 379 SC the Supreme Court repelling similar submission as the one made before us that there has been no actual loss caused to the bank and, therefore, extreme punishment cannot be awarded observed that in the case of a Bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organization - every officer/employee is supposed to act within its limits of his authority. If its officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the 'discipline' of the organization/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. "Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances-is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of banks which deals with public funds-acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary 20. In our considered opinion this authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court is the complete answer to all the contentions raised and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our view, the disciplinary authority rightly exercised its choice and having regard to the nature of gross misconduct awarded the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits though it could have even awarded the punishment of dismissal. The balancing test, which requires a balancing of the ends, which an official decision attempts to achieve against the means applied to achieve them, has been properly applied. The balancing test, which requires a balancing of the ends, which an official decision attempts to achieve against the means applied to achieve them, has been properly applied. Proportionality of punishment aspect has been duly taken into consideration and correctly applied to the fact situation by the disciplinary authority. 21. The learned Single Judge in our considered opinion did not commit any error in upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 22. We find no merit in this writ appeal. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.