Judgment Per ANJANI KUMAR and SUHDIR AGARWAL, JJ. Ravindra Kumar Kapoor, the petitioner in the present writ petition since deceased and substituted by his wife Ms. Laxmi Kapoor (in short petitioner), has challenged the order dated August 30, 1999, passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated March 24, 2000, passed by respondent No.1, Annexure-6 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner joined the Punjab National Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from July 31, 1972 at Civil Lines Branch in the. district of Saharan pur. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted in the year 1979 and again in the year 1986 on account of which he rose to the rank of Manager Scale-II. The petitioner was suspended on October 21, 1994 and was also served with a charge-sheet dated October 1, 1994 initiating disciplinary proceeding against him, which has been annexed as Annexure1) to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on April 5, 1995 denying charges: levelled therein. U.C. Varshney, Manager Scale-III was appointed as inquiry officer, who earlier had conducted inquiry and submitted preliminary inquiry report on November 14, 1992. Though the petitioner objected to U .C. Varshney, being appointed as inquiry officer, yet the inquiry went on. However, thereafter V.K. Jolly, Manager Scale-II was appointed as inquiry officer, who continued till December, 1995 and thereafter S.C. Agrawal, Senior Manager was appointed as inquiry officer to conduct the aforesaid inquiry against the petitioner. During the course of inquiry proceeding, the petitioner submitted a detailed written brief on April 30, 1999. The inquiry officer after completing the enquiry submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on June 12, 1999 holding that majority of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated October 10, 1994 were not fully proved. The report of the inquiry officer has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. From the report submitted by inquiry officer, it would be clear that the petitioner was neither responsible for causing any financial loss to the Bank or acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and further petitioner had not given any monetary benefits during the course of discharge of his official duties at the cost of the interest of the Bank. The inquiry officer while submitting report dated June 12, 1999 held that the petitioner was responsible for some irregularities during the course of discharge of his official duties as Manager Scale II of the Bank. After receipt of the inquiry report, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated July 5, 1999 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated August 30, 1999 passed an order directing removal of the petitioner from service of the Bank which would also disqualify him for future employment in terms of Clause 4 (j) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 1977 Regulations)- A copy of the impugned order dated August 30, 1999 is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the disciplinary authority without considering the inquiry officers report dated June 12, 1999 and the representation of the petitioner dated July 5, 1999, has passed the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated August 30, 1999, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority, the respondent No. 1 in this petition. The appellate authority vide order dated March 20, 2000 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure- 8 to the writ petition. Thus, this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority suffers from the error apparent on the face of record and so is the order passed by the appellate authority. We have gone through the orders impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the impugned orders in any way suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in. exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority have also not been demonstrated to, be either perverse, or illegal. In the circumstances, we do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority have also not been demonstrated to, be either perverse, or illegal. In the circumstances, we do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Without entering into this question, we remind ourselves to the law on the subject that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with regard to the quantum of punishment and arrive at a different finding that has arrived at by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, unless it is shown to be shocking to the conscious of the Court. We do not find the punishment to go out of proportion warranting any interference. 6. No other point was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.