Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. Petitioner wants quashing of order dated 6.5.2005 which is Annexure-11 to the writ application. The order of disciplinary authority is punishment of removal from services but with retiral benefits. He also wants quashing of Annexure-15 which is the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. 3. Petitioner was working as a Computer Terminal Operator at Sheohar Branch when certain irregularities in several accounts came to the notice of the Branch Manager. The matter was reported to the higher-up and on enquiry role of the petitioner along with others emerged. Petitioner thereafter was put under suspension and charges were framed against him. The chargesheet has been brought on record. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that there is large scale fraudulent withdrawal from the accounts of various account holders, of various denominations, over a period of time and petitioner had a significant role to play in these withdrawals. Enquiry was held against him and he was given fullest opportunity to defend himself. Enquiry (sic-report?,) is Annexure-9 to the writ application. From reading of the enquiry report it is clear that there were sufficient evidence to link the petitioner with the charges and the enquiry officer found the charges to be true on almost all counts. The petitioner thereafter was issued a second show-cause and he filed his detailed reply to the same. Disciplinary authority however after due perusal of the same did not find the explanation convincing enough. The evidence against the petitioner was too overwhelming, and his role in all these fraudulent withdrawals was established. Disciplinary authority keeping in mind totality of facts ordered imposition of punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. On appeal having been filed against this order the appellate authority too examined the matter but did not find any mitigating circumstance under which a different view could be taken on the issue both with regard to the culpability as well as the quantum of punishment which was imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Petitioner was a Bank employee and, there was a fiduciary relationship between the employer and the employee. 4. Petitioner was a Bank employee and, there was a fiduciary relationship between the employer and the employee. If any employee of the Bank himself indulges in cheating and forgery against his own account holders then the credibility of the Bank as an institution will be substantially eroded and the worthiness of the institution itself will be put under question mark. Looking at the allegations and the charges which stand proved against the petitioner, he had surely damaged the credibility of the branch and the Bank as a whole, because money had been withdrawn from several accounts and the petitioner took advantage of his position as an employee inside the Bank and misused it to his benefit. 5. From the facts and evidence which have emerged in the given case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference as such. His basic submission, however, was that there is discrimination because the status of other persons who were charged, has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank. This Court feels that this submission of the petitioner does not carry weight because he has to first establish his credibility and bonafide with regard to What he was charged with in the departmental enquiry and he must answer for himself first before trying to rope in others in the matter. 6. This Court accordingly is disinclined to give any indulgence in the present case. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.