JUDGMENT By the Court.—The orders impugned in this writ petition are dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Lucknow, in his capacity as disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was an Ex-Air Force personnel and selected in the service of Union Bank of India in the year 1995. While working as Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Azamgarh, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 27.10.2004 containing certain allegations constituting misconduct during the period he worked as Branch Manager, Nuruddinpur Branch, District Azamgarh. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Union Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations 1976”). After oral enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 16.3.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) holding charges of irregular transaction, house rent misuse, irregularities in SCP loans and CC(h)-M/s Soni Batteries proved, charges of entertainment expenses, leave fare concession and DD-purchased in excess of known resources partly proved and one charge, namely, mid term academic allowance as not proved. He further held that the charges of failure to discharge duties with utmost devotion and diligence, failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties and failure to perform his duties with utmost honesty and integrity are proved. Copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner inviting his comments whereupon reply was submitted by the petitioner on 23.3.2005. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2005 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner whereagainst he preferred an appeal vide memo of appeal dated 10.6.2005, which has been rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 17.10.2005. 3. Besides oral submissions, both the sides have also filed their written arguments along with various authorities relied upon in support of their rival submission. 4. We have heard Sri H.R. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondent-Bank. 3. Besides oral submissions, both the sides have also filed their written arguments along with various authorities relied upon in support of their rival submission. 4. We have heard Sri H.R. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondent-Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised four submissions; (1) Finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and based on no evidence; (2) The defence of the petitioner has not been considered properly either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority; (3) In any case, even if the allegations contained in the charge-sheet are treated to be true, they do not constitute any misconduct whatsoever, therefore, the entire disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and (4) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner does not commensurate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him and, therefore, is arbitrary. 5. The respondents, while disputing the contention, have submitted that the entire proceedings have been conducted in accordance with rules after giving due opportunity of defence to the petitioner and, therefore, it is not a case warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Placing reliance on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India and others v. T. Jogram, (2007) 7 SCC 236 , it is contended that the charges are serious enough and once the authorities of the Bank have found that the person guilty of such charges deserve a particular punishment, this Court may not interfere in such discretion of the authorities in the in absence of such decision of the authorities being contrary to the rules. 6. The copy of the charge-sheet has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and in great detail it gives narration of irregularities/lapses which the petitioner is alleged to have committed in discharge of his duties as a Branch Manager between 10.7.2001 to 17.6.2003. The charges include irregular transactions, debiting impersonal accounts, utilising Bank funds for his personal gains, withdrawing maturity proceeds of term deposits before completion of term, tampering the advices at the time of transfer of DRC account from another branch and extracting benefit out of that, fraudulent excess drawn over maturity proceeds of DRC and TDS on his deposit account, submission of false receipts of hired car while on LFC, sanctioning of loans irregularly etc. A bare perusal of these charges admits no doubt that for a person working in Bank, if the allegations are correct, they constitute very serious misconduct and, in our view, such a person cannot be said to be fit to continue in Bank service where he has to deal with the public money and engaged in financial transactions, acts in a fiduciary capacity. One is expected to be a person of highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness while holding such position of trust. In Bank matters, honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations contained in the charge- sheet, if are taken to be true, they do not constitute any misconduct whatsoever. 7. Coming to the other submission that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have not considered his reply and his defence while holding him guilty of various charges, we have gone through the entire record including enquiry report as well as order of disciplinary authority. We do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner. The enquiry report is running in 28 pages and every aspect has been considered by the enquiry officer in great detail. It is not the case of the petitioner that during the course of oral enquiry, he was not afforded any or adequate opportunity of furnishing his defence in any manner. No procedural irregularity has been shown to this Court having been committed by the authorities in holding departmental enquiry, which may vitiate the entire proceedings. Here and there, an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to place the enquiry report before us to contend that some part of the discussion in the report is not correct or shows that the matter has not been considered in correct perspective. However, after going through the entire report, we do not find any substance in the submission and, in particular, when we are of the view that the charges of serious nature have been found proved against him as discussed in detail in the enquiry report. However, after going through the entire report, we do not find any substance in the submission and, in particular, when we are of the view that the charges of serious nature have been found proved against him as discussed in detail in the enquiry report. With respect to finding also, the enquiry officer has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter with minute details and it would be appropriate to reproduce the following extract of the finding of the enquiry report : “....................However, no oral or documentary evidence has been brought forth either in proceedings or by way of management documents where it is established that he accepted illegal gratification.” 8. In the written submissions, the first legal submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire enquiry report is vitiated showing no specific misconduct and evidence to be led in support thereof. From the record, it is evident that after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, also participated in the oral enquiry. At no point of time, he ever disputed before the enquiry officer that the charges are vague or the charge-sheet does not refer to any evidence to be relied in support thereof. In fact, the charge-sheet shows that the various allegations levelled against the petitioner based on record of the Bank and all the documents were mentioned in the narration of the charges itself. The petitioner having understood the charges submitted reply and never raised any protest before the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority that he has not been able to submit his defence on account of lack or non-availability of documentary evidence or that the documentary evident was not disclosed to him at any stage. Even in the entire writ petition, there is no such averment and, on the contrary, in the writ petition, he is confined to the submission that there was no material to show that he accepted illegal gratification. Moreover, para-38 of the counter affidavit shows that vide letter dated 27.11.2004, the petitioner was informed of the documentary as well as oral evidence sought to be relied against him during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has not denied the said averment in para 14 of the Rejoinder affidavit. Moreover, para-38 of the counter affidavit shows that vide letter dated 27.11.2004, the petitioner was informed of the documentary as well as oral evidence sought to be relied against him during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has not denied the said averment in para 14 of the Rejoinder affidavit. It is not the case of the petitioner nor there is any pleading that the documents sought to be relied against him were not furnished to him or he was not given any opportunity to inspect the same during the course of enquiry and, therefore, the aforesaid submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. The second submission in the written argument is that the enquiry officer’s finding is perverse. Despite of opportunity given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he could not show as to in what manner, the finding of the enquiry officer can be said to be perverse. The scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental enquiry is limited and the Court would not sit like an appellate authority over the decision of the disciplinary authority. In such matters, when and in what circumstances a judicial review is permissible has been considered by this Court and after referring to several authorities of the Apex Court, following principles have been culled out by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1280 of 2005, Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. and another, decided on 20.2.2006 : 1. The Tribunal exercising quasi judicial functions neither bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor bound by the strict rules of evidence. 2. They may obtain all information material for the points under enquiry and act upon the same provided it is brought to the notice of the party and fair opportunity is afforded to explain. 3. The judicial enquiry is to determine whether the authority holding enquiry is competent, and whether the procedure prescribed is in accordance with the principle of natural justice. 4. There should exist some evidence accepted by the competent authority which may reasonably support the contention about the guilt of the officer. Adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be looked into by the Court. 5. 4. There should exist some evidence accepted by the competent authority which may reasonably support the contention about the guilt of the officer. Adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be looked into by the Court. 5. The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court. 6. There is no allergy to hear-se evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. 7. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. 8. It is not necessary that the Disciplinary authority should discuss material in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Office. 9. The judicial review is extended only when there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material available. 10. Considering in the light of the principles aforesaid we do not find any procedural error in decision making warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. The next submission that the charges do not constitute misconduct also cannot be accepted for the reason already discussed above in this judgment. The two authorities relied by the petitioner, i.e., Chairman & Managing Director v. Amar Nath Upadhyay, 2006 (2) ADJ 673 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Abdul Gafoor, 2006 (3) ESC 1985 have no application to the fact and circumstances of the case inasmuch, the allegations of misconduct in the case in hand do not admit any doubt that they not only constitute misconduct but, in our view, are serious enough warranting a major penalty. 12. So far as the contention with respect to quantum of punishment is concerned, we are clearly of the view that the scope of judicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment is very narrow. 12. So far as the contention with respect to quantum of punishment is concerned, we are clearly of the view that the scope of judicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment is very narrow. In a case where the person charged is one holding the office of trust, it would be useful to refer the observation of the Apex Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal, 2003 (3) SCC 605 as under : “SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS PROVED, PARTLY PROVED OR NOT PROVED. Irregular Transaction Proved House Rent-Misuse Proved Entertainment Expenses Partly Proved Leave Fare Concession Partly Proved Mid-Term Academic Allowance Not Proved DD-Purchased in Excess of Known Resources Partly Proved Irregularities in SCP Loans Proved CC [H]-M/s Soni Batteries Proved Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. While it is true that C.S.O. was made a member of chairman club in recognition of achieving the remarkable growth in deposit and advances, it transpired that substantial progress in SCP loans was posted with the help of a middle man. The SCP envisages that subsidy amount together with loan granted by bank will help generate employment opportunity for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and will thus sustain their livelihood. Granting loan under the scheme to the target group and allowing subsidy amount to be misused is highly irregular, to say the least. Besides, this raises a question mark on his sincerity of purpose and commitment to the job. The charge is, therefore, proved. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank. Granting of loans to Soni Batteries without ensuring adequate collateral security and not brining out adverse feature in the pre/post sanction inspection report are of particular relevance in this regard. Moreover term loan and CC[H] were simultaneously released and pay-order were issued in favour of guarantor who created DRC out of bank loan thus siphoning funds meant for running the unit. The charge is, therefore, proved. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties As brought out earlier Sri Mathur was not circumspect in his personal banking transaction inasmuch as he purchased his own cheques/instruments through CP/POB without getting prior permission or post facto confirmation. He did not bring out adverse features in the functioning of M/s Soni Batteries. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties As brought out earlier Sri Mathur was not circumspect in his personal banking transaction inasmuch as he purchased his own cheques/instruments through CP/POB without getting prior permission or post facto confirmation. He did not bring out adverse features in the functioning of M/s Soni Batteries. He also violated lending policies of the bank inasmuch as the SCP loans were granted by involving a third person. The charge is, therefore proved. Failure to perform his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. As already stated undertaking journey in a car which was owned by his wife a few days earlier than the date of journey and then submitting a receipt of hiring charges in the circumstances discussed under the respective head does not reflect well on his integrity. Also, granting of loans under SCP and allowing the subsidy amount to be misused by third party, even if it is assumed that S.C.O. had no share in it does not speak well of his integrity-defined as moral uprightness. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been brought forth either in proceedings or by way of management documents where it is established that he accepted illegal gratification. The charge is, therefore, substantially proved.” 13. We are in entire agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Bank that in the Bank business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by the Bank employee and, in particular, the Bank officer and if not observed, it would shake the confidence of the public and depositors which may result in serious losses as well as detriment to the Bank and Banking operations. That being so, in the case of the Bank officers where it is found that they have not discharged their duties with utmost devotion and integrity, it cannot be doubted that the Bank would be justified in taking an action and imposing a major penalty upon such guilty persons. That being so, in the case of the Bank officers where it is found that they have not discharged their duties with utmost devotion and integrity, it cannot be doubted that the Bank would be justified in taking an action and imposing a major penalty upon such guilty persons. The decision of the Bank imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, therefore, does not warrant any interference and in taking the aforesaid view, we are fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, 1998 (4) SCC 310 ; State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma, 1996 (3) SCC 364 ; United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 and Bank of India v.T. Jogram (supra). 14. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. ————