Judgement: The petitioner joined the service of Andhra Bank as a Clerk on 30.06.1986. Vide orders, dated 02.01.2002, he was promoted to J.M.G.S-I and was transferred from Guntur to Dowdepally in Karimnagar District. 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by serving a charge sheet, dated 22.06.2003, alleging that he committed irregularities in purchase of cheques, has drawn festival advance more than once, and got enhanced the limits of his housing loan. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereupon, the third respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charge No.1 is proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 are not proved. The third respondent differed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on charge Nos. 2 and 3 and issued a show cause notice, dated 14.01.2004, to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and on a consideration of the same, the third respondent passed an order, dated 25.02.2004, imposing the punishment of reversion to the clerical cadre. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected on 28.04.2004. He has also filed a review before the first respondent and the same was rejected on 30.01.2006. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that the purchase of cheques by him was with the approval of the Branch Manager and on none of the occasions, any monetary loss was caused to the bank. It is stated that on account of the fact that the branch was situated at a remote place, clearance of cheques was delayed. As regards charge Nos.2 and 3, he submits that the Enquiry Officer himself agreed with the findings and almost a mountain was made out of a mole, by the third respondent. He contends that he was deprived of hard earned promotion on trivial charges. 4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature and as a matter of fact, the bank had shown lenience towards the petitioner in imposing a relatively mild punishment. It is also contended that even if there was no monetary loss to the bank, the intention on the part of the petitioner becomes relevant and that the order of punishment does not warrant interference. 5. It is also contended that even if there was no monetary loss to the bank, the intention on the part of the petitioner becomes relevant and that the order of punishment does not warrant interference. 5. Heard Sri V.V.Nalin Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. The three charges framed against the petitioner read as under: I: Irregularities in purchase of cheques: The Officer, without having any powers vested in him, purchased the Following self cheques drawn on his S.B. A/c.43980 with Andhra Bank, Guntur. ________________________________________________________________________ ICBP/ Date of mount Cheque Number Adjusted on CBP No. Purchase Rs. _____________________________________________________________________ ICBP 15 07.09.2002 3,000/- Withdrawal 14.10.2002 by cash CBP 31 12.09.2002 5,000/- Withdrawal 14.10.2002 by cash ICBP 20 21.10.2002 6,000/- 464632 26.11.2002 by cash ICBP 33 21.12.2002 9,000/- 464634 15.02.2003 by cash ICBP 41 15.02.2003 15,000/- 464637 realized on 18.03.2003 ______________________________________________________________________ He has authorized the vouchers for payment but the instruments pertaining to I.C.B.Ps. 15, 20 and 33 and CBP 31 were not sent to the drawee Bank for collection. He has adjusted the I.C.B.Ps. 15,20,33 and CBP 31 by paying cash on different dates as mentioned above and ICBP 41 was realized after a lapse of more than one month. II. Festival Advance: The Officer had taken festival advance for Rs.13,200/- on 02.01.2002 at Guntur branch which was transferred to Dowdepally branch on 07.05.2002 on his transfer. On 30.08.2002 he prematurely adjusted the festival advance balance of Rs.10,560/- outstanding against his name and the very next day i.e. on 31.08.2002 obtained fresh advance of Rs.15,300/-. On both the occasions he failed to ensure that the installments are deducted from his salary. III. Enhancement of housing loan: On 12.12.2002 the Officer applied for enhancement of housing loan limit from Rs.4.50 lacs to Rs.7.50 lacs duly enclosing his salary slip for November, 2002 which did not reflect the festival advance installment of Rs.1530/- and got the loan sanctioned since the net pay of Rs.6346/- of the Officer was excluding the festival advance instalment of Rs.1530/-. Had the same been deducted from his salary, he wouldn't have been eligible for the enhancement of housing loan. Thus he got sanctioned housing loan enhancement of Rs.3.00 lacs by concealing the festival advance installment. 7. Had the same been deducted from his salary, he wouldn't have been eligible for the enhancement of housing loan. Thus he got sanctioned housing loan enhancement of Rs.3.00 lacs by concealing the festival advance installment. 7. The Enquiry Officer found that only charge No.1 is proved against the petitioner and the remaining charges are not proved. As regards the first charge, the explanation offered by the petitioner was that he has withdrawn the amounts indicated therein, duly presenting the cheques and the withdrawal was permitted by the Branch Manager. He further stated that on account of lack of proper facilities, the cheques were not sent for encashment to the branches concerned and as and when it was brought to his notice that the encashment did not take place, he deposited the withdrawn cash. Even assuming that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not proper, the fact remains that each and every withdrawal took place with the permission of the Branch Manager and in the ultimate analysis, no monetary loss was caused to the bank. At the most, it can be treated as an irregular practice on the part of the petitioner. 8. The third respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge Nos.2 and 3. The allegation against the petitioner under charge No.2 is that he availed a sum of Rs.13,200/- as festival advance when he was working at Guntur and after he joined the branch at Dowdepally, he has withdrawn another sum of Rs.15,300/-. A scrutiny of the record discloses that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.13,200/- as festival advance in his capacity as Clerk at Guntur and after he was transferred on promotion to Dowdepally, he repaid that amount and has applied for festival advance in his capacity as an Officer. It is not as if he has withdrawn that amount on his accord. Here again, the sanction was accorded by the Branch Manager. It cannot be treated as a case of an employee drawing festival advance twice. The earlier advance availed in his capacity as he was Clerk was liquidated and the petitioner applied for festival advance in his capacity as an Officer. If there was any prohibition against such practice, either the sanction ought not to have been accorded or the petitioner ought to have been informed to deposit the amount availed by him at Dowdepally Branch. 9. If there was any prohibition against such practice, either the sanction ought not to have been accorded or the petitioner ought to have been informed to deposit the amount availed by him at Dowdepally Branch. 9. In respect of the last charge also, the third respondent has proceeded on hyper-technicalities. The allegation against the petitioner was that he did not indicate the installment of Rs.15,000/- in his pay slip and thereby, made himself eligible for enhanced housing loan. It is not as if the petitioner was drawing the salary from a different organization or that he has manipulated the pay slip. Being the employer of the petitioner, the bank itself has satisfied about the eligibility of the petitioner and sanctioned the loan. The record discloses that as on the date of sanction of loan, the net pay of the petitioner was at Rs.6,346/-, which is proportionate to the sanctioned amount. 10. It is true that this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authorities or for that matter, the Enquiry Officer. Where, however, the punishment inflicted upon an Officer is totally disproportionate and unconscionable, the Court cannot put a seal of approval on such exercise. The promotion earned by the petitioner was set at naught hardly within one year. 11. This Court is of the view that a decent balance needs to be maintained in the matter of protecting the interest of the petitioner on the one hand and that the respondents on the other. While the petitioner cannot be totally exonerated from the charges proved against him, he cannot be made to sacrifice his hard earned promotion almost indefinitely. It would be just and proper, in case the reversion of the petitioner is restricted to a period of five years. 12. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the impugned order to the effect that the punishment of reversion imposed against the petitioner shall be restricted to a period of five years. The consequences of the modified punishment shall be governed by the service regulations of the bank. There shall be no order as to costs.