Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 787 (CAL)

N. Pal v. United Commercial Bank

2008-08-04

SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, TAPEN SEN

body2008
JUDGMENT Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 2329 of 1994. 2. The fact leading to the filing of this appeal is that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as a "Probationer Officer" of the United Commercial Bank on 12th November, 1971. Thereafter, he became permanent employee of the Bank and received his first promotion on 1.7.1983. On 24th October, 1989 the appellant/writ petitioner was posted at Bhawanipore Branch of the said Bank and took charge of the said branch as its Manager. According to the petitioner, he was sent to the said branch as the management was in search of a fit person who could take charge of the said branch which was running at a huge loss and its industrial relations were disappointing due to the problem created by the staff member of the said branch which seriously affected the normal functioning of the said branch. Since his joining the said branch, the appellant/writ petitioner was successful in improving he functioning of the said branch to a great extent and to the satisfaction of the management. 3. In order to improve the financial position of the branch, the appellant/petitioner, after making due consultation with the Zonal Manager of the Bank decided to give temporary overdraft and sanction of loan to some old customers of the bank. 4. However, on 5th November, 1990 the Divisional Manager of the Bank informed the petitioner that during an inspection, conducted by the Development Manager on 18th and 19th January, 1990, some serious irregularities came to the notice of the Bank and it was also informed to the petitioner that he illegally allowed drawing of overdraft far beyond his sanctioning power. The Divisional Manager asked the appellant/petitioner to clarify the position and also advised him from desisting himself from allowing any overdraft beyond his sanctioning power and regularise all irregular accounts immediately. 5. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the appellant/petitioner never sent the statement of irregular accounts to the said office in spite of reminders thereby keeping the said office in dark in respect of the abovementioned irregular accounts. 6. 5. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the appellant/petitioner never sent the statement of irregular accounts to the said office in spite of reminders thereby keeping the said office in dark in respect of the abovementioned irregular accounts. 6. In respect of this show-cause, the appellant/petitioner submitted his reply, wherein he tried to explain his position and also tried to impress upon the authority that whatever steps he had taken, were for protecting the interest of the Bank. However, in respect of the allegation of allowing excessive withdrawals, the appellant/petitioner admitted the irregularities and assured that he would be 'little bit cautious' in future. In respect of submission of statement of irregular accounts, the appellant/petitioner admitted his fault and prayed for pardon. 7. However, after a lapse of nearly one year, when the appellant/petitioner was posted in a branch situated at Bihar, being transferred from Bhawanipore branch, a charge-sheet dated 20th November, 1992 was served upon him. The charges, as mentioned in the charge-sheet are reproduced below:- Articles of charges (1) "He with mala fide intention allowed excess drawings beyond the sanctioned limit and the delegated power vested in him by the bank, in the cash credit accounts of (i) M/s. G. Biswas Engineering Works, (ii) M/s. Bolden Batteries A/c. 2, (iii) M/s. Quality and Precision Industrial Equipment, (iv) M/s. Mahabir Plastic Industries, (v) M/s. U. Plastic Industries and (vi) M/s. Samabaya, dealing with the commodities under selective credit control and in the T.O.D. accounts of (i) M/s. K. Ghosh Enterprises, (ii) Ganeshan (India) and (iii) Procon, without seeking approval from the Divisional Office. He also allowed purchasing clean bills beyond the sanctioned limit in the accounts of (i) M/s. B. Biswas Engineering Works and (ii) M/s. Quality and Precision Industrial Equipment without obtaining any prior approval from the Division Office. Thus, he deliberately failed to ensure and protect the interest of the bank which is violative of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. (2) He with mala fide intention continued allowing over-drawings in various accounts despite receiving Divisional Office letters dated 5.11.91 and 27.11.91 wherein he was asked to regularise the irregular accounts and to desist from allowing excess drawings. (2) He with mala fide intention continued allowing over-drawings in various accounts despite receiving Divisional Office letters dated 5.11.91 and 27.11.91 wherein he was asked to regularise the irregular accounts and to desist from allowing excess drawings. He committed breach of faith and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank which is violative of Clause 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. (3) He deliberately did not report such irregularities through the monthly statements of RCR-1 for a long time with some ulterior motive. He also with such motive misled the Divisional Office by furnishing false information in regard to the over drawn accounts of M/s. Quality and Precision Industrial Equipment that the account was collaterally secured by way of equitable, mortgage of land. Thus, he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion which is violative of Clause (3) UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations; 1976 as amended." 8. On the basis of those charges, the enquiry proceeding was started and after completion the enquiry, the enquiry officer held that all the three charges have been proved against the appellant/petitioner and thereby referred the matter to the disciplinary authority for punishment in accordance with the existing Rule of the Bank. 9. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the enquiry officer and after due consideration of the same and also the evidence, as adduced before the enquiry officer, he concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and passed the order of removal of service so far as the appellant/petitioner is concerned. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of the disciplinary authority, the appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the enquiry officer as well as the punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides and upon perusal of the entire materials-on-record, was pleased to uphold the decision of the disciplinary authority and thereby dismissed the writ application. As the appellant/ petitioner is not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, so he has preferred this appeal before this Court. 11. As the appellant/ petitioner is not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, so he has preferred this appeal before this Court. 11. During the hearing before this Court, the learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner first of all argued that both the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate the situation that was prevailing in the Bhawanipore Branch of the said Bank when the appellant/petitioner took charge of the said branch. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant there was total chaos in the said branch and the financial condition of it was also alarming due to mal-administration of the works of the said branch. In order to improve the situation, the authority concerned decided to post the appellant/petitioner as the Manager of the said branch with the intention to improve its condition in all respect Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant/petitioner in fact obliged the wish of the Bank authority by way of improving the condition of the said branch in all respect and in this respect he drew our attention to some of the letters written by the Bank authority, wherein the service rendered by the appellant/petitioner in respect of improvement of the condition of the branch in question, was recognised. According to him, the service of the appellant/petitioner towards the improvement of the said branch should have been kept in mind in order to Judge the alleged 'misconduct' of the appellant/petitioner which was considered in the enquiry proceedings. 12. Mr. Lahiri further argued that the charges, as framed against the appellant/petitioner, only speak of some negligent acts done by the appellant/petitioner while discharging his official function and this sort of negligence, under no circumstances, should be considered to be an act of misconduct on the part of the appellant/petitioner. In this respect, he has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 (Union of India & Ors. v. J. Ahmed). In the said decision, the Apex Court observed. "The inhibitions in the conduct rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto so as to run counter to the expressed code of conduct would certainly constitute misconduct. Some other act or omission may as well constitute misconduct. Lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would not themselves constitute misconduct. Some other act or omission may as well constitute misconduct. Lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would not themselves constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing the situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such a to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high". 13. By pointing out the said decision, Mr. Lahiri, tried to impress upon this Court that since the allegation, as made against the appellant/petitioner only amounts to negligence, so it should not be equated with 'misconduct', as has been done by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. 14. Mr. R.S. Mantha, learned Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that in the said decision, the Supreme Court also clearly laid down that such negligent acts may amount to 'misconduct', if the same is likely to cause heavy damage to the establishment. According to him, the acts for which the appellant/petitioner was charged with, cannot be overlooked simply by holding, that it was a negligent act on the part of a negligent officer. In this respect, he has drawn our attention to the fact that the appellant/ petitioner was undoubtedly guilty of allowing overdraft beyond his prescribed financial capacity and said allegation against the appellant/petitioner became aggravated when it transpired that in spite of warning, the appellant/petitioner did not pay any heed to it and continued with his habit of allowing overdraft beyond his financial capacity. Moreover, Mr. Mantha further pointed out that admittedly the appellant/petitioner was asked by the authority to submit the statement of irregular accounts immediately. However, the appellant/petitioner, for reasons best known to him, preferred not to submit such accounts to the authority, as desired by them and instead submitted the same after much delay. There is no justifiable reason for this act, as done by the appellant/petitioner and as such according to Mr. Mantha, the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were perfectly justified in holding that the appellant/petitioner was guilty of 'misconduct' within the meaning of the Service Rules of the Bank. 15. Mr. There is no justifiable reason for this act, as done by the appellant/petitioner and as such according to Mr. Mantha, the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were perfectly justified in holding that the appellant/petitioner was guilty of 'misconduct' within the meaning of the Service Rules of the Bank. 15. Mr. Mantha, further pointed out that the Bank authority came to know that the appellant/petitioner sanctioned loan in favour of one of the customer ostensibly by way of taking deposit of the title deed. It appears from the enquiry report that there was evidence to the effect that when the person concerned approached for loan, the appellant/petitioner sanctioned the same without bothering for the deposit of the original title deed in order to create an equitable mortgage as per law. It appears that the matter was referred to the lawyer of the Bank who opined that unless the original title deed is deposited, no equitable mortgage by way of depositing of title deed could be created. In spite of such legal opinion, it appears that the appellant/petitioner preferred to ignore the said advice and sanctioned the loan by way of accepting the certified copy of the title deed, knowing it fully well that it would not create any equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank. As such, according to Mr. Mantha, this-action of the appellant/petitioner cannot be termed as negligence as claimed by Mr. Lahiri. We fully agree with the view of Mr. Mantha. In our opinion, the appellant/petitioner was guilty of deliberately flouting the direction of the management by way of sanctioning overdraft to the customers beyond his financial capacity although, he was clearly directed to refrain himself from doing such act. 16. That apart, there is no reasonable explanation for the appellant/petitioner as to why he preferred to ignore the legal opinion and sanctioned the loan by way of keeping certified copy of the title deed only. All these acts, as done by the appellant/petitioner in his capacity as Branch Manager, were certainly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and there is every possibility that the Bank could suffer financial loss due to such act of the appellant/petitioner. 17. Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner argued that there was nothing on record to show that due to such acts on the part of the appellant/petitioner, the Bank actually suffered any financial loss. 17. Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner argued that there was nothing on record to show that due to such acts on the part of the appellant/petitioner, the Bank actually suffered any financial loss. As such, according to him, keeping in mind the track-record of the appellant/petitioner in improving the condition of the branch of the Bank, the authority concerned should have ignored all these negligences, as done by the appellant/petitioner and it was not proper on their part to treat the same as misconduct and thereby to dismiss the writ petitioner from the service of the Bank. We regret, we cannot agree with this argument of Mr. Lahiri. In this respect we may refer to the decision reported in 1996 (9) SCC 69 (Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager & Ors. v. Nikunja Behari Patnaik), as cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent. It appears from the said decision that the fact was almost similar with that of the fact of the present case. It was also urged in that case that it was not established that the alleged acts for which the charges were framed were done with any ulterior motive or for any extraneous consideration. As such, it was argued in that case that the acts, as alleged to have been done by the delinquent should be ignored as negligent acts on his part and not 'misconduct', as provided in the Service Rules. The High Court in that case held that the allegation of misconduct was not established against the delinquent and accordingly the order of punishment, imposed upon him, was set aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequently benefits. However, the Apex Court in its judgment, as cited in the decision quoted above, clearly differed with the view of the High Court and held that the High Court committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent did not amount to misconduct. It will be profitable to quote the observation of the Apex Court while coming to such a conclusion thereby giving a guideline to the Courts as to what should amount misconduct in a given circumstance. The Apex Court in the said decision observed as follows:- "Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. The Apex Court in the said decision observed as follows:- "Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a 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-it 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 deal with public funds, if what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and offices acting and operating within their allotted sphere. 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 though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit-huge profit, as the High Court characterises it they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterise them as errors or judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class I Officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that in spite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterised as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24." 18. In the decision reported in 1998 (4) SCC 310 (Union of India v. Biswa Mohan) the Apex Court observed "It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/ depositors would be impaired". 19. Again in the decision reported in Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed "A bank officer is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank." 20. By referring to the Nikunja Behari Patnaik's (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case when officers/employees acted without authority. In no unequivocal terms the Apex Court held "The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct". 21. In no unequivocal terms the Apex Court held "The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct". 21. So from the decisions, as cited above, it is very much clear that it is now settled position that in case a Bank Officer acted beyond his financial capacity and particularly by way of not paying any heed to the caution of the management, then in that event such act on the part of such an officer cannot be termed as 'negligence' but it will certainly amount to 'misconduct' within the meaning of the Service Rules. We have already pointed out that it has been established beyond doubt that the appellant/petitioner in his capacity as a Branch Manager sanctioned overdrafts/loans beyond his financial capacity and he did not pay any heed to the warning given by the management in that respect. That apart, it has further been established that this appellant/petitioner preferred to ignore the legal advice of the Bank's lawyer thereby sanctioning loan in favour of a customer without taking deposit of the original title deed and thereby jeopardising the interest of the Bank in question. All these factors certainly lead us to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner, being the Manager of the Bank overstepped his limit thereby impairing the confidence, as imposed upon him not only by the Bank but also by the public/depositors. In fact from the evidence-on-record and from the admission of the appellant/petitioner, it appears clearly that this gentleman acted in an extremely highhanded manner as if he was above the institution. In his over anxiousness to do good to the Bank, the appellant/petitioner preferred not to obey the order of the management and as such, this is a clear example of insubordination which cannot be accepted by any competent authority. The appellant/petitioner acted in a manner as if he was the supreme authority so far as the business of the bank is concerned, which we have already pointed out, the Supreme Court has totally reprimanded in the decisions quoted above. 22. The appellant/petitioner acted in a manner as if he was the supreme authority so far as the business of the bank is concerned, which we have already pointed out, the Supreme Court has totally reprimanded in the decisions quoted above. 22. Due to all these reasons, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant/petitioner acted beyond his jurisdiction and while doing these acts he was very much aware that he was doing something which was beyond his jurisdiction and against the direction of the appropriate authority. As such, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the Enquiry Officer in holding the appellant/petitioner guilty in respect of the charges, as levelled against him. 23. We have already pointed out that the disciplinary authority also concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal of service against the appellant/petitioner. Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment observed that the irregular acts of the appellant/petitioner actually put the Bank to great financial loss. According to Mr. Lahiri, it is not the case of the Bank that due to the acts of the appellant/petitioner the Bank suffered any financial loss and it was also not the finding of the Enquiry Officer. As such, he argued that this shows that the disciplinary authority acted in a biased manner and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service without any justifiable reasons. True, that it is not the case before the Enquiry Officer that due to the acts of the appellant/petitioner the Bank suffered any financial loss. In fact no charge to that effect was also framed. But simply because of the fact that this observation was made by the disciplinary authority in his order, that cannot be a reason for setting aside the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority. We must take into consideration the materials as a whole. We have already pointed but that the irregularities were in fact admitted by the appellant/petitioner. It has been established that in spite of warning, the appellant/petitioner preferred to continue with those irregularities by way of not paying any heed to the instruction of the authority in question. We must take into consideration the materials as a whole. We have already pointed but that the irregularities were in fact admitted by the appellant/petitioner. It has been established that in spite of warning, the appellant/petitioner preferred to continue with those irregularities by way of not paying any heed to the instruction of the authority in question. This, in our opinion, certainly amounts to misconduct and we have got no hesitation to hold, keeping in mind the decisions of the Apex Court, as cited above, that the appellant/petitioner lost the confidence of the Bank authority as well as the public/depositors at large and as such, when there is loss of fais, so far as the appellant/petitioner is concerned, then there cannot be any justifiable reason for allowing him to continue in the service of the Bank. Since the Bank authority lost the confidence in the appellant/petitioner, so it cannot be compelled to continue with such an officer thereby jeopardising its banking interest as a whole. In our opinion the disciplinary authority did nothing wrong in imposing the punishment of dismissal of service so far as the appellant/petitioner is concerned. Simply because the Disciplinary Authority committed mistake in observing that the Bank suffered financial loss due to the act of the appellant, that cannot be a ground for not accepting the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 24. Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner further argued by drawing our attention to the words that have been used in the charges, as framed against the appellant/petitioner. According to him, it was mentioned in the charges that the appellant/petitioner with mala fide intention did all those irregular acts. According to Mr. Lahiri, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant/petitioner did those acts with a mala fide intention in order to cause financial loss to the Bank in question and financial gain in his favour. As such, he argued that this shows that the authority proceeded against the appellant/petitioner with a biased mind. In this respect he has relied upon the decision reported in 2005 (6) SCC 321 (Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi). We have perused the said decision and in our opinion the said decision in no way helps the case of the appellant/petitioner. So far as the enquiry against the appellant/petitioner is concerned, it appears that there is no allegation that the principle of natural justice was violated. We have perused the said decision and in our opinion the said decision in no way helps the case of the appellant/petitioner. So far as the enquiry against the appellant/petitioner is concerned, it appears that there is no allegation that the principle of natural justice was violated. The appellant/petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and no allegation to the effect has been put forward on his behalf. As such, in our considered opinion this decision is not at all applicable in order to substantiate the claim of the appellant/ petitioner that the principle of natural justice was violated. Question of biasness cannot be inferred simply because the language, as used in the charge, may not be proper. 25. Mr. Lahiri argued that the punishment, as imposed upon the appellant/petitioner is absolutely disproportionate in nature considering the charges levelled against him. According to him, the High Court is always within its jurisdiction to interfere into the quantum of punishment, as imposed against an employee in a given case. In support of his contention Mr. Lahiri relied upon the decision reported in 2005 (6) SCC 321 (supra). It was held in the said decision that it is always open for the High Court to interfere in respect of quantum of punishment in a given circumstance. At the same time, it appears that the Apex Court observed that "Interference with the quantum of punishment cannot be a routine matter. The various allegations as led in the departmental proceedings reveal that several acts of misconduct unbecoming of a Bank official were committed by the respondent. The proved charges clearly established that the respondent/employee failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the bank". 26. By making such observation and considering the facts of that case, which is almost similar with that of the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the inevitable conclusion that the order of dismissal, as passed by the appellant/petitioner did not suffer any infirmity. So, this decision is not at all helpful for the appellant. Rather, it supports the case of the respondents. 27. Mr. Lahiri lastly argued that keeping in mind the previous service rendered by the appellant/petitioner to the Bank, a lenient view should be taken by this Court and the punishment, as imposed, can be suitably moulded. So, this decision is not at all helpful for the appellant. Rather, it supports the case of the respondents. 27. Mr. Lahiri lastly argued that keeping in mind the previous service rendered by the appellant/petitioner to the Bank, a lenient view should be taken by this Court and the punishment, as imposed, can be suitably moulded. We find no force in such argument. In the decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC 212 (State Bank of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde) the Supreme Court observed "The scope of judicial review is very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. .............................. There is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary and appellate authority". 28. True it is, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the concerned employee misappropriated the fund of the Corporation. In the case before us there is no charge of misappropriation of funds. At the same time, as we have already discussed that acts of the appellant/petitioner was certainly dangerous to the interest of the Bank as he was in the habit of flouting the directions of the authority and preferred to conduct the business of the Bank as per his own whims by way of totally disregarding the instructions of the superior authority thereby heavily jeopardising the interest of the Bank in question. In our opinion, such irregularities cannot be less then the offence of misappropriation of funds. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the ratio, as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC 212 (supra) we are of opinion that there is no scope of showing any sympathy to the appellant/petitioner and we have got no hesitation to hold that the appellant/petitioner deserved the punishment, as imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report. Thus, we are of opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ application and thereby upholding the punishment, as imposed upon the appellant/ petitioner. Thus, we are of opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ application and thereby upholding the punishment, as imposed upon the appellant/ petitioner. We find no scope for interference with the matter and in our opinion the appeal being devoid of any merit should be rejected. 29. In the result, the appeal and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost. The judgment, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 2329 of 1994 is confirmed. Let a certified photocopy of this judgment be handed over to the parties of urgent basis, if applied for. Sen, J. : I agree.