JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who was working as a Clerk/Typist in the State Bank of India, has sought the quashing of the order dated 20th August, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which he was dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 7th December, 1999 by which his Appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed. 2. The records of the writ petition indicate that at the relevant time when the petitioner was working as a Clerk/Typist in the State Bank of India, Branch Office at Mumfordganj, Allahabad he was suspended on 17th August, 1995 in connection with misappropriation of the funds at the Mumfordganj Branch. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 23rd March, 1996 was served upon the petitioner. This charge-sheet contained two charges which are as follows : “Charge No. 1. That on 25.3.1994, you entered into a conspiracy with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the Bank and accordingly a fake debit was raised in Branch Clearing General Account through Schedule No. 4 for Rs. 4,84,300.00 and amount was first credited to S.B. A/c No. 7547 fvg. Shri K.C. Miglani. Later on this amount was withdrawn in instalments on 25.3.94 and 4.4.94 and out of the above amounts of Rs. 15,100.00 and Rs. 15,000.00 were misappropriated by you through credit in your current Account No. P-68 on the aforesaid dates. Charge No. 2. That on 26.9.94 you conspired with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the Bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs. 1 lac was raised in Branch’s S.B. Account and out of the above an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 was misappropriated by you through credit in your current Account." 3. Sri P.R. Chakravarthi, Chief Manager was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Sri S.K. Tiwari was appointed as the presenting officer which Sri M.S. Srivastava, Deputy General Secretary, SBI, Staff Association, Zonal Office, Varanasi defended the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file a reply to the aforesaid charges and he did submit a reply to the charge­sheet on 10th September, 1997. The Inquiry Officer found both the charges proved. Sri S.K. Tiwari was appointed as the presenting officer which Sri M.S. Srivastava, Deputy General Secretary, SBI, Staff Association, Zonal Office, Varanasi defended the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file a reply to the aforesaid charges and he did submit a reply to the charge­sheet on 10th September, 1997. The Inquiry Officer found both the charges proved. Subsequently a notice dated 31st July, 1999 was sent by the Bank to the petitioner mentioning therein that the punishment of dismissal from service was intended to be given to the petitioner and he may submit a reply to the notice. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for by the petitioner had not been supplied to him and, therefore, the inquiry stood vitiated; that some other persons who were responsible and who were also issued charge-sheets had been let off while the petitioner was punished; that there was no material to show that the petitioner was actually involved and so the finding of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed by the Bank as the criminal case was pending. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, however submitted that all the relevant documents had been supplied to the petitioner and that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence. He further submitted that the punishment had been imposed upon all the persons found involved and that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary to stay the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of trial. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relevant documents were not supplied as a result of which the enquiry stood vitiated. 8. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that large number of staff members/officers including the petitioner and the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Mumfordganj Branch were involved in mis-utilisation of the funds of the Bank between 1992 to 1995 by making fictitious entries in the Bank Books and crediting the amount to their own Accounts. 8. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that large number of staff members/officers including the petitioner and the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Mumfordganj Branch were involved in mis-utilisation of the funds of the Bank between 1992 to 1995 by making fictitious entries in the Bank Books and crediting the amount to their own Accounts. This was detected in July 1995 during the investigation and audit of the said Branch. Thereafter 11 Clerks and the Branch Manager were placed under suspension. After inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for dismissal of four Clerks including the petitioner and major penalties were also imposed upon the charge-sheeted employees in proportion to their involvement/negligence. The case was also registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow which submitted the charge-sheet against three Officers including the Branch Manager and five Clerks including the petitioner. CBI also recommended departmental action against other employees for imposing major penalty. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that all the documents were supplied to the petitioner. Out of 7 documents asked for by the petitioner, the documents mentioned at serial No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were supplied to the petitioner but the documents mentioned at serial No. 5, 6 and 7 were not supplied and the certificate was given to the petitioner that the documents were not available with the Bank as they did not exist in the record. 9. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant documents were not supplied to him. 10. This apart, the petitioner has not pointed out that any prejudice had been caused to him on account of non-supply of the documents. This was necessary in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, (2002) 3 SCC 443 , wherein it was observed : “Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that particular documents copies of which are said to have not been supplied are not indicated by the respondent much less in the order of the High Court nor their relevance has been pointed out. The submission is that the delinquent will also have to show as to in what manner any particular document was relevant in connection with the inquiry and what prejudice was caused to him by non-furnishing of a copy of the document. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a case reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 518, Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India. It has been observed in this case that the obligation to supply copies of documents is confined only to material and relevant documents which may have been relied upon in support of the charges. It is further observed that if a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges, has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied upon or it may not be necessary for cross­examination of any witness, non-supply of such a document will not cause any prejudice to the delinquent. The inquiry would not be vitiated in such circumstances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others, (1996) 5 SCC 474 , relied upon by the appellant, it is held that it is for the delinquent to show the relevance of a document a copy of which he insists to be supplied to him. Prejudice caused by non­supply of document has also to be seen. In yet another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in (2001) 6 SCC 392 , State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and another, it has been held that a delinquent must show the prejudice caused to him by non-supply of copy of document where order of punishment is challenged on that ground. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no material or document has been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, copy of which or inspection thereof may not have been allowed to the respondent. No material has been obtained after the date of hearing nor any such material has been made use of by the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that in the judgment of the High Court it has nowhere been indicated that any material or document, copy of which has not been supplied to the respondent, was used much less any prejudice, if caused to the respondent. It is further submitted that in the judgment of the High Court it has nowhere been indicated that any material or document, copy of which has not been supplied to the respondent, was used much less any prejudice, if caused to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent could not pinpoint any particular document which may have been made use of by the Inquiry Officer for establishing the charges levelled against the respondent, copies of which or inspection thereof may not have been allowed to the delinquent by the Department. No submission has been advanced on behalf of the respondent on the point of prejudice which may have been caused to the respondent by non-supply of document, if any. The High Court has also not gone into the question of the relevance of the documents copies of which are said to have not been supplied to the respondent and consequent prejudice, if caused. We therefore find that the finding of the High Court that principles of natural justice have been violated for non-supply of documents to the respondent is not sustainable. The cross-examination of a witness which was sought for, had unfortunately died which fact was also brought to the notice of the respondent.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In Syndicate Bank and others v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, 2006 AIR SCW 680, the Supreme Court also made similar observations : “.........In our view, non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non­supply of which would cause prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the non­supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice." 12. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice." 12. Thus, in view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot also be accepted. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse but he failed to substantiate this plea. It also needs to be mentioned that in respect of the first charge, the Inquiry Officer has found as a fact that the petitioner had conspired with some staff members of the Branch by raising fake debit/credit in the Branch Books. He was the Ledger keeper at the relevant time and he made fraudulent entries in various Current Accounts including his Current Account and misappropriated the funds of the Bank by making fake credits in his Account. Similar findings have been arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the second charge. 14. Even otherwise, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not re-appreciate the evidence as was observed by the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shri Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar and others, JT 1997 (5) SC 298, wherein it was observed : “.........In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would (sic) come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would (sic) come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. This is the consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, JT 1994 (5) SC 337 : (1994) 6 SCC 302 (SCC para 7); Union of India v. Upendra Singh, JT 1994 (1) SC 658 : (1994) 3 SCC 357 (SCC para 6); Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian, JT 1994 (7) SC 492 : (1995) 1 SCC 216 (SCC para 4) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (at pp. 759-60)” 15. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed till conclusion of the trial cannot be accepted. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings and did not raise any such grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not placed before the Court any document regarding this objection. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be permitted to raise this plea. 16. In the end certain decisions of the Supreme Court which deal with high standards of honesty, integrity and conduct expected from the employees of a Bank need to be referred to. 17. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , the Supreme Court observed : “.........If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. 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 . ... ... ... ... 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 . ... ... ... ... As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere." (emphasis supplied) 18. In Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and others, (1997) 4 SCC 565 the Supreme Court observed : “The nationalised banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socio­economic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socio-economic empowerment. Their acts and conduct should be in discharge of that constitutional objective and if they derelict in the performance of their duty, it impinges upon the enforcement of the constitutional philosophy, objective and the goals under the rule of law. Corruption has taken deep roots among the sections of the society and the employees holding public office or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt conduct in the discharge of their official duty for illegal gratification. The banking business and services are also vitally affected by catastrophic corruption. Disciplinary measures should, therefore, aim to eradicate the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in the public offices including those in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider, from this perspective, the need for disciplinary action to eradicate corruption to properly channelise the use of the public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio­economic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalisation of the banking system. What is more, the nationalisation of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that banking operations or services are rendered in the best interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation. What is more, the nationalisation of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that banking operations or services are rendered in the best interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation. Any conduct that damages, destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes resultantly defeats or tends to defeat the constitutional objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at the cost of the society. “ (emphasis supplied) 19. In Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and another, (2005) 1 SCC 13 , the Supreme Court observed : “...... ... Mr. Salve submitted that the appellant, the Branch Manager of a Bank is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity when he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers and, therefore, he 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. According to Mr. Salve, good conduct and discipline are inseparable for the functioning of every officer, manager or employee of the bank, who deals with public money and there is no defence available to say that no loss or profit resulted in the case, when the manager acted without authority and contrary to the Rules and the Scheme which is formulated to help the educated unemployed youth. Mr. Salve’s above submission is well-merited acceptance and we see much force in the said submission. The bank manager/officer and employees of any bank, nationalized/or non-nationalised, are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and misconduct." (emphasis supplied) 20. In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others, (2005) 7 SCC 435 , the Supreme Court observed : "A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others, (2005) 7 SCC 435 , the Supreme Court observed : "A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests 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.” (emphasis supplied) 21. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court clearly emphasise that for a Bank to function properly and effectively, it is imperative for its officers and employees to observe the prescribed norms and discipline and any conduct that damages, destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes should be meted out with disciplinary action. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable for the functioning of every officer, Manager or employee of the Bank and every officer or employee of the Bank must take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer/employee. 22. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ————