Judgment :- The petitioner, who was working as Assistant General Manager and was also General Manager-Incharge of the second respondent District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 312. 2007, confirming the punishment order given to the petitioner, namely, the withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. The said impugned order came to be passed on a revisional application filed by the petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioner was charge sheeted by a charge memo dated 12. 2006. The petitioner was accused of misconduct and the first was that on the account of the petitioner, one Secretary of Nilgiris District, Animal Husbandry Department Employees Union deposited a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, which was concealed and misappropriated contrary to the Act, inspite of the fact that a member of the bank is prohibited from having dealing with any constituent of the bank and it was also stated that the Nilgiris District Animal Husbandry Department Employees Union is a constituent of the Nilgiris District Central Cooperative Bank. The second charge was that he availed provident fund loan for constructing a house for a sum of Rs.6,38,000/-and instead of utilising the amount for construction, he has kept in fixed deposit in the Nilgiri District Cooperative Society. Since the amount was given for a particular purpose and not utilised for the same, the said amount is also used for some other purpose, which was considered as a misconduct. 2. With respect to the first charge, the petitioner stated that on a particular date, he was on leave and therefore, he requested that the Secretary of the Society to deposit the amount in his personal capacity and it should not be treated as an account dealing with the constituent. With reference to the second charge, the stand of the petitioner was that he did not borrow any money from any individual and only obtained provident fund amount from his own contribution. The petitioners explanation was not accepted by the bank and the enquiry was conducted by an outside advocate. 3. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 6. 2007, held that both the charges stood proved. In the enquiry, the management examined the Manager-Personnel and the worker had examined himself. On the side of the management, 7 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M7. 3. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 6. 2007, held that both the charges stood proved. In the enquiry, the management examined the Manager-Personnel and the worker had examined himself. On the side of the management, 7 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M7. On the side of the petitioner, one document was marked as Ex.W1. Apart from that, the Enquiry Officer also marked Exs.P1 to P4, which are recorded as enquiry proceedings. 4. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, further explanation was also called for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17. 2007 and it is because the explanation was not satisfactory, the petitioner was imposed the minor penalty. While imposing the penalty, two factors were taken into account. The first was that the petitioner was going to retire from service on 37. 2007 and that he worked for 38 years in the bank. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner filed a revision application before the revisional authority. The revisional authority, by a detailed order, rejected the petitioners revision and confirmed the order of punishment. The petitioner has challenged the revisional order before this Court. 5. The writ petition was admitted on 24. 2008 and on notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 11. 2008. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had satisfactorily explained about the context of depositing the amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs into his personal account in the market branch and he has merely utilised the Secretary of another society as his friend to deposit the amount and there was no illegality on the same. But with reference to the other misconduct, namely, having availed housing loan from the Provident Fund, the petitioner did not make use of the same, but on the contrary had deposited the amount in a fixed deposit with some other cooperative society, which is clearly a serious misconduct. The petitioners conduct in stating that it is his own money that he had withdrawn the same, cannot be accepted because the part withdrawal from Provident Fund has to be supported by certain tangible material, without which the amount will not be released. The petitioners conduct in stating that it is his own money that he had withdrawn the same, cannot be accepted because the part withdrawal from Provident Fund has to be supported by certain tangible material, without which the amount will not be released. When the petitioner availed the said part withdrawal from the Provident Fund for a specific purpose, if he does not make use for that purpose, but want to make more profit by depositing in another fixed deposit, there is a clear case of misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner was charge sheeted and an elaborate enquiry was conducted. Only thereafter, minor penalty was given. The petitioners revision petition was also rejected by a speaking order. 7. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proportionality of the punishment. As such, the judicial review is not available in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.