Judgment :- This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.14735/2000 being aggrieved by the order dated 4/08/2003 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 3-7-1999 passed by the second respondent and dismissed the writ petition. 2. The material facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the learned Single Judge are as follows: The appellant herein was working as Branch Manager at Chittur branch of the first respondent-Bank. A charge memo was issued against him on 6-11-1997 for having committed certain irregularities while granting loans in the names of fictitious persons and also committed financial irregularities and action may be taken against him. The writ petitioner replied to the said charge memo on 18-12-1997. Since the reply was not found satisfactory, disciplinary enquiry was held. In the disciplinary enquiry, writ petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had not committed any misconduct and he had granted loans in accordance with law as per the directions in order to reach the quota that had been given to him and he had developed the branch and has not committed any misconduct. 4. The enquiry officer considered 74 instances of misconduct and held that 43 of them were proved, 13 were proved in part and 18 were not proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry office and ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the appellate authority and the said appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, writ petition is filed contending that the petitioner has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents and to go through the records before submitting his reply to the charge. He was also not afforded sufficient opportunity in the enquiry, all the instances of irregularities are baseless and charge had not been proved. It was also contended that out of 239 accounts. 223 accounts had been closed and the Bank had recovered the entire loan amount and it was also contended that punishment imposed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct held to have been proved by the enquiry officer. 5. It was also contended that out of 239 accounts. 223 accounts had been closed and the Bank had recovered the entire loan amount and it was also contended that punishment imposed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct held to have been proved by the enquiry officer. 5. The petition was resisted by the respondents by filing detail statement of objections denying the averments made in the writ petition and enumerated that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents. He was also granted sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case before the enquiry officer and there was no allegation of error or irregularity in conducting the enquiry and enquiry officer has held that out of 74 instances of misconduct. 43 had been proved. 13 had been partly proved and 18 had not been proved which had been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed is also commensurate with the charge of misconduct as the petitioner was working as Manager of the bank and he was holding the position of trust and he is guilty of financial misconduct and such persons cannot be continued in the services of the Bank. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 4-8-2002 considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner before him and held that the petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. There was no merit in the contention that since no action has been taken in respect of the subordinate offices, no action should be taken against the petitioner as the same is discriminatory. The learned Single Judge also held that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India ( (1995) 6 SCC 749 ) and other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge held that scope of interference in respect of the disciplinary enquiry and punishment is limited and in the present case, the order holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and imposing punishment is justified and does not call for interference. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that petition fails and dismissed the petition. The learned Single Judge held that scope of interference in respect of the disciplinary enquiry and punishment is limited and in the present case, the order holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and imposing punishment is justified and does not call for interference. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that petition fails and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ appeal is filed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the reply arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents so as to enable him to reply the charge effectively and further, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner had not been proved and out of 239 accounts, 223 accounts had been closed and the Bank had recovered the entire amount and no action was taken against subordinates who are also guilty of the same charges and therefore, the action against the petitioner is discriminatory. The learned counsel further submitted that the charge memo was not supported with the documents and necessary papers have not been supplied with the charge memo and therefore, opportunity was not given on every step of the disciplinary enquiry and punishment is disproportionate. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is liable to be set aside as the respondent had taken a decision to impose a lesser punishment than dismissal from service and on the advisory report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, action has been taken for dismissal from service and report/advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer is not supplied to him which is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by him in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan ( AIR 1991 SC 471 ) and State Bank of India vs D.C. Aggarwal (1992 LAB IC 2585) wherein it is held that when the disciplinary authority has acted on the advice of the Vigilance Officer, advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer ought to have served upon the employee before taking a decision to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 9. 9. In response to the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the material on record would clearly show that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents which were served upon him along with the charge. He was afforded sufficient opportunity at every stage of the enquiry and he has participated and he did not raise any objection of noncompliance of natural justice or want of opportunity at any stage of the through the disciplinary enquiry. The learned counsel contended that though the accounts have been closed as contended by the appellant, the fact that appellant had committed misconduct and financial irregularities have been proved and therefore, imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is justified and the appellant, if continued, would have attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. The learned counsel further contended that disciplinary authority has not acted upon the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer and having regard to the nature of charges, advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer was sought at the first and second stage and independent decision has been taken by the disciplinary authority and disciplinary authority has not acted on the dictation of the Chief Vigilance Officer and therefore, the order of dismissal is entitled to be confirmed. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. S.N. Goyal ( AIR 2008 SC 2594 ) wherein it is held that the advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer is only advisory and the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have acted on the dictation of the Chief Vigilance Officer. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has again reiterated that the advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer ought to have been communicated before enhancing the punishment proposed and taking decision on the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer and therefore, to that extent, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside and the order of punishment may be modified accordingly. 11. We have given our careful considerations to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. 12. 11. We have given our careful considerations to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. 12. The material on record would clearly show that the charge memo was served upon the appellant and since reply was not found to be satisfactory, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated. The material on record would also show that along with the charge, the supporting documents have also been furnished and sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the appellant to inspect the documents before giving reply to the charge memo on 18-12-1997. Further, at every stage, the appellant has been given sufficient opportunity before the enquiry officer. The appellant was working as bank Manager and if at all he had not been given any opportunity at every stage of the disciplinary enquiry, he would not have failed to raise objection at the appropriate stage that sufficient opportunity has not been afforded to him before proceeding further in the enquiry. Further, the reply advanced by the appellant would clearly show that even according to him, there were financial irregularities and out of 239 accounts, 223 accounts had been closed and the Bank has recovered the entire amount and no charges were framed against the subordinate officers who were also guilty of the same misconduct and discriminatory action has been taken against the appellant is also baseless as the mere fact that no action has been taken in respect of his subordinates would not absolve the appellant from the charges that have been proved against him. The enquiry officer after considering the evidence adduced before him, has held that out of 74 instances of misconduct, 43 have been proved, 13 have been partly proved and 18 had not been proved and the disciplinary authority has considered the enquiry report and accepted the same and caused the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge, on detail consideration of the contentions raised by the appellant in the writ petition, has rightly rejected the same and the same is justified. 13. The learned Single Judge, on detail consideration of the contentions raised by the appellant in the writ petition, has rightly rejected the same and the same is justified. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has made available the original records pertaining to reference of the matter to Chief Vigilance Officer and it is clear from the perusal of the said records that in the first stage, advice was sought from the Chief Vigilance Officer by letter dated 28-7-1997 and the same was given approval and thereafter, after accepting the enquiry report, second stage advice was sought from the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Chief Vigilance Officer, after considering the proposal made, has communicated the advice on 1-6-1999 advising that since the delinquent employee has manipulated the accounts and sanctioned loans to parties whose whereabouts are not known, he feels that CSO deserves a higher punishment and therefore it is advised to the disciplinary authority to examine the case and propose appropriate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has applied its mind and arrived at the decision of dismissal from service having regard to the proved misconduct and has accordingly imposed the same by order dated 3-7-1999 which has been confirmed in appeal. 14. It is clear from the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan ( AIR 1991 SC 471 ) and State Bank of India vs. D.C. Aggarwal (1992 LAB IC 2585) that when the order of dismissal is based on the dictation or at the instance of the advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer, in view of the independent consideration by the disciplinary authority. Order of dismissal would be vitiated and therefore, copy of the advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer has to be supplied to the employee. Order of dismissal would be vitiated and therefore, copy of the advice given by the Chief Vigilance Officer has to be supplied to the employee. However, having regard to the above said facts of the case, as the disciplinary authority had proposed punishment of removal from service which was not a disqualification for future employment and the disciplinary authority was advised by the Chief Vigilance Officer by letter dated 1-6-1999 that delinquent officer may require a higher punishment and it was open to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision to impose punishment that is commensurate with the proved misconduct, the material on record would clearly show that disciplinary authority has independently applied its mind and has not acted upon on the dictate of the Chief Vigilance Officer as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. Having regard to the above stated facts of the case, It is clear that principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. S.N. Goyal ( AIR 2008 SC 2594 ) are aptly applicable to the facts of this case on all fours. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “23. The reply dated 7-2-1995 from the Chief Vigilance Officer also makes it clear that he neither issued any direction to the appointing authority to impose a higher punishment nor altered the finding regarding guilt. He merely gave his opinion that the gravity of the proved charge did not warrant leniency and therefore, suggested that the quantum of penalty may be examined again. The subsequent note put up by the disciplinary authority on 2-5-1995 and the order passed thereon by the appointing authority on 3-5-1995 imposing the penalty of removal, show that they were on independent consideration of the question. Neither the note dated 2-5-1995 nor the order dated 3-5-1995 refer to the opinion or the view expressed by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank. Nor is there any material to show that the order imposing punishment was on the dictates of the Chief Vigilance Officer. There was no mechanical acceptance of any suggestion or advice by the Chief Vigilance Officer nor consideration of any extraneous material as assumed by the courts below. The Appointing Authority is required to inform the vigilance department in regard to cases involving vigilance department in regard to cases involving vigilance angle. There was no mechanical acceptance of any suggestion or advice by the Chief Vigilance Officer nor consideration of any extraneous material as assumed by the courts below. The Appointing Authority is required to inform the vigilance department in regard to cases involving vigilance department in regard to cases involving vigilance angle. The Appointing authority did so. But he did not seek any instruction, direction, suggestion or advice from the Vigilance Department. There was also no direction or circular or instruction requiring the Appointing authority to accept or act upon the suggestions or views of the Chief Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Department merely gave its comment or view that it was not a fit case for showing leniency and left it to the concerned authority to take a decision on the punishment to the imposed. So long as the decision was not on the dictates of the Vigilance Department or other outside authority, but on independent consideration, the order of removal cannot be faulted. It cannot be said that either the act of intimating the Vigilance Department about the enquiry or independently reconsidering the issue of penalty after receiving the views of the Vigilance Department amounted to be acting on extraneous material, or acting on the advice or recommendation or direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer. 24. The assumption made by the High Court that the Appointing Authority had placed some undisclosed additional material before the Chief Vigilance officer is without any basis. The Enquiry Officer had found he respondent guilty of the charge on consideration of the evidence. The finding of guilt was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appointing Authority. This is not a case where any evidence or other material was sent to the Vigilance department seeking their decision or views on the question of guilt of the respondent. The issue relating to the respondent’s guilt was neither referred to the Vigilance Department nor did the Vigilance Department give any finding on the question of guilt. When the Disciplinary Authority and the Appointing Authority accepted the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer on examining the facts, even before the matter was informed to Vigilance department, It cannot be said that the said decision was influenced by any extraneous advice from Vigilance department. When the Disciplinary Authority and the Appointing Authority accepted the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer on examining the facts, even before the matter was informed to Vigilance department, It cannot be said that the said decision was influenced by any extraneous advice from Vigilance department. The issue on which the Vigilance department made its comment was on the limited ground whether any leniency should be shown in imposing punishment. No additional facts or material were placed by the Appointing Authority before the Vigilance Department for this purpose. Further, the Vigilance Department merely expressed the view that the gravity of the charge did not warrant leniency and the authority should examine the matter. Therefore, the assumption by the High Court that the Appointing Authority had placed some material not put to the respondent before the Chief Vigilance Officer and that the Chief Vigilance Officer had issued any direction to the Appointing authority on the basis of such material, is baseless. 25. The disciplinary authority made available the Enquiry report to the respondent to enable him to make his submissions on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent made his submission in regard to the enquiry report. The correspondence between the Appointing Authority and Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank was not ‘material’ on which the finding regarding guilt/misconduct was based. Such correspondence was subsequent to the Enquiry report. There was no compulsion or requirement that the Appointing Authority should consult the Chief Vigilance officer or act as per his recommendations or directions. Nor was there any direction by the Chief Vigilance Officer to impose any specific direction. Therefore, non furnishing of copies of the correspondence between the Appointing Authority and the Chief Vigilance officer to the respondent, did not violate principles of natural justice nor vitiate the order of penalty.” In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the above stated facts of this case. It is clear that there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and pass the following: Order The writ appeal is dismissed.