JUDGMENT S.K. Katriar, J.- This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1095 of 1998, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 23.12.1998, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 4.12.1997, dismissing the petitioner from services of the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") has been upheld. 2. The writ petition as well as the present appeal had been originally filed by Birendra Singh, former employee of the respondent Bank. He died during the pendency of the present appeal and has been substituted by his heir and legal representative, namely, his daughter, who is prosecuting the present appeal. We shall hereinafter describe him as the original appellant. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The original appellant was in the services of respondent Bank. He was posted as the Branch Manager of Kesharia Branch during the period 1985-88. He was transferred to another Branch. The Bank took a policy decision that the earlier Branch Manager should be retransferred to the same Branch for better recovery of loans. Under the scheme, the original appellant was retransferred to Kesharia Branch by order dated 13.9.1996, which he joined on 8.10.1996. In view of huge advances of loan, and very poor recovery, by the original appellant during his two postings at Kesharia Branch, he was served with charge-sheet on 16.5.1997. The original appellant did not participate in the enquiry proceeding leading to the enquiry report dated 5.9.1997 (Annexure-5), whereby the charges were held to have been proved. The learned disciplinary authority served second show-cause notice dated 15.9.1997, on the original appellant alongwith a copy of the enquiry report as to why the report be not accepted, and appropriate punishment be not inflicted upon him. The original appellant had shown cause by the communication dated 1.10.1997 (Annexure-3). On consideration of the entire materials, the learned disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 4.12.1997 (Annexure-2), whereby he was dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank. 4. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The original appellant had shown cause by the communication dated 1.10.1997 (Annexure-3). On consideration of the entire materials, the learned disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 4.12.1997 (Annexure-2), whereby he was dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank. 4. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The following two charges were framed against the original appellant :- 1- cSad i=kad 7203 fnå 13-9-96 ds ek/;e ls vkidh inLFkkiuk iqu% dslfj;k ‘kk[kk esa dh xbZ gS blds iwoZ o”kZ 1985 ls 88 rd ‘kk[kk izca/kd ds in ij inLFkkfir Fks vkSj vkids dk;Zdky esa ekså 97-45 dk _.k forj.k dk dk;Z fd;k x;k FkkA 30-6-96 dks vkidh ‘kk[kk dks _.k olwyh 11 izfr’kr Fkha [kjkc _.k olwyh ds dkj.kksa dh leh{kk djus ds i'pkr~ ;g eglwl fd;k x;k fd _.k forj.k esa visf{kr lko/kkuh ugha cjrus ds dkj.k gh _.k olwyh [kjkc gqbZ gSA _.k forj.k djus okys inkf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks iqu% inLFkkfir dj ,d volj fn;k x;k gS fd os _.k olwyh esa visf{kr lq/kkj ykosa fdUrq Qjojh 97 dks _.k olwyh ds leh{kksijkUr ;g Li”V gqvk gS dh dslfj;k ‘kk[kk dh _.k olwyh ek= 2-5 gSA Li”V gS fd volj nsus ds ckotwn vkids }kjk _.k olwyh c<+kus ds fy, visf{kr ifjJe ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA ;gh dkj.k gS fd dslfj;k ‘kk[kk dh dqy ek¡x 119-46 yk[k ds fo:} ek= 3-05 yk[k dh olwyh gks ldh gS tks dqy ek¡x 2-5 izfr’kr gSA Qjojh 97 rd cSad i=kad 67-28 fnukad 4-9-96 ds }kjk 25 izfr’kr _.k olwyh dk y{;kad fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] y{;kad ds fo:} dh xbZ olwyh vlarks”kizn gSA 2- vkids inLFkkfir ‘kk[kk esa o”kZ 1967&97 esa dksbZ _.k forj.k blfy;s ugha gks ldk D;ksafd vkids }kjk cM+sa iSekus ij iwoZ esa forfjr _.kksa dh olwyh o”kZ 1995&96 esa 30 izfr’kr ls de gqbZ FkhA 1-7-95 ls Qjojh 97 rd ftu ‘kk[kk dh olwyh 40 izfr’kr ,oa blds Åij gqbZ iw.kZ fopkkj dj _.k forj.k dk;Z izkjaHk fd;k x;kA ijUrq vkidh mnklhurk ,oa ykijokgh ds dkj.k Qjojh 1997 rd olwyh esa oakfNr lq/kkj ugha vk;kA QyLo:i 1996&97 esa vkids ‘kk[kk esa dksbZ _.k forj.k ugha fd;k tk ldkA bl izdkj vkius o”kZ 1996&97 esa _.k forj.k dk;Zdze okf/kr fd;kA 5. The learned disciplinary authority passed a detailed order whereby he reviewed the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The learned disciplinary authority passed a detailed order whereby he reviewed the entire facts and circumstances of the case. It appears to us that seven dates had been fixed by the learned Enquiry Officer. The original appellant had appeared only on 7.6.1997, and requested for two weeks’ adjournment to enable him to file a show cause. As requested, the matter was adjourned to 22.8.1997, whereafter either by oral communication or telephonic message, he requested for further adjournment. He never filed his show-cause, as a result of which learned enquiry officer felt constrained to dispose of the enquiry proceeding in absence of the original appellant. The contemporaneous records maintained in the regular course of business disclose that he had advanced huge sums of loans during the course of his previous posting, and the recovery was very poor during both his postings at Kesharia Branch. The learned Enquiry Officer as well as the learned disciplinary authority had found that he had made no attempt to recover the loans. They also found that the loans had been advanced without proper verification and documentation. They also found that he had made little attempt to realize the outstanding loans, which were the result of his poor appreciation as the Branch Manager on the previous occasions. Due to such a lackadaisical approach on the part of the original appellant, heavy amounts were not recovered and the Bank suffered huge sums. We entirely agree with the view of the learned disciplinary authority that he is not fit to be retained in service and has rightly been dismissed from service. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank rightly submits that the original appellant has not laid the factual foundation, either in the writ petition or in the memorandum of appeal before us with regard to the oral submissions before us that the principles of natural justice were not observed. He is further right in his submission that this Court in exercise of judicial power does not act as a court of appeal and is confined to limited issues, namely, whether or not well-crystallized charges were served on the delinquent official, adequate opportunity was afforded to him to place his case before the learned enquiry officer, the prescribed procedure was followed, and appropriate punishment has been inflicted. We find no deficiency on these counts. We find no deficiency on these counts. It is difficult for this Court to countenance a situation where the employee considers himself to be in employment only for his salary and perquisites. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and Others, (1997)4 SCC 565 . 7. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Birendra Prasad Verma, J.- I agree.