ORDER P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. The Petitioner while serving as Assistant Secretary/Manager, Office of Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhopal on deputation was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry and has been charged with an attempt to defrauding the Bank by submitting bogus TA bills and forged transport receipts and failed to return original Bank's documents taken by him for corrections. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding that all the charges leveled against the Petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(i) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short 1976 Regulations'). In appeal, the appellate authority has held that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is little harsh and, as such awarded punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" under Regulation 4(h) of 1976 Regulations. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is challenging punishment order dated March 3, 2004 (Annexure P-13) passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated September 27, 2004 (Annexure P-16) passed by the appellate authority on the ground that none of the charges leveled against him has been proved and the punishment awarded is harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct allegedly proved against the Petitioner, whereas no such attempt has been made by him to defraud the Bank by submitting bogus TA bills and forged transport receipts and prayed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 3. Fact briefly stated are that in the year 2002 the Petitioner was working as an Officer/Manager of Central Bank of India and was posted at Sagar. In the month of May, 2002 he was transferred from Sagar to Bhopal and was posted as Manager/Assistant Secretary in the Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhopal, on deputation. In pursuant to the transfer order he joined at Bhopal on May 27, 2002. He transported his household goods through one Shri Sudhir Kumar Katyayani, owner of Narvade Transport Company, besides being known as an agent of TCI. Shri Sudhir Kumar Katyayani was known to him as daughters of both of them were friends and class-fellows. Shri Katyayani agreed to transport the household goods of the Petitioner through TCI from Sagar to Bhopal for a freight of ` 5,000/-. Shri Sudhir Kumar Katyayani was known to him as daughters of both of them were friends and class-fellows. Shri Katyayani agreed to transport the household goods of the Petitioner through TCI from Sagar to Bhopal for a freight of ` 5,000/-. Accordingly the goods were loaded by his labour in the night of June 22, 2002 from Sagar. The goods were delivered in the morning of June 23, 2002 to his wife at Bhopal and freight of ` 5,000/- was paid to him. He handed over MTR No. 9982 and Money Receipt No. 9582 dated June 22, 2002 to his wife Smt. Kavita Purswani. The Petitioner reached Bhopal on June 25, 2002 and submitted his transfer TA bill along with the said MTR and the Money Receipt on July 1, 2002. The Petitioner submitted transfer Bill dated July 1, 2002 for ` 10,826/- to Chief Manager - PRS, Zonal Office, Bhopal for its sanction claiming therein ` 5,000/- for transporting his household goods which were booked by him vide MTR No, 9982 dated June 22, 2002 at Sagar and delivery of goods was made at Bhopal on June 23, 2002 at his permanent residence at Bhopal. On July 15, 2002 he was telephonically informed by Manager (PRS), Zonal Office, Bhopal about some discrepancy in the MTR and Money Receipt. He submitted a letter requesting therein to give him back the original MTR and M.R. for rectification of discrepancies out of the sanctioned T.A. Bill and took back the original MTR No. 9982 along with money receipt No. 9582 from PRS Department, Zonal Office, Bhopal for the purpose of rectification. He further handed over the said MTR and Money Receipt of TCI to Shri Sudhir Kumar Katyayani for rectification. On August 27, 2002 he contacted the transporter. He was told that the said MTR and money receipt have been cancelled and he was handed over MTR No. 27 and money receipt dated June 22, 2002 issued by New Omega Transport and Packers to him. On August 28, 2002 he informed the factual position to Chief Manager (PRS) and withdrew his claim, for reimbursement of ` 5,000/- against MTR of TCI. 4. On August 28, 2002 he informed the factual position to Chief Manager (PRS) and withdrew his claim, for reimbursement of ` 5,000/- against MTR of TCI. 4. On September 16, 2002 (Annexure-P-I) the Management issued memorandum to the effect that he did not transport his household goods from Sagar to Bhopal and submitted forged and bogus MTR and money receipt and is in unauthorized possession of Bank's documents i.e. original copy of MTR No. 9982 and money receipt No. 9582 dated June 22, 2002 and show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The said show cause notice was replied by him on September 24, 2002 (Annexure-P-2) stating that on September 16, 2002 he came to know that the MTR and money receipt of TCI were fake and forged. He immediately filed written complaint at Police Station, Kolar Road, Bhopal on September 23, 2002 (Annexure-P-3) against Sudhir Kumar Katyayani for cheating him by issuing him fake and forged MTR and money receipt of TCI. The police registered a Criminal Case vide FIR No. 27/03 (Annexure P-4) on January 16, 2003 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against Sudhir Kumar Katyayani. 5. The Respondents not being satisfied with the reply of the Petitioner proposed to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him, issued a memorandum dated January 13, 2003 (Annexure-P-5) along with the Article of Charges, statement of imputation of misconduct and list of Management witnesses and documents. The charge-sheet contains following allegations against the Petitioner: In order to get pecuniary gains by defrauding the Bank, Shri Purushwanai submitted Transfer T.A. Bill dated July 1, 2002 for ` 10,826/- to PRS Department, Zonal Office, Bhopal for its sanction claiming therein ` 5,000/- for transporting his household goods from Sagar to Bhopal by enclosing forged and bogus MTR purported to have been issued by TCI Ltd. Further on becoming apprehensive that the matter of his submitting forged and bogus MTR has come to light, by submitting a letter to get the MTR rectified, he took the original MTR and subsequently informed the Bank that he is not in a position to return the game. Subsequently to mislead and misrepresent the fact, he submitted, another MTR issued by New Omega Transport and Packers informing that his household goods have been transported through Omega Transport and Packers. Subsequently to mislead and misrepresent the fact, he submitted, another MTR issued by New Omega Transport and Packers informing that his household goods have been transported through Omega Transport and Packers. Thus by making a false statement and submitting forged and bogus MTR and money receipt thereof, he made an attempt to defraud the Bank for his pecuniary gains and by not returning the MTR of TCI Ltd. is in unauthorized possession of Bank documents. The above act on the part of Shri Purushwani constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. 6. Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 reads as under: 3(1). Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. 24. A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. 7. A detailed enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and he contested the charges. The Enquiry Officer gave following findings in its enquiry report dated September 27, 2003 (Annexure P-10) which reads as under: Reasoning and Findings On going through the various arguments of PO and AO the undersigned find that -- 1. The CSO submitted his claim of transfer TA bill on the basis of defective MTR and money receipt which later on proved bogus and forged. The mala fide intention of claiming freight on the basis of bogus MTR of TCI is evident as defence witness contradicted truck size and could not reveal truck number. CSO himself did not mention truck number in his defence statement. 2. (a) Who managed booking and loading of goods at Sagar and by which truck? (b) Why CSO did not contact office of TCIW at Sagar? (c) Why truck number was not noticed by CSO or any of the defence witnesses? (d) Why list of goods was not given to transporter? (e) Why one copy of MTR was not taken by CSO at Sagar? All these question remained unreplied during the course of inquiry which proved mala fide intention CSO. 3. (c) Why truck number was not noticed by CSO or any of the defence witnesses? (d) Why list of goods was not given to transporter? (e) Why one copy of MTR was not taken by CSO at Sagar? All these question remained unreplied during the course of inquiry which proved mala fide intention CSO. 3. It is advanced by defence side during the course of inquiry that goods were transported by truck No. MP-4-K-2079 of New Omega Transport and Packers which contradicts CSO's claim. Hence arguments of defence side that MTR was prima facie in order and CSO took the same in good faith, are not tenable. 4. Since the intention of CSO was mala fide, he took the original MTR and money receipt of TCI back from PRS Dept., Bhopal on the pretext of getting the same rectified and did not return the same. 5. To mislead and misrepresent the fact he submitted another MTR issued by New Omega and Transport and Packers. It is evident from contradictions made in cross-examination by defence witnesses that goods were not transported from Sagar to Bhopal by any truck. Lodging the FIR against Shri Sudhir Kumar Katyayani for defence of CSO, seems to be an afterthought. 6. Thus, by making false statement and submitting forged and bogus MTR and money receipt of TCIW, CSO made an attempt to defraud the Bank for his pecuniary gains and by not returning the MTR of TCIW. Hence charge leveled against the SCO vide memo No. PRS/DAD/2002-03/813 dated January 13, 2003 along with Annexure-I and II is proved in toto. The defence side has been allowed fullest natural justice and equal opportunity during the course of inquiry. However, their demand for providing the written briefs of PO, could not be acceded because no such provision is available in CBI OE (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It was also informed to CSO vide letter dated August 19, 2003. 8. The disciplinary authority after appreciating the reply of the Petitioner passed the order of punishment on March 3, 2004 (Annexure P-13) inflicting punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(i) of 1976 Regulations. 9. The Petitioner challenged the order of punishment dated March 3, 2004 (Annexure P-13) by filing an appeal before the appellate authority on April 12, 2004 1 (Annexure P-14). 9. The Petitioner challenged the order of punishment dated March 3, 2004 (Annexure P-13) by filing an appeal before the appellate authority on April 12, 2004 1 (Annexure P-14). The appellate authority by its order dated September 27, 2004 (Annexure P-16) has refused to interfere on merits, but has interfered with the quantum of a punishment and keeping in view his long tenure with the Bank, he is awarded the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" under Regulation 4(h) instead of punishment of "Removal from service" and modified the punishment awarded to the Petitioner. 10. It is admitted case of both the parties that MTR No. 9982 (M. Exhibit 3) and money receipt No. 9582 dated June 22, 2002 (M. Exhibit 4) produced by the Petitioner were forged/fake. It is also not in dispute that Petitioner had taken back the original MTR and money receipt from the Bank and handed over the same to the transporter who did not return the same thereafter. It is also correct that after receipt of show cause notice dated September 16, 2002 from the Bank, the Petitioner lodged an FIR against Sudhir Kumar Katyayani and a case under Section 420 of IPC has been registered against him vide FIR No. 27/03. It is also not disputed by learned Counsel for the parties that claim for reimbursement of ` 5,000/- against MTR No. 9982 and M.R. No. 9582 dated June 22, 2002 of TCI has been withdrawn and no amount was paid to the Petitioner. 11. The Respondents' plea was that the forged and fake documents were produced by the Petitioner for pecuniary gains by defrauding the Bank and he by submitting bogus TA bills and forged transport receipt made an attempt to defraud the Bank and he was in unauthorized possession of Bank's document and the above act on the part of the Petitioner constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(i) of 1976, Regulations. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be sustained as the enquiry itself was held in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that there was no evidence worth the name to sustain the charge framed against the Petitioner and, therefore, the findings are perverse particularly as no reasonable person could have come to these findings on the basis of the evidence brought on record. 13. It is also contended that there was no evidence worth the name to sustain the charge framed against the Petitioner and, therefore, the findings are perverse particularly as no reasonable person could have come to these findings on the basis of the evidence brought on record. 13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank, on the other hand, contended that the enquiry was held in consonance with the principles of natural justice and during the course of the enquiry, full opportunity was given to the Petitioner to defend himself. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority after appreciating the evidence which was brought on record gave a finding which cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. 14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceeding is extremely narrow and limited. The Court cannot, it is contended, re-examine or reappraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority on that evidence. 15. It is true that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of appellate authority, but, this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority. 16. It is well settled that in cases where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged, the question will be whether the administrative order is "rational" or "reasonable". The Courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary rote, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. The Courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary rote, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as arbitrary. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 17. 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. As was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 II LLJ 379, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very disciplinary of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its offices 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. 18. In the case at hand this Court has to see whether the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to the reasoning's and finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its report dated September 27, 2003 which is quoted by me in the preceding paragraph. 18. In the case at hand this Court has to see whether the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to the reasoning's and finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its report dated September 27, 2003 which is quoted by me in the preceding paragraph. He further submits that the reasoning's of the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner submitted his claim of transfer TA bills on the basis of defective MTR and money receipt is contrary to the evidence on record. In support of the said contention, he drew my attention to the deposition of R.B. Sharma, Chief Manager (PRS), Zonal Office, Bhopal (MW-1), who in reply to question No. 9 very specifically admitted that MTR and money receipt of TCI were prima facie in order when TA Bill was passed. It submitted that no sooner the Petitioner came to know that MTR No. 9982 (M. Exhibit 3) was not issued by the TCI, he immediately had taken back the original MTR and money receipt (M. Exhibit 4) and handed over the same to transporter Sudhir Kumar Katyayani, who later on did not return the same to the Petitioner and, therefore, he lodged an FIR at Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal against Sudhir Kumar Katyayani. This fact was proved by Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3), who had investigated the entire matter and before him Sudhir Kumar Katyayani, has confessed having received a sum of ` 5,000/- from the Petitioner for transportation of goods from Sagar to Bhopal. Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) gave following answers in respect of Questions No. 44, 47 and 50 which read as under: Vernacular matter omitted In respect of reasoning of enquiry office that the defence witnesses contradicted truck size and could not reveal truck number, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to the statement of Murli Purswani (D.W.I). D. W. 1 in answers to Questions No. 5, 31 and 66 very categorically stated that goods were transported through mini truck. All the defence witnesses in their depositions have stated that the vehicle which was used for transportation of goods was a mini or medium truck and not a full truck. D. W. 1 in answers to Questions No. 5, 31 and 66 very categorically stated that goods were transported through mini truck. All the defence witnesses in their depositions have stated that the vehicle which was used for transportation of goods was a mini or medium truck and not a full truck. In respect of reasoning of enquiry officer that defence witnesses contradicted truck number and could not reveal truck number, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) during the course of enquiry has deposed that during enquiry Sudhir Kumar Katyayani intimated him that goods were transported by truck No. MP-04-K-2079 (See Question No. 48). In answer to Question No. 49 Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) has deposed that during investigation Sudhir Kumar Katyayani has intimated that the goods were transported through truck No. MP-04-K-2079. As per M. Exhibit 9 this truck, belongs to Omega Transport and Packers. From this it is evident that in M. Exhibit 3 issued by Sudhir Kumar Katyayani truck number MP-15-D-9297 is mentioned, but goods were never transported by this truck nor transportation was made by TCI. It is not the case of the Bank that M. Exhibit 3 was never issued by Sudhir Kumar Katyayani or no criminal case against Sudhir Kumar Katyayani was registered for issuing forged MTR and M.R. of TCI and, therefore, it could not be said that the Petitioner with mala fide intention claiming freight on the basis of bogus MTR and M.R. of TCI submitted vide M. Exhibti 3 and M. Exhibit 4 to the Bank to cheat the bank. His intention was not mala fide. The Petitioner when came to know about some discrepancy regarding issue of his MTR and M.R. from Manager, PRS, he immediately requested to return the same for rectification.He got the MTR for getting rectification and handed over the said MTR to Sudhir Kumar Katyayani for rectification. This fact was un-rebutted and Bank failed to prove that the Petitioner in connivance with Sudhir Kumar Katyayani submitted forged and bogus MTR which was later on withdrawn by him. 20. R.D. Sharma, Chief Manager, PRS (M.W.1) in reply to Question No. 11 admitted that MTR and money receipt of TCI were given to the Petitioner for change of issue from Bhopal to Sagar, after going through M. Exhibit 6. 20. R.D. Sharma, Chief Manager, PRS (M.W.1) in reply to Question No. 11 admitted that MTR and money receipt of TCI were given to the Petitioner for change of issue from Bhopal to Sagar, after going through M. Exhibit 6. The relevant questions which were put to M. W. 1 and their answers read as under: Q. No. 13. Please inform whether the fact of sanction of the TA bill (MEX-2) was ever communicated to the member or was the amount of passed T.A. Bill credited to his account. A. I was not aware that the department sent it or not. Also as far as crediting the amount of TA bill to account of Shri Puruswani, I am not aware of the same.' Q. No. 14. Since you were the overall in-charge of the department, did you ever enquire about conveying sanction or crediting the amount from the department. A. As the supporting MTR and money receipt were handed over to the member for rectification, there was no question of conveying sanction or crediting the amount from the department. Q. 15. Do you agree that you have acceded to the request of the member to keep the TA bill pending non-credit of TA bill amount as per his letter (MEX-6). A. I had informed to the member that there were discrepancies in the MTR and money Receipt and therefore his TA bill is kept pending. Q. 16. Had the member taken any advance against transfer T.A. Bill. A. As per the T.A. Bill (Mex-2) no advance had been given to the member. Q. 19. There is mention of discrepancy in MEX-3, could you explain what is that discrepancy. A. The issuing office has been printed on MTR as Bhopal instead of Sagar. 21. From the above it is clear that M. Exhibit 2, M. Exhibit 3 and M. Exhibit 4 were duly returned by the Bank for removing certain discrepancies from the said document. From the statement of Murli Purswani (D.W.I), Manoj Ingle (D.W.2), Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) and Kavita Purswani (D.W.4) it has been duly proved that goods were booked and loaded by mini truck from Sagar to Bhopal and Petitioner has also proved the details of the goods which were transported from Sagar to Bhopal. From the statement of Murli Purswani (D.W.I), Manoj Ingle (D.W.2), Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) and Kavita Purswani (D.W.4) it has been duly proved that goods were booked and loaded by mini truck from Sagar to Bhopal and Petitioner has also proved the details of the goods which were transported from Sagar to Bhopal. The reasoning given by the enquiry officer in para 2 of its enquiry report that Question No. 2(a) to (e) remained unreplied, is incorrect. The enquiry officer failed to disclose that when did he or presenting officer asked these questions in the departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry no such questions were ever raised. The enquiry officer has raised certain questions in para 2(a) to (e) on the basis of his personal information and has drawn his own conclusion, whereas these questions were never asked by the enquiry officer or the presenting officer in the departmental enquiry nor these issues were raised in the departmental enquiry. 22. It is contended that the Petitioner has been serving with the Bank from last 20-25 years with unblemished record and there was no charge of misconduct against him prior to the present charge. It is submitted that the charge against the Petitioner was that he submitted his claim of transfer TA bill on the basis of defective MTR and money receipt with mala fide intention of claiming freight on the basis of bogus MTR of TCI. As per M.W.I, the discrepancy in M. Exhibit 3 (MTR No. 9982) was that the issuing office has been printed in MTR as Bhopal instead of Sagar. It was duly proved by the Petitioner that Sudhir Kumar Katyayani gave M. Exhibit 3 MTR No. 9982 and through PRS Deptt. he came to know that said receipt is bogus and forged one as the same was issued from Bhopal whereas it should have been issued from Sagar only. The Petitioner immediately filed an application for return of the same and thereafter he referred the same to Sudhir Kumar Katyayani, who refused to hand over the same and, therefore, he lodged an FIR on September 16, 2003 against said Sudhir Kumar Katyayani and a case against him was registered at Police Station, Kolar Road, Bhopal and these facts were a duly proved by the Petitioner and no motive was attached for producing of bogus and forged MTR. It is also to be borne in mind that later on transportation charges were never sanctioned by the Bank and said claim was withdrawn by him. Thus, it cannot be said that he was having any dishonest intention of claiming freight on the basis of bogus MTR of TCI. In such a situation to award the extreme punishment of dismissal according to the learned Counsel for Petitioner would not only amount to a disproportionate punishment but also should disturb conscience of this Court. The learned Counsel in support of his argument, that it is open to this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment in a given sets of facts, has relief upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. AIR 1983 SC 454 : (1983) 2 SCC 442 : 1983 II LLJ 1, Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386 : (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 I LLJ 256 and U.P. SRTC v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra AIR 2000 SC 1151 : (2000) 3 SCC 450 : 2000 I LLJ 1113. 23. The disciplinary authority in para 2 of its order of punishment dated March 3, 2004 gave a finding that argument of the defence is totally untenable since any man with common sense who transport his household goods will definitely know the type of truck, the truck number, the route by which the truck will be travelling etc. and the defence's contention that there is no need to know the truck number can only be evaluated as an argument for the sake of argument. On perusal of the evidence on record I found that these questions were never put by the enquiry officer or by the presenting officer and defence witnesses in their statements gave information that goods were transported by mini truck and also gave the details of the goods which were transported by the said mini truck. The Petitioner gave all the information about the transportation of the goods and the same was not disbelieved by any of the Management witnesses. The Petitioner gave all the information about the transportation of the goods and the same was not disbelieved by any of the Management witnesses. In respect of forged MTR bills the Petitioner by examining D.W.3 very specifically proved that he on coming to know about the said fact lodged a FIR and a criminal case is going on against the said person (Sudhir Kumar Katyayani) and he was not asked to explain why original document M. Exhibit 3 was not returned to the PRS Deptt. that was beyond control of the Petitioner as Sudhir Kumar Katyayani failed to return original MTR (M. Exhibit 3). Thereafter the Petitioner submitted transport receipt (M. Exhibit 9) and there is no evidence on record that the same was forged or bogus. The appellate authority considering the statements of defence witnesses and evidence on record gave the following finding in its order dated September 27, 2004 which reads as under: A perusal of the final orders of the Disciplinary Authority brings out that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the evidences produced by the parties. He has also discussed the relevant part in his findings. There is nothing to indicate that the evidence produced by him has not been examined and this ground is also without any merit. I have considered the other pleas raised by the Appellant in his appeal. He has laid a lot of stress on his assertion that he had established that he loaded the goods at Sagar and that the payment was actually given to the Transporter etc. Once the MTR and cash receipt is held to be forged/fake there is no question of shifting of onus of proof. These documents are admittedly forged and all other versions of the Appellant cannot undo the same. All these assertions of the Appellant do not bail him but of the charge against him that he enclosed forged/bogus MTR purported to have been issued by TCI Ltd. and that he did not return the original documents to the Bank which he had taken on the plea of getting the same rectified and that he submitted another MTR issued by New Omega Transport and Packers. Obviously, he made an attempt to fraud the bank for his pecuniary gains. The charges against him are proved and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are correct. Obviously, he made an attempt to fraud the bank for his pecuniary gains. The charges against him are proved and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are correct. However, on the question of quantum of punishment I have examined the whole case. After examining all the relevant circumstances I am of the view that the punishment awarded to the Appellant is little harsh. Keeping in view his long tenure with the Bank, the ends of justice would meet if he is awarded the punishment of "Compulsory retirement" under Regulation 4(h) instead of the punishment of "Removal from service". I modify the punishment awarded to the Appellant. The Appellant is awarded the punishment of "Compulsory retirement" under Regulation 4(h) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 24. From perusal of the aforesaid finding it is clear that the appellate authority examining the statements of Murli Purswani (D.W.I), Manoj Ingle (D.W.2), Sushil Kumar Mishra (D.W.3) and Kavita Purswani (D.W.4) gave a finding that the charges against the Petitioner are proved and the findings of the disciplinary authority are correct. 25. A perusal of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. (supra), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (supra), and U.P. SRTC v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra (supra) clearly shows that a Court sitting in appeal against a punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty, however, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court, then the Court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary authority or appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. It is also clear from the above-noted judgments of the Apex Court, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the Court would interfere in such a case. 26. Learned Counsel for the Respondents drew my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 569 : 2008 II LLJ 645 and State of Meghalaya and Ors. 26. Learned Counsel for the Respondents drew my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 569 : 2008 II LLJ 645 and State of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Meeken Singh N. Manak AIR 2008 SC 2862 : (2008) 7 SCC 580 and submitted that by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority grave misconduct committed by delinquent was satisfactorily proved. The said finding is a finding of fact which is not liable to be interfered with in this writ petition. It is also submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. But, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that this Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (supra) the Respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, pleaded guilty admitting the charges. It was on that premise that enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer he did not submit explanation of his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report for duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct and therefore, the Apex Court has held that once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality and observed that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order. 27. In the case of State of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Meeken Singh N. Manak (supra) the Respondent was a senior police officer. He was instructed by his Commandant to proceed to Shillong in a vehicle belonging to the department with other police personnel who were going to Shillong on platoon transfer with their arms and ammunition. Further Respondent was issued 0.38 bore revolver with 12 rounds. v. Meeken Singh N. Manak (supra) the Respondent was a senior police officer. He was instructed by his Commandant to proceed to Shillong in a vehicle belonging to the department with other police personnel who were going to Shillong on platoon transfer with their arms and ammunition. Further Respondent was issued 0.38 bore revolver with 12 rounds. It was also instructed to the Respondent to come back to Bn. Headquarter by the vehicle of the department along with other police personnel, but the Respondent disobeyed the instructions and travelled to Bn. Headquarter in a bus wherein not only he lost cash of ` 17,314/- but also his service revolver with 12 rounds of ammunition. In departmental enquiry the enquiry officer submitted report to the competent authority stating that the charges framed against the Respondent were duly proved. Thereafter the Respondent was removed from service by the competent authority and appeal against the said order of removal was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, Respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. In appeal, the Division Bench has set aside the order removing the Respondent from service and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to consider and inflict appropriate punishment and when the matter came to the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. Here the facts are entirely different and, therefore, those decisions will not be applicable in the present facts and c ircum stances of the case. 28. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases noted hereinabove, I see that in this case the Petitioner had been serving the Respondent-Bank with unblemished service record, before the present charge of misconduct was leveled against him. The charge itself shows what was alleged against the Petitioner was for submitting forged and bogus MTR receipts of TCI which was later on returned to the Petitioner and Petitioner handed over the said MTR to Sudhir Kumar Katyayani, who failed to return the same, therefore, he filed an FIR against him and at the time of enquiry a criminal case was pending against him. 29. 29. From the above, it cannot be said that he made attempt to defraud the bank or was in unauthorized possession of Bank's documents. The appellate Authority while considering the quantum of punishment came to the conclusion that misconduct of the nature alleged against the Petitioner, the punishment awarded to him is little harsh and awarded punishment of "compulsory retirement" under Regulation 4(h) of 1976 Regulations. I am of the considered view that the punishment of "compulsory retirement" on the facts of the present case is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and the same certainly shocks my judicial conscience. Hence, having considered the basis on which the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the Petitioner and the facts and the circumstances of this case, I think to avoid further prolonged litigation it would be appropriate if I modify the punishment myself. On the said basis I think it appropriate that the Petitioner be imposed a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. 30. With the above modification, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order of appellate authority insofar as it directs compulsory retirement of the Petitioner, stands substituted as ordered by me hereinabove. 31. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove, but without any order as to costs.