JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This case has a chequered history. ThePetitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the order of dismissal dated11.05.1991 (Annexure-2) passed against him without prior notice by theRegional Manager and Disciplinary Authority (O.P. No. 1), and Annexure-3dated 28.04.1995 wherein the said order of dismissal was modified to INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010]termination of service with three months' pay and allowance in lieu ofservice by the Zonal Manager, the Appellate Authority (O.P. No. 2). 2. This Court vide judgment dated 15th March, 2007 allowed the writ petition by quashing Annexures-2 and 3 and directing the opp.parties to reinstate the Petitioner in service. Against the said judgment, the opp.party-Bank preferred Civil Appeal No. 798 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The apex Court vide its order dated 12th August, 2009 set aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter to this Court to decide the same afresh. The relevant portion of the order passed by the apex Court is quoted below: ...swe cannot affirm the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench. It is, accordingly, set aside. However, Mr. J.R. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that he had other questions which were not argued as the writ petition was allowed on these two grounds. In this view of the matter, we remand the matter to the Division Bench for deciding it afresh in accordance with law where the so called other questions not raised before the High Court in the first round shall be allowed to be raised. There shall be no interim orders regarding the departmental inquiry or it's outcome. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised two questions for consideration by this Court, i.e., (i) the disciplinary proceeding has been completed without following the principles of natural justice; and (ii) the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges framed. 4. Mr. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opp.party-Bank submitted that principles of natural justice have been followed in the present case and considering the gravity of the charges punishment has been awarded which is not at all disproportionate. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, did not want to press the first question viz. non-observance of the principles of natural justice. He confined his argument to the second question viz. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, did not want to press the first question viz. non-observance of the principles of natural justice. He confined his argument to the second question viz. punishment awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges framed. Hence, the fresh question that is raised for determination by this Court is as to whether the punishment awarded against the Petitioner is disproportionate in the eye of law or not. Perusal of the writ petition does not reveal that any such ground has ever been taken by the Petitioner. There is also no pleading in the writ petition to the effect that the punishment awarded against the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges framed. In absence of such specific pleading and any material to that effect, we are unable to entertain the said point. Our view is fortified by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 281 Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others. The apex Court in the above case held as follows: B. Gochhayat v. The Regional Manager, Bank India [B.N,Mahapatra, J] ... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ Petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the Respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the CPC and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. Thus, the above point now raised before us by the Petitioner is not entertainable. 6. Thus, the above point now raised before us by the Petitioner is not entertainable. 6. Even if the issue relating to disproportionate punishment is permitted to be raised, it would yield no result in favour of the Petitioner, as the contention that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges framed is devoid of any merit. For better appreciation, it is relevant to reproduce here the charges framed against the Petitioner. 2. Your above acts of stealing bank's instruments and forging the signatures of the officers as aforesaid on the said instrument with a 282 view to defrauding the Bank in collusion with the said outsiders being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, amount to acts of gross misconduct in terms of Clause 19.5 (j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. 7. A cursory glance at the charge sheet reveals that the Petitioner had used the broken piece of Branch Receipt Scroll Rubber stamp to affix Lindsay Street Branch on CAN No. 226007. The Petitioner had also stolen the entire pad of CAN No. 4521 containing CA Ns bearing Nos. 226001 to 226050 from the Branch and kept the same in his residence. A sheet of paper containing false signatures was found in possession of the Petitioner from his residence. CAN 226012 bearing Lindsay Street Branch stamp favouring Shri Babaji Nayak purported to have been signed by the officials was also seized. The Petitioner was found in collusion with some outsiders, namely, Shri Maheswar Khillar, who impersonated himself as Babaji Nayak and Shri Pitambar Gochhayat and tried to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000/-dishonestly. Petitioner's handwriting was appearing in the forged instrument through which he had attempted to commit the fraud of Rs. 30,000/-in collusion with the said outsiders. Adequate hearing was given by the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner, and after a vivid discussion on the materials INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] on record, Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that all the charges framed against the Petitioner to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority while inflicting punishment of dismissal from service went through the entire proceeding, deposition of witnesses, enquiry report and appeal memo and after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner upheld the charges. In the departmental proceeding, the above charges were established. The Appellate Authority while inflicting punishment of dismissal from service went through the entire proceeding, deposition of witnesses, enquiry report and appeal memo and after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner upheld the charges. In the departmental proceeding, the above charges were established. Needles to say that a Bank employee is required to maintain higher standard of honesty and integrity as he deals with various depositors and customers. At this backdrop, this Court is required to examine as to whether the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate or not. The apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar held as follows: A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the 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 this Court in 283 Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik 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 discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers 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. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious... 8. Law is also well settled that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reason to come to such conclusion. Mere expression that "the punishment is shockingly disproportionate" would not meet the requirement of law. The question of interference on the quantum of punishment has been considered by the apex Court in a catena of decisions holding that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary, and thus, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. (See Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, ; Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ). (See Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, ; Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ). B. Gochhayat v. The Regional Manager, Bank India [B.N,MAHAPATRA, J] In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, the apex Court, after examining various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, observed that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the Court cannot "normally" substitute its own conclusion on penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an Authority "shocks the conscience" of the Court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, Court can also consider the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. 9. In the present case, the Petitioner who is a Bank employee is required to deal with money of the depositors and customers. He is also required to maintain higher standard of honesty and integrity and should do nothing that is unbecoming for a Bank employee. The charges proved against the Petitioner are so grave that the punishment of dismissal from service does not seem to be disproportionate. It does not shock to conscience of the Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed