Judgment 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in writ petition No.19385/2010 being aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2010, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition dated 23.02.2010 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-D. The order dated 28.04.2010 at Annexure-G made by respondent No.1 wherein the appellant has been imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement for his misconduct. The appellant has been Senior Manager at Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad. The charge memo was served upon him alleging that he had committed acts of misconduct enumerated therein from S1 Nos. 1 to 12. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant domestic enquiry was initiated and the appellant denied the charges. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to substantiate his contention before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer after considering the material on record held that the charges have been proved and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellant filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, it was also dismissed and being aggrieved by the said order of imposing penalty by the Appellate Authority, Writ Petition was filed contending that there was no motive and there was no allegation of lack of honesty and integrity and there was no loss to the bank and at the most the conduct may amount to negligence and the imposition of penalty imposed of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 2. Learned Single Judge after considered the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by order dated 27.09.2010 held that appellant holds the post of trust, where honesty and integrity are inherent and inbuilt requirements and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to take a lenient view in the matter. The material on record would clearly show that charges against the appellant have been proved and imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate as to shock conscious of the Court calling for interference and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Charges against the appellant had not been proved and if they are held to be proved the same may constitute only irregularity or negligence and not lack of honesty and integrity and there is no loss caused to the bank and the act of the appellant was only with an intention to improve the business of bank and there was no motive or intention or any misappropriation of the amount and therefore the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the material on record. 6. The material on record would clearly show that the charges frames against the appellant were as follows: “(a) According to the respondent nationalized bank, the petitioner opened a current account in the name of M/s VDP Marketing , a proprietary concern, without following the KYC norms; failed to obtain the credentials of the borrower; did not conduct inspection nor make a credit appraisal; yet sanctioned a term loan of Rs.10 Lakhs on 23.09.2004. Having failed to conduct a physical verification of the property offered as security, the title deeds when found to be fake, did not report to the Regional Officer and when repayments were not made, the account was classified as non-performing. (b) The petitioner purchased as many as 90 cheques amounting to 2.05 Crores on account of M/s. VDP Marketing and M/s. Bioshakthi Agro Products without sanctioned limit, but of which, 46 cheques amounting to Rs.1,53 Crores were beyond delegated power of the petitioner and many of the cheques purchased were returned unpaid. (c) The petitioner opened a current account in the name of M/s. SS Regency Bar and Restaurant without introduction and allowed a person other than the proprietor to operate that account while sanctioning a Wine Guarantee of Rs.8,87,000/- without verifying the credentials of the firm; conducting an inspection; physical inspection of the property offered as security and more importantly without the permission of the competent authority. The title deeds of the property offered as security were fake. The title deeds of the property offered as security were fake. Form A9D – extension of charge over the current assets of the firm was not obtained and when the amounts remained unpaid, the account was classified as non-performing account. (d) In the case of UCO shelter loan of Rs.5 Lakhs to Mrs. G. Sunitha, the petitioner failed to conduct a pre-sanction visit to the place of residence and employment of the borrower and guarantor. The salary certificate, Form – 16 – containing employment details, submitted by the borrower were found to be fake. The ID proof, address proof and attested photographs of the parties were not obtained. The petitioner did not obtain statement of account of the applicant for the preceding six months from her previous banker, which was compulsory under the scheme. In addition, post sanction inspection was not conducted and no process notes were placed on record. (e) Petitioner sanctioned a UCO shelter loan of Rs.8 Lakhs to Mr. Ashok Babu for purchase of flat, mortgaged to the bank for the securing loan, without a process note on record. The IT returns submitted by the borrower were found to be fake. The loan application was kept blank without the signature of the applicant. The approval for construction was not obtained and the amount released without verifying the end use, was following by a failure of the petitioner to submit ST-47 to the Controlling Office. (f) The petitioner sanctioned a UCO shelter loan of Rs.15 Lakhs to Mr. G. Venugopal and Smt. G. Sudha for acquiring 3 shops for commercial purpose violating the scheme. The statement of accounts from the previous bankers of the parties for the last preceding six months were not obtained, though compulsory under the scheme. The distribution of Rs.15 Lakhs against sale consideration of Rs.97,000/- without income verification and six cheques deposited towards loan repayment, remained unpaid.” 7. The material on record would further show that the said charges have been proved as the defence of the appellant herein in the domestic enquiry was that he had no motive or intention to cause loss to the bank and he was interested in the development of the business of the bank and there is no lack of integrity and honesty. There is concurrent finding by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge on the question of fact that charges against the appellant have been proved. So far as the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon by the appellant is concerned, it is well settled that when the appellant was holding the post of trust as a Senior Manager in a Nationalised Bank, wherein the customer comes and deposits the amount trusting the official of the bank, if lenient view is taken, the same would erode the confidence of the customers of the bank and may amount to loss of business. In view of the fact that there was no loss to the bank would not by itself is not a ground to take a lenient view in the matter and all the material on record is taken into account as a whole while imposing penalty of compulsory retirement and no major punishment of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and therefore, penalty imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and conscious of the Court calling for interference for reduction of punishment. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any irregularity calling for interference. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.