JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who was appointed as a Driver-cum-Peon in the Indian Bank and posted in Branch Tijori district Meerut at the relevant time, has sought the quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Assistant General Manager by which he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 4th June, 2011 by which the appeal filed by him for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. 2. It transpires that on 5th May, 2009 directions were issued to the petitioner, when he was deputed as a Cash Peon in the Currency Chest of the Bank at Meerut, to carry forty bundles of Rs. 100/- notes from the Chest Vault to the Sorting Hall. In the evening cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- was detected in the cash withdrawn from the Chest Vault and when even after physical search and questioning of the staff, the whereabouts of the shortage could not be determined, CCTV footage was viewed in which it was seen that the petitioner was pocketing one section of Rs.100/- notes. A charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2009 was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner for misappropriation of cash on 5th May, 2009 while he was working as a Cash Peon in the Meerut Currency Chest and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6th July, 2010 that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. A letter dated 7th July, 2010 was then sent to the petitioner by the Chief Manager of the Bank requiring the petitioner to submit his comments on the said report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a reply and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order dated 30th September, 2010 dismissing the petitioner from service, which order is as follows : “A charge-sheet No. COL/VG/207/2009 was issued on 4.12.2009 to Shri Anil Kumar for misappropriation of cash on 5.5.2009 while working as cash peon at Meerut Currency Chest. The cash shortage was detected in the evening of 5.5.2009 and when after physical search and questioning of the staff no whereabouts of the cash was known, the CCTV footage was viewed wherein Sri Anil Kumar was clearly seen pocketing one section of Rs.100/- denomination. Thus, establishing willful removal with the intention of stealing Rs.10,000/- by Sri Anil Kumar. The cash shortage was detected in the evening of 5.5.2009 and when after physical search and questioning of the staff no whereabouts of the cash was known, the CCTV footage was viewed wherein Sri Anil Kumar was clearly seen pocketing one section of Rs.100/- denomination. Thus, establishing willful removal with the intention of stealing Rs.10,000/- by Sri Anil Kumar. CSE maintains that there was no shortage of cash on 5.5.2009 as such he is not guilty of any misappropriation. I observe that cash shortage on 5.5.2009 was reported by the then Branch Manager in his letter dated 8.5.2009 addressed to the Circle Head, Lucknow Circle and also supported by the statements of the staff members and other evidence. The contention of the CSE that the packet removed by him was given to him by Smt. Santosh Kumari certainly does not hold any ground because why this matter was not reported to the enquiry officer while deposing before him on 12.5.2009. Also the CCTV footage at no place shows Smt. Santosh Kumari handing over the packet to the CSE instead it is noticed that CSE was removing packet and keeping inside his own pocket. I also take into cognizance the CCTV footage which clearly shows the CSE pocketing one section of Rs.100/- denomination. The body language of the CSE at the time of removing the section is very clear indication of his intention and is irrefutable evidence. I, therefore, concur with the findings of the EO that the statement of witness Santosh Kumari does not seem to be true. I have gone through the enquiry records and perused the findings submitted by the EO. I concur with the findings of the EO. It is, therefore, proved, beyond doubt in the enquiry proceedings that Sri Anil Kumar did misappropriate Rs.10000/- cash on 5.5.2009. Another opportunity was given to him during the personal hearing held on 27.9.2010, where in also he failed to present any material evidence as to why a different view should be taken from the findings of the enquiry. The CSE displayed total absence of integrity and loyalty towards the Bank while misappropriating the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5.5.2009. By his act the CSE broke the trust of Bank that had been placed on him. Hence the CSE is liable for strict punishment under the provisions of “The Memorandum of Settlement Disciplinary Action and Procedure dated 10.4.2002. The CSE displayed total absence of integrity and loyalty towards the Bank while misappropriating the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5.5.2009. By his act the CSE broke the trust of Bank that had been placed on him. Hence the CSE is liable for strict punishment under the provisions of “The Memorandum of Settlement Disciplinary Action and Procedure dated 10.4.2002. Therefore, I hold him guilty of misconduct under clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement-Disciplinary Action and procedure dated 10.4.2002. In view of the above, and taking into account all relevant facts I impose upon him the punishment of “DISMISSAL WITHOUT NOTICE” under clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement-Disciplinary Action and procedure dated 10.4.2002. The punishment comes into immediate effect. He will be treated on suspension only from date of suspension till 30.9.2010.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 4th June, 2011, the relevant portion of which is as follows : “The appellant contended that one packet of Rs.100/- denomination was stapled with pins and Mrs. Santosh Kumari had given that packet to him to remove the pins as packet with pins could not be exchanged. The packet belongs to Mrs. Santosh Kumari and it might not be mixed with other sorting bundles hence, it was pocketed by the Appellant at that time which was handed over to her after removing the pins from the packet. This fact was very much informed to the investigating officer but he did not given place of this fact in his report. The shortage was deposited by the Branch Manager. The shortage amount of Rs.10000/- was no where mentioned in the record of the Bank. Out of his terminal benefits Rs.10000/- was deducted and kept in the Sundries account. No where in the records of the Bank any amount is outstanding as due to the Bank from him. He prayed that to get fair and justice from the Appellate Authority and obliged. After going through all the connected papers I observe the following: It is neither necessary nor mandatory to file FIR before initiating any DP Action or placing a staff under suspension. In currency chest, cash shortages have to be made good then and there. Lodging of FIR is neither mandatory nor necessary to initiate DP action. After going through all the connected papers I observe the following: It is neither necessary nor mandatory to file FIR before initiating any DP Action or placing a staff under suspension. In currency chest, cash shortages have to be made good then and there. Lodging of FIR is neither mandatory nor necessary to initiate DP action. Since money at Currency Chest is to be made good and no shortage can be reported to RBI, reporting of shortage has not been made. On 8.5.2009 Branch Manager has reported the shortage of cash as on 5.5.2009 and this is also supported by the statements of the staff members. As shortage of cash could not be traced out, Mr. Ramchandani, Manager brought cash from outside and made good the shortage. CSE is trying to take shelter under technicalities when the reality is that CSE has admitted his act and the Investigating Official recorded the admission in his report, with due witness. In the departmental enquiry, the said report was placed as Annexure-2, thus rendering necessary evidentiary value to the said admission. Camera Nos. 4 and 5 of CCTV covered the said incident and the recordings/footage recorded at 10.42.20 on 5.5.2009 clearly captured the acts committed by the appellant, pointed out the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the contention of the Appellant about the absence of coverage by other cameras is not maintainable. Enquiry Officer has observed in the brief that CSE was seen in CCTV recording pocketing Rs.100/- denomination currency. It is true that there was a shortage of Rs.10000/- in the cash which was brought on 5.5.2009 at sorting hall. Non entry in SR II in branch’s records or by mere refusal of defence witnesses the truth cannot be denied. Non entry in SR II may be a technical mistake. The statement of Ms. Santosh Kumari is confusing. If CSE had taken the currency for exchange, then why she had not revealed this fact during the initial process of enquiry? There is no mention of this exchanged amount entry in the currency chest record. The recording of CCTV was shown to CSE during the enquiry. Enquiry Officer has finally observed that on the basis of documentary evidence, statement of witnesses and CCTV recordings the charge against the CSE is proved. There is no mention of this exchanged amount entry in the currency chest record. The recording of CCTV was shown to CSE during the enquiry. Enquiry Officer has finally observed that on the basis of documentary evidence, statement of witnesses and CCTV recordings the charge against the CSE is proved. The contention of the appellant as to non-adherence to the clauses 11 and 12 of the Bipartite Settlement is not tenable as these clauses are properly adhered to in communicating to the CSE as well as in conducting the Departmental Proceedings. Though the contention of Ms. Santosh Kumari having given a packet of Rs.100/- was raised in the enquiry, the same was rejected as it did not have any proof. Enquiry Officer observed that there is no mention of this exchanged amount entry in the currency chest record. The contention of the appellant that his suspension was illegal as nothing has been done for the prosecution of the appellant is not tenable as Clause in the Bipartite Settlement pertaining to Suspension does not stipulate prosecution as a precondition for placing an employee under suspension. The Appellant made a representation on 8.3.2011 which is only an after though. He has repeated what was stated in his earlier appeal dated 15.11.2010. The Appellant could not produce any valid evidence or any new material facts during the personal hearing held on 8.3.2011 which could warrant reconsideration of the punishment awarded by the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the punishment given by the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority is upheld. The Appeal preferred by Mr. Anil Kumar is dismissed as one without merits.” These two orders dated 30th September, 2010 and 4th June, 2011 have been impugned in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact there was no shortage of cash in the Bank on 5th September, 2009 because when the cash vault was closed in the evening, a report was submitted by the Officer of the Bank to the Headquarters of the Bank as also the Reserve Bank of India in which shortage of cash was not mentioned and if there had been any shortage of cash a First Information Report would have been lodged. He has also submitted that infact Smt. Santosh Kumari Cashier had given the packet of Rs.100/- denomination to the petitioner for removing the pins and it is this packet which was kept by him in the pocket which act was seen in the CCTV footage. It is also his contention that the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated as the petitioner was not provided all the cassettes of the CCTV footage. 5. Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has, however, submitted that the charges against the petitioner were established in the disciplinary proceedings after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and the impugned orders do not call for interference, particularly when the charges relate to embezzlement of money. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is seen that on 5th May, 2009 the petitioner, who was deputed as a Cash Peon in the Currency Chest, was directed to carry 40 bundles of Rs.100/- denomination from the Chest Vault to the Sorting Hall and at the end of the day, shortage of Rs.10,000/- was detected. The matter was investigated on 12th May, 2009 by the Senior Manager (Security), Circle Office at Lucknow with reference to the letter dated 8th May, 2009 sent by the Meerut Branch to the Circle Head. The Senior Manager (Security) submitted a detailed report dated 13th May, 2009, taking into consideration the statements made by the staff members working in the Meerut Currency Chest namely two Officers, two Clerks and three Staff Members. 8. The statement given by the Branch Manager to the Senior Manager (Security), Circle Officer, Lucknow is as follows : “Sri Jagdish Ramchandani S.R. No. 13546, Branch Manager, Meerut Branch when asked about the incident stated as following: On 5.5.2009 at about 1730 hrs I was informed that one packet of Rs.100/- denomination has been found short in the cash which was taken out for sorting in the morning. The shortage was noticed while bundling the sorted notes in the evening. I immediately went to the currency chest where through search was already being done. Since the short packet could not be traced we took out the entire cash from the Bin No I-4 and checked it once again but could not find it. The shortage was noticed while bundling the sorted notes in the evening. I immediately went to the currency chest where through search was already being done. Since the short packet could not be traced we took out the entire cash from the Bin No I-4 and checked it once again but could not find it. After this all staff members present in the currency chest were questioned in the shortage but no body could tell how the shortage occurred. At this time reporting of figures to RBI and out Kanpur Branch was getting late as the time was already 18.15 hrs. I somehow managed the amount short and made good the cash before it was kept in the vault that evening. Since I had to proceed to Lucknow by evening train I advised the OIC currency Chest Sri S.K. Kapari to carefully go through the CCTV recordings with a view to ascertain the reason for shortage. Sri Kapari after going through the CCTV recordings informed me that on 5.5.2009 at 10:42:20 Sri Anil Kumar pocketed one section from the cash kept in the sorting hall. The same thing was also verified through other camera recordings. After verification of this fact, I reported the matter to CO Security Officer telephonically on 8.5.2009 followed by a FAX dated 8.5.2009.” 9. The statement given by the petitioner to the Senior Manager (Security), Circle Officer, Lucknow is as follows : “Sri Anil Kumar S.R. 40395 Driver, Meerut Branch when asked about the incident stated as following: I have been working as a driver of the cash van for the last 19 years. After the cash van was disposed off, I am working as a peon in the Currency Chest. On 5.5.2009 I was instructed to carry 40 bundles of Rs.100 denomination to sorting hall for sorting purpose. I took all the 40 bundles to the sorting hall and as per the usual practice, I started to cut the rubber bands twine tied on each section. While I was doing so Sri Ram Kishan called me to help him in operating the sorting machine. Since the machine could not be activated, Sri S.K. Kapari, OIC Currency Chest decided that the sorting will be taken up manually. In the evening while I was tying the bundles I found that one packet was short in the cash. While I was doing so Sri Ram Kishan called me to help him in operating the sorting machine. Since the machine could not be activated, Sri S.K. Kapari, OIC Currency Chest decided that the sorting will be taken up manually. In the evening while I was tying the bundles I found that one packet was short in the cash. I immediately reported the matter to Sri S.K. Kapari, OIC Currency Chest. After this we carried our thorough search of the sorting hall and also took out the entire cash from the bin but could not find the short packet. After this Sri Jagdish Ramchandani arranged for the short cash from somewhere to make good the shortage as the figures have to be reported to RBI in time. Questions asked to Sri Anil Kumar by the investigating officer: Q1. Do you have any idea how can the shortage occur? A-1. No. Q2. I have gone through the recordings of the CCTV and have noticed that you have only take one packet at 10:42. Do you agree that you have committed this mistake. A-2. Yes I agree that I have committed this mistake. Q3. Then do you plead guilty for this act of yours.? A-3. Yes I plead guilty. Q4. Do you agree to return the money to the Bank and give it in writing that you have committed this act? A-4. Yes I have to return the money, I am ready to admit my mistake in writing but for this please give me some time. The above statement was taken by me in the presence of Sri Jagdish Ramchandani, Manager Meerut Branch. Sri Anil Kumar declined to sign the statement.” 10. The Senior Manager (Security), Circle Officer, Lucknow in the report dated 13th May, 2009, on the basis of the statement given by the staff members of the Bank and the information collected, concluded that the petitioner had removed one section of the cash taken from Currency Chest to the Sorting Hall at 10:42:20 on 5th May, 2009 which was clearly captured in the CCTV Camera Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner, therefore, misused the trust imposed in him by the Bank and displayed total loss of integrity and loyalty towards the Bank. He also mentioned that the petitioner admitted to have stolen money from the Currency Chest on 5th May, 2009 and had also agreed to return the money. 11. 4 and 5. The petitioner, therefore, misused the trust imposed in him by the Bank and displayed total loss of integrity and loyalty towards the Bank. He also mentioned that the petitioner admitted to have stolen money from the Currency Chest on 5th May, 2009 and had also agreed to return the money. 11. The petitioner was thereafter suspended by the order dated 15th June, 2009 and a charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2009 was served upon the petitioner which is as follows : “That it has been reported that on 5.5.2009 you were deputed as cash peon in the currency Chest, Meerut for carrying 40 bundles of Rs.100 denomination from the chest vault to the sorting hall. At the end of the day a cash shortage of Rs.10,000/- was detected in the cash withdrawn from the chest vault by the officials. During the search operations you were questioned on the whereabouts of the lost cash on which you denied having any knowledge of the same, however, when the recordings of the CCTV was reviewed you were seen pocketing one section of Rs.100/- denomination. You have thus willfully removed and stolen one section of Rs.100/- denomination. Your above reported acts, if proved, will amount to doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank, gross misconducts under 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure. Therefore, dated 10.4.2002 and are punishable under para 6 of the said Settlement. Please let me have your reply in defence to the above charges within 10 days from the date of receipt of this charge-sheet failing which it will construed that you have no reply to offer and the matter will be proceeded further, without any further notice to you.” 12. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 5th March, 2010 denying the charges levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted from 18th February, 2010 to 8th May, 2010 and the report was submitted on 6th July, 2010. This report is based on the statement made by the witnesses and the documents on record. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. The petitioner was thereafter given an opportunity to file his comments to the inquiry report which he did and ultimately the dismissal order was passed. 13. This report is based on the statement made by the witnesses and the documents on record. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. The petitioner was thereafter given an opportunity to file his comments to the inquiry report which he did and ultimately the dismissal order was passed. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no shortage of cash in the Bank on 5th May, 2009 cannot be accepted. As seen above, the Branch Manager had clearly stated that when the shortage of Rs.10,000/- was detected in the evening, a thorough search was made but since the short packet could not be traced out and the time for reporting the figures to the Reserve Bank of India and the Kanpur Branch was approaching, the shortage in cash was arranged and made good. It was thereafter that he advised the Officer Incharge of the Currency Chest Sri K.K. Kapadia to carefully go through the CCTV recordings and it is after going through the CCTV recording that the Officer informed him that on 5th May, 2009 at 10:42:20 the petitioner was seen pocketing one section of Rs.100/- denomination and this was also verified by the other camera recordings. It is thereafter that the Branch Manager telephonically informed the Circle Office about the incident on 8th May, 2009 and followed it by FAX on 8th May, 2009. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the fact that shortage was not reported to the Circle Office or the Reserve Bank of India on 5th May, 2010. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no shortage of cash because First Information Report was not lodged as mere non lodging of a First Information Report cannot lead to such an inference. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to explain the recording in the CCTV camera by submitting that the packet was actually handed over to him by the Clerk Smt. Santosh Kumari for removing the pins. 15. This fact was not mentioned by Smt. Santosh Kumari during the initial proceedings of the inquiry and there is also no mention of this exchange in the Currency Chest record. 15. This fact was not mentioned by Smt. Santosh Kumari during the initial proceedings of the inquiry and there is also no mention of this exchange in the Currency Chest record. The Enquiry Officer has not accepted this version and rightly so because if it was true then both the petitioner and Smt. Santosh Kumari would have immediately informed the Officers of the Bank on 5th May, 2009 when the CCTV footage was viewed or atleast would have informed the Senior Manager (Security), Circle Office, Lucknow who had come for investigation of the shortage of cash on 12th May, 2009. The CCTV footage also does not show that Smt. Santosh Kumari ever handed over the packet of the currency notes to the petitioner. In fact, what needs to be emphasised is that the petitioner had admitted before the Senior Manager (Security) about his involvement and had also promised to return the money. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that all the cassettes relating to the CCTV footage on 5th May, 2009 were not provided to the petitioner. The relevant cassettes were provided to the petitioner and there is no justification for the petitioner to seek other cassettes which do not relate to the incident. 17. It needs to be remembered that the Supreme Court has time and again observed that the scope of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings is entirely different from that of a criminal trial. 18. In High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shri Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar and others, JT 1997 (5) SC 298, the Supreme Court observed that disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial and, therefore, the scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of a criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. In the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application and preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The test laid down is to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent has committed misconduct and whether as a reasonable man, in the circumstances, would be justified in reaching that conclusion. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Mohd. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Mohd. Yousuf Miya, 1997 (77) FLR and in the case of Lalit Popli v. Canera Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583 . It was held that strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded and the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. In view of the limited jurisdiction which the Court has to re-appreciate the evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not possible for the Court to hold that the petitioner had not committed the theft. 20. In this connection, reference needs to be made to the observations of Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shri Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar and others, JT 1997 (5) SC 298, regarding re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court. They are as follows : “..... In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would (sic) come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. This is the consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, JT 1994 (5) SC 337 : (1994) 6 SCC 302 (SCC para 7), Union of India v. Upendra Singh, JT 1994 (1) SC 658 : (1994) 3 SCC 357 (SCC para 6), Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian, JT 1994 (7) SC 492 : (1995) 1 SCC 216 (SCC para 4) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (at pp. 759-60)” 21. The Supreme Court in Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Bhola Nath Singh and others, (1997) 3 SCC 657 , also observed as follows : “Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the High Court would be correct in law to appreciate the evidence and the manner in which the evidence was examined and to record a finding in that behalf. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In this case, no such errors were pointed out nor any finding in that behalf was recorded by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court examined the evidence as if it is a Court of first appeal and reversed the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by disciplinary authority. Under these circumstances, the question of examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a first appellate Court, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.” 22. Under these circumstances, the question of examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a first appellate Court, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.” 22. In R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 , the Supreme Court also pointed out : “Before adverting to the first contention of the appellant regarding want of material to establish the charge, and of non-application of mind, we will have to bear in mind the rule that the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the inquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings. A narration of the charges and the reasons of the inquiring authority for accepting the charges, as seen from the records, shows that the inquiring authority has based its conclusions on materials available on record after considering the defence put forth by the appellant and these decisions, in our opinion, have been taken in a reasonable manner and objectively. The conclusion arrived at by the inquiring authority cannot be termed as either being perverse or not based on any material nor is it a case where there has been any non-application of mind on the part of the inquiring authority. Likewise, the High Court has looked into the material based on which the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion, within the limited scope available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution and we do not find any fault with the findings of the High Court in this regard.” 23. In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583 , the Supreme Court again pointed out that the High Court has a limited jurisdiction in judicial review and the observations are : “While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583 , the Supreme Court again pointed out that the High Court has a limited jurisdiction in judicial review and the observations are : “While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.” 24. The Supreme Court has also time and again emphasised about the high standards of honesty, integrity and conduct expected from the employees of the Bank. It has been pointed out that for a Bank to function properly and effectively, it is imperative for its officers and employees to observe the prescribed norms and discipline and any conduct that damages, destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes should be meted out with disciplinary action. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable for the functioning of every officer, Manager or employee of the Bank and every officer or employee of the Bank must take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer/employee. 25. In this connection reference needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . The Supreme Court observed : “................If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. ............As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere.” (emphasis supplied) 26. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. ............As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere.” (emphasis supplied) 26. In Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and others, (1997) 4 SCC 565 , the Supreme Court also observed : “The nationalised banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socio-economic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socio-economic empowerment. Their acts and conduct should be in discharge of that constitutional objective and if they derelict in the performance of their duty, it impinges upon the enforcement of the constitutional philosophy, objective and the goals under the rule of law. Corruption has taken deep roots among the sections of the society and the employees holding public office or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt conduct in the discharge of their official duty for illegal gratification. The banking business and services are also vitally affected by catastrophic corruption. Disciplinary measures should, therefore, aim to eradicate the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in the public offices including those in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider, from this perspective, the need for disciplinary action to eradicate corruption to properly channelise the use of the public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio-economic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalisation of the banking system. What is more, the nationalisation of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that banking operations or services are rendered in the best interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation. What is more, the nationalisation of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that banking operations or services are rendered in the best interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation. Any conduct that damages, destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes resultantly defeats or tends to defeat the constitutional objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at the cost of the society.” (emphasis supplied) 27. Observations to the same effect were made by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and another, (2005) 1 SCC 13 and they are as follows : “......... Mr. Salve submitted that the appellant, the Branch Manager of a Bank is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity when he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers and, therefore, he is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest 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. According to Mr. Salve, good conduct and discipline are inseparable for the functioning of every officer, manager or employee of the bank, who deals with public money and there is no defence available to say that no loss or profit resulted in the case, when the manager acted without authority and contrary to the Rules and the Scheme which is formulated to help the educated unemployed youth. Mr. Salve’s above submission is well-merited acceptance and we see much force in the said submission. The bank manager/officer and employees of any bank, nationalsed/or non-nationalised, are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and misconduct.” (emphasis supplied) 28. In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others, (2005) 7 SCC 435 , the Supreme Court also pointed out : “A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others, (2005) 7 SCC 435 , the Supreme Court also pointed out : “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.” (emphasis supplied) 29. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders call for no interference by the Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. —————