JUDGEMENT Ramesh Kr.Datta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Central Bank of India. 2. The petitioner has come for quashing the enquiry report dated 10.1.1995 by which the two charges leveled against the petitioner have been found to have been proved and partially proved as also for quashing the order of punishment dated 24.4.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 4, the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna by which the petitioner has been given the punishment for discharge from service with regard to charge No. 1 and stoppage of two increments in respect of charge No. 2 and further for quashing the order dated 20.9.1995 passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna passed in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of discharge from service, which appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. 3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner while functioning as Head Cashier-cum-Clerk in Gyaspur Branch of the respondent Bank was issued a charge- sheet that the petitioner abusing his official position as the receiving clerk committed irregularities with mala fide intention in respect of the account holders cash deposit: (i) Rs. 600/- on 25.6.1993 in HSS Account No. 1489 of Sri Ganauri Choudhary, and (ii) Rs. 2,800/- on 16.8.1993 in HSS Account No. 1834 of Sri Ram Suresh Rai, by not making cash deposit entries in the Books of the Branch and not depositing the receipted cash in the Bank and misled the account holders by making cash deposit entry of Rs. 600/ on 25.6.1993 in the Pass Book of HSS Account No. 1489; when the Bank asked the petitioner to explain such acts and issued suspension memo he did not submit his explanation within the stipulated time but he replied on 20.10.1993 that he had returned the said cash deposits to the concerned account holders. The second charge against the petitioner was that he committed temporary misappropriation of cash deposit of. Rs. 1,500/- of HSS Account No. 1209 of Sri Megh Nath Choudhary on 30.6.1992. 4. The second charge against the petitioner was that he committed temporary misappropriation of cash deposit of. Rs. 1,500/- of HSS Account No. 1209 of Sri Megh Nath Choudhary on 30.6.1992. 4. With regard to charge No. 1 the enquiry officer in his report held that notwithstanding the non-appearance of the complainants in the proceedings the fact remains that the petitioner has admitted in his statement/explanation dated 20.10.1993 that he accepted cash from the account holders, issued counterfoils for cash receipts and made entries in the pass book also; whereas such cash receipts were not accounted for in the Bank. Subsequently he also accepted that the cash amounts were returned to the complainants whose written statements were submitted by the petitioner alongwith his said explanation. On the basis of the admission made by the petitioner as also the other documentary evidences brought on the record, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 was conclusively proved. With regard to charge No. 2 the finding recorded was that the same was partly proved. The disciplinary authority subsequently by order dated 24.4.1995 accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and after following the due procedure awarded the punishment of discharge from service with respect to charge No. 1 and stoppage of two increments with respect to charge No. 2. 5. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of the disciplinary authority by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was confined by the petitioner only with respect to charge No. 1 and he did not challenge the findings and punishment given with respect to charge No. 2. The appellate authority, however, rejected his appeal by the impugned order dated 20.9.1995. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are not sustainable as the account holders on whose complaints the proceedings having been initiated have not been examined in the departmental proceedings and did not appear in support of their case, rather it is submitted by learned counsel that the complainants gave in writing before the authorities of the Bank that they have received back their money and they have no complaint against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, it is urged by learned counsel that the finding regarding charge No. 1 being proved was wrongly recorded. 7. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of discharge from service imposed is disproportionate to the charges that have b.een proved in the departmental proceeding as neither the Bank nor the account holders suffered any loss since the amounts had been returned by the petitioner to the complainants which they have accepted by submitting letters which were on the record of the disciplinary proceedings as Management Exhibits also. 8. Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, submits that non-examination of the complainants can make no difference to the matter in view of admission of the petitioner himself in his explanation dated 20.10.1993 submitted before the Bank. The facts alleged in the charge having been accepted by the petitioner, the non-examination of the complainants can make no difference to the findings of misconduct recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority as it cannot be said that the same has no basis of any material. 9. It is also submitted that the letters of the complainants showing their withdrawal of their complaints go to prove that the complaints were filed by them and thus no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the said withdrawal. 10. It is also urged by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioner having not challenged the findings and punishment awarded with respect to charge No. 2 in his memo of appeal before the appellate authority of the Bank he cannot be permitted to agitate the matter in writ proceedings before this Court. 11. It is further submitted by learned counsel that a mere irregularity in procedure cannot be of any aid to the petitioner and he will have to show what prejudice has been caused to him. If no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity of hearing which he does not deny then there can be no question of setting aside the findings and punishment awarded. If no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity of hearing which he does not deny then there can be no question of setting aside the findings and punishment awarded. In support of the said proposition, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others V/s. S.K.Sharma : (1996)3 SCC 364 , in paragraph-33(6) of which it has been held as follows: "33(6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them." 12. It is also urged by learned counsel that the very fact that the petitioner had kept with himself the amount deposited by the account holders of the Bank and made no entries in the pass books of the account holders but did not show the said transaction of the books of account of the Bank clearly goes to show that his intention was to defalcate the amount and it was not only after he was placed under suspension and explanation sought from him, but subsequent to the time granted for submission of explanation, that he came forward with the stand that he had returned the amount to the complainants, which he cannot be permitted to do so as it would lead to loss of confidence of the public in the banking system, to the severe jeopardy of the functioning of such system. Under such circumstances, according to learned counsel, it cannot be said that the punishment of discharge from service is disproportionate. 13. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. While examining the matter of challenge to any order passed by the authorities concerned in a disciplinary proceeding, it has to be kept in mind that this Court does not sit in a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by them and even the punishment awarded by them. While examining the matter of challenge to any order passed by the authorities concerned in a disciplinary proceeding, it has to be kept in mind that this Court does not sit in a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by them and even the punishment awarded by them. All that has to be seen is that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the statutory or other rules and regulations and a fair opportunity was awarded to the proceedee in the matter. If there is some material on the basis of which the disciplinary authority could have reached the conclusion that it has drawn, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal and reappraise the evidence for coming to a different conclusion. In the present matter, since the petitioner has himself admitted the facts as set out in the charge- sheet it cannot be said that the findings recorded against him are based upon no material. In the said circumstances, there can be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding. The mere fact that the complainants did not come forward as witnesses in the proceeding stating that they have received the money from the petitioner after several months, cannot absolve the petitioner of his responsibility while functioning as employee of the banking institution. Thus, there can be no occasion to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority. 14. So far as the punishment imposed is concerned, it must be kept in mind that employees of a bank must act with utmost propriety and integrity in the matter of handling the money of the members of the public. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of such money by any officer or employee of the Bank has to be viewed seriously and, in such circumstances, if a punishment of discharge from service is awarded it can hardly be said that it is an inappropriate punishment which shocks the conscience of the Court. 15. in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed.