Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 474 (GAU)

Aribam Priyogopal Sharma v. United Bank of India

2011-06-02

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT T. Nk. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. N. Ibotombi. learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms Savitri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Petitioner, who is now retired Bank Officer, is assailing the punishment of reduction of Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management Grade Scale-I with his basic pay being fixed at Rs. 9,820/- vide the impugned order/letter No. PD/ DIR/496/1239/2002, February 20th, 2002 issued by the Assistant Chief Manager (D.& I.R.) and also the entire departmental proceedings. Factual Background: 2. The petitioner was serving as Manager of United Bank of India (for short UBI) Paona Bazar Branch from 16.11.1989 to 08.6.1992. While the petitioner was functioning as Lead Bank Officer with the responsibilities of looking after Districts of Bishenpur and Churachandpur, he was served with the letter of the Assistant General Manager Corporate A/Cs being No. PD/DIR/372/97 dated 31.12.1996/ 2011/1997 that enquiry against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the UBI Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 for the Article of Charge mentioned therein is proposed. In the said letter, the statements of allegations for the charges are also mentioned. The Article of charges against the petitioner are that during the tenure of his service as Manager of the UBI Paona Bazar Branch from 16.11.1989 to 08.06.1992, the petitioner failed to take all the possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion, diligence and integrity and failed to exercise his best judgment in breach of the provisions contained in Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) read with Regulation 24 of the United Bank of India Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and also that the petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed loan amount to the extent of Rs. 18,31,699.00/- in 29 Loan accounts, which are not under the Government Sponsored Schemes, during the period from 27.11.91 to 29.5.92, details of which are given in the Annexure-A1, in utter disregard and in gross violation of the instruction of the Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region, conveyed to the petitioner under his letter No. RMP/ADV/PB/26/ 02/91 dated 11.07.1991 and No. RMP/ ADV/PB/26-A/03/91 dated 22.07.1991 not to use his discretionary power in sanctioning new advances except the advances under the Government Sponsored Scheme, Therefore, the petitioner had failed and neglected to take effective steps for liquidation of the said loan account and as a result of which, out of said 29 loan account, outstanding debit balance exceeded the sanctioned limit in 25 loan accounts as on 4.9.1995 as mentioned in Annexure and in the remaining 4 loan accounts though the debit balance did not exceed the sanctioned limit as on 4.9.1995, there were hardly any repayment made therein. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 18,56,587-85p in the said 29 loan account as categorized as NPA and for which the Bank is likely to suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs. 18,56,587.85p together with the applicable interest thereon. The petitioner also did not report such sanction to his Regional Manager's office through monthly Discretionary Power Statement and also that the petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed a RTO Loan amounting to Rs. 1,08,535/- to one Aribam Goura Chandra Sharma for purchase of Maruty Van in utter disregard of instructions and in gross violation of the instruction of the Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region, conveyed to the petitioner vide his letter No. RPM/ADV/PB/26/02/91 dated 11.7.91 & No. RMP/ADV/PB/26-A/03/91 dated 22.07.91 not to use his Discretionary power in sanctioning new advances except advance under Govt. Sponsored Scheme and in utter violation of the Bank's Circulars No. CPPI/ADV/39/0M-177/91 dated 20.04.91 and No. CPPI/ADV/58/0M-256/91 dated 5.6.91 which envisaged credit restriction imposed by the Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner had failed and neglected to take any effective steps for liquidation of the said RTO Loan A/c. and as a result of which the outstanding debit balance in the said loan account as on 4.9.95 was Rs. 1,37,992/-. Thus the said RTO Loan A/c has been categorized as NPA Account and for which the Bank is likely to suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs. 1,37,992/- together with the applicable interest thereon. 3. 1,37,992/-. Thus the said RTO Loan A/c has been categorized as NPA Account and for which the Bank is likely to suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs. 1,37,992/- together with the applicable interest thereon. 3. The petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- in 4 loan accounts during the period from October 1991 to May, 1992, the detail of which is given in Annexure-II, without reporting the said sanction to the Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region, in the monthly Discretionary Power Statement. Thereafter, the petitioner had failed and neglected to take any effective steps for liquidation of the said four loan accounts and as a result of which the outstanding balance of the said loan accounts were Rs. 1,94,492/- as on 4.9.1995, the details of which are given in Annexure-II. Due to above act the said four loan accounts have been classified as NPA A/c. and thus the Bank is likely to suffer a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 1,94,492/-plus applicable interest thereon. 4. By the said letter dated 31.12.1996/ 20.1.1997 of the Assistant General Manager, Corporate Account further directed the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence within 20 days from the date of the letter received. In response to that letter, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations and assertions, i.e. the Article of Charges, stating that he exercised the discretion in accordance with instructions of the HQs on the subject which is considered as prevalent upon the instruction to any other subordinate authority. It is stated in his written statement that since he has been transferred out to Branch office on 8.6.03, he cannot be faulted that the realization and for recovery of the loan sanctioned by him, it would be the responsibility of the officer, who has assumed the charge of the Branch Office of UBI, Paona Bazar Branch. It is the further case of the petitioner in his written statement of defence before the enquiry that under Regulation 3(3) of UBI Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 no officer shall in performance of his official duty or in exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. Petitioner is exercising his best discretion in sanctioning 29 loan during the period from 27.11.91 to 29.5.92 to 29 loanees. Petitioner is exercising his best discretion in sanctioning 29 loan during the period from 27.11.91 to 29.5.92 to 29 loanees. If the exercise of discretionary was wrongful on the part of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Controlling Office to withdraw him from the Branch. Disciplinary action should have been initiated on the following month of alleged wrongful exercise of D.P. which was duly reported by the C.S.O, Paona Bazar Branch which is stone-throw away from the Purbanchal Regional Office. By remaining quiet upon receipt of the D.P. statement, Regional Office has virtually confirmed the action of the petitioner as lapses if any on the part of the petitioner was not communicated to him instantly thereby showing its implied consent. Therefore, the petitioner categorically denied the charge that it was wrongful exercise of discretionary power and he disobeyed the instruction of the Regional Manager. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he sanctioned loan after observing all formalities as prescribed in the Manual or instruction Part-IV. The recovery of Bank loan is altogether a different subject and Committee of Banking Security Review have expressed serious concerned for inordinate delay in legal process of recovery and that charge of lack of integrity, lack of honesty are all wild charges against the petitioner. In banking instructions, risk-taking forms an integral part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organization either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms need not necessarily become subject matter of vigilance enquiry. 6. Petitioner also states that he had sanctioned 29 loan accounts in exercise of his discretionary powers as permitted under Regulation 3(3) of the U.B.I. Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter refers to as the Regulation 1976) and instruction of the HQs, i.e. Circulator No. OSM/Dis/052/216/0M/571-A/89 dated December 29, 1989 which read as follows:-- United Bank of India O & M Department Head Office : Calcutta Circular No. O&M/Dis/062/216/0M-571-A/89 Dec. 29/1989 All Branches All Regional Offices All Zonal Offices All Inspection Units All Staff Training College/Centers All Departments at Head Office Review of financial powers of various Functionaries in the Bank. Ref. H.O. Circular No. O&M/Dis/ 062/189/OM-78/83 Dated 25th October, 88. The financial powers of various functionaries in the bank have since been reviewed and the revised powers have been duly approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23.10.1989. 2. Ref. H.O. Circular No. O&M/Dis/ 062/189/OM-78/83 Dated 25th October, 88. The financial powers of various functionaries in the bank have since been reviewed and the revised powers have been duly approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23.10.1989. 2. The revised financial powers as approved by the Board of Directors are given in the Schedule attached to this Circular. The existing instructions and the rules to be adhered to while exercising the delegated powers as provided in the booklet on, " Financial & Administrative Powers" published on 12.11.1982 and the relevant circulars issued form time to time thereafter remain unchanged. 3. The exercise of the discretionary powers relating to fund and non-fund based credit limit will, however, be subject to the instructions issued by the respective Head Office Departments dealing with the Credit function. 4. The revised discretionary powers mentioned hereinabove come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- General Manager (Credit). 7. Writ petitioner is not denying that the Regional Manager under his letter dated 11.7.1991 advised/directed the writ petitioner not to use his discretionary power in sanctioning new advances except the advances under different Government sponsored leading schemes for the time being until further instruction. The said instruction of the Regional Manager dated 11.7.1991 read as follows : Manager, United Bank of India Dear Sir, Sub : Loans & advances sanctioned under Discretionary Power of the Branch Manager during April to June, 1991 USO of Discretionary power. On going through your Discretionary Power Statement for the months of April, May and June, 1981, we have observed that you are not exercising restraints in sanctioning of advances as advised to you vide our letter 1. RMP/ADV/2BA/17/90 dated 5.12.1990 2. RMP/ADV/PAO/26-A/14/90 dt. 27.8.1990 advances sanctioned by you during April, 1991 to June, 1991 as under which are very high in view of the credit restriction imposed by the bank. Month No of A/C Amount(s) 1. April, 1991 22 7,38,100.00 2. May, 1991 55 12,77,350.00 3. June, 1991 71 24,84,665.00 Total 148 45,00,115.49 The above figures are also disproportionate to the credit plan of the branch for the year, 1991-92 amounting to Rs. 84 lacs involving Rs. 64.50 lacs in Priority sectors and Rs. 20 lacs in non-priority sectors. Month No of A/C Amount(s) 1. April, 1991 22 7,38,100.00 2. May, 1991 55 12,77,350.00 3. June, 1991 71 24,84,665.00 Total 148 45,00,115.49 The above figures are also disproportionate to the credit plan of the branch for the year, 1991-92 amounting to Rs. 84 lacs involving Rs. 64.50 lacs in Priority sectors and Rs. 20 lacs in non-priority sectors. We have observed that you are in the habit of sanctioning of more and more fresh advances ever since you are posted as Manager of the branch w.e.f. 13.11.89 as a result of which, the advanced portfolio of the branch has increased considerably as is evident from the following figures :-- 31.1.90 160.72 196.95 29.6.90 223.48 184.24 20.9.90 198.52 187.24 2.12.90 193.79 205.25 25.1.91 177.29 211.58 22.2.91 184.97 227.55 31.3.91 308.35 242.70 26.4.91 344.22 249.78 31.5.91 342.40 268.42 21.6.91 335.70 289.10 On the other side, you are not giving adequate efforts in control and follow up of advance to improve the quality of lending as instructed to you from time to time, as a result of which, irregularities in the advance portfolio of the advances are enormous, as reflected in audit and inspection reports. In view of the restrictions on credit imposed by the bank as per RBI directives, we would once again advise you to observe utmost restraints in sanctioning of further fresh advances. We would also request you to take due note of the credit policy guidelines issued by the Head Office from time to time and lastly in the following circulars:-- 1. CPPI/ADV/89/0M-177/91 dt. 20.4.1991 2. CPPI/ADV/57/0M-252/91" 4.6.1991 3. CPPI/ADV/58/0M-255/91" 6.6.1991 4. CPPI/ADV/61/0M-368/91" 8.6.1991 re-circulated along with your letter No. RMP/ADV/O18/527/09/88 dated 6.7.91 and not according to the instructions contained therein and give more attention in monitoring and following advances by enduring review, renewal of documents of advances accounts, inspection and follow up of advances, recovery caution of 1988 guarantees and availment of refinance, removal of irregularities connected upon in the inspection report instead of granting new advances. In order to bring about qualitative improvement in the advances portfolio of the branch, we would advise you not to use your discretionary power in sanctioning of new advances except advance under different Government sponsored lending schemes, for the time being, until further instruction from this end. Sd/- Yours faithfully, Regional Manager. 8. In order to bring about qualitative improvement in the advances portfolio of the branch, we would advise you not to use your discretionary power in sanctioning of new advances except advance under different Government sponsored lending schemes, for the time being, until further instruction from this end. Sd/- Yours faithfully, Regional Manager. 8. It is the case of the Presenting Officer in the said departmental proceedings that: C. INGREDIENTS OF THE CHARGE: Ingredient No. 1.--Shri A. Priya Gopal Sharma sanctioned loans to 29 borrowers amounting to Rs. 18.32 lakh as per Annexure-A of charge-sheet during the period from 27.11.91 to 29.05.92 and committed the following irregularities : (a) The loans were sanctioned and disbursed violating the instructions of RM, Purbanchal Region vide his letter No. RMP/ADV/ PB/26/02/91 dt. 11.7.91 and RMP/ADV/PB/26-A/03/91 dt. 22.7.1991. (b) The loans were not under Govt. sponsored Schemes. (c) There was no follow-up for repayments in the above 29 loan a/cs and the a/cs turned NPA. (d) There was no repayment in the above loan a/cs : (e) Bank is likely to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs. 18,56, 587.85 in the above 29 loan accounts. Ingredient No. 2.--Shri A. Priya Gopal Sharma had sanctioned a RTO loan to Shri Aribum Gour Chandra Sharma on 29.05.92 for Rs. 1,08,535/- for purchasing a Maruti Van. (a) Violated the instructions of higher authority as contained under H.O. Circular Nos. CPPI/ ADV/39/0M-177/91 dt. 20.4.91 and CPPI/ADV/58/0M-266/ 91 dt. 5.6.1991. (b) Violated the instructions of Regional Manager vide his letter Nos. RMP/ADV/PB/26/02/91 dt. 11.7.91 and RMP/ADV/ PB/26-A/03/91 dt. 22.7.91. (c) There was no follow-up for repayment in the above RTO loan a/c and the debit balance rose to Rs. 1,37,992/- as on 4.9.95 and consequently, (d) The RTO a/c turned hard and NPA. Ingredient No. 3.--Shri Sharma sanctioned 4 Nos. of loans during the period from October 1991 to May 1992 as per details given in Annexure-II. (a) The above sanctions were not reported to Regional Manager through monthly Discretionary Power Statement. (b) There was no follow-up for repayment in the above loan a/cs and consequently. (c) The loan a/cs, turned hard and NPA and the debit balances exceeded sanctioned limit. (d) Bank is likely to suffer a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 1,94,492/- plus applicable interest thereon. 9. (b) There was no follow-up for repayment in the above loan a/cs and consequently. (c) The loan a/cs, turned hard and NPA and the debit balances exceeded sanctioned limit. (d) Bank is likely to suffer a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 1,94,492/- plus applicable interest thereon. 9. In the said departmental enquiry, prosecution had produced material evidence as well as examined the witnesses in support of the ingredient of the charges. The Enquiry Officer, after examining the case of the petitioner and also the prosecution, had submitted the report that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. For the said Article of Charges which had been proved, the Disciplinary Authority, under the impugned letter dated 20.2.2002, imposed penalty of reduction of Middle Manager Scale-II to Junior Manager Scale Grade-I with the basic pay being fixed at Rs. 9,820/- per month. The impugned letter dated 20.2.2002 read as follows : UNITED BANK OF INDIA DISCIPLINARY & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION HEAD OFFICE 16, HEMANTA BASH SARANI KOLKATA-700 001. Ref. No. PD/DIRJ49611239/2002 February 20th, 2002 Shri Aribam Priyagopal Sharma, (S. P.F. No. 12330) (Ex-Manager, UBI, Paonabazar Branch) Presently Assistant Regional Manager, Satellite Office, United Bank of India, Purbanchal Region. Dear Sir, Being Competent Authority in terms of Regulation 5(3) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, I have assumed the role of the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the disciplinary proceedings relating to Bank's letter of charges No. PB/DIR/ 372/97 dated 31-12-1996/29-01-1997 against you and have fully acquainted myself with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. A departmental enquiry was held into the charges levelled against you in terms of Bank's letter of charges dated 29.01.1997, as mentioned above, providing reasonable opportunity to defend your case at the enquiry. You participated at the enquiry along with your Defence Representative. 3. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report of enquiry on 30.11.2000, a copy of which was furnished to you under cover of Bank's letter No. PD/DIR/04/496/ 3880/2001 dated 26-03-2001 for your written submission on enquiry report. You made written submission on the enquiry report on 04.04.2001. 4. I have considered the enquiry report, the proceedings of the enquiry, oral and documentary evidences adduced and produced at the enquiry, all other documents related to the enquiry and your submission dated 04.04.2001 on the enquiry report and applied my mind. 5. You made written submission on the enquiry report on 04.04.2001. 4. I have considered the enquiry report, the proceedings of the enquiry, oral and documentary evidences adduced and produced at the enquiry, all other documents related to the enquiry and your submission dated 04.04.2001 on the enquiry report and applied my mind. 5. (i) I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 1. I find that you have sanctioned and disbursed all the 29 loans in utter disregard of the instructions of the Regional Manager and failed and neglected to take effective steps for liquidation of the said loan accounts as a result of which the said loan accounts have been categorized as N.P.A. and the Bank has been exposed to financial loss of Rs. 18,56,587-85p as on 04.09.1995 plus applicable interest thereon. (ii) I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 2 and find that R.T.O. Loan amounting to Rs. 1,08,535/- was sanctioned and disbursed by you on 29.05.1992 violating the Regional Manager's instructions vide his letters dated 11.07.1991, 22.07.1991 and 18.11.1991 (MEX-I, MEX-46 and MEX-3 respectively) and also H.O. Circular No. CPPI/Adv/39/0M-171/91 dated 20.04.1991 (MEX-7) and letter No. CPPI/Adv/58/0M-256/91 dated 05.06.1991 (MEX-9) and the Bank has been exposed to financial loss of Rs. 1,37,992.00 as on 04.09.1995 plus applicable interest thereon. (iii) In respect of Charge No. 3, the Enquiry Officer stated that the charge has been proved at the enquiry, but non-reporting in D.P. Statement has been proved in respect of two accounts viz. RTA A/c Th. Ombi Saki Devi and C.C. A/c M/s Variety Stores. I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of this charge and find that the Bank has been exposed to financial loss of Rs. 1,94,492.00 as on 04.09.1995 plus applicable interest thereon. 6. In your written submission, you stated that you had acted as per Annual Credit Plan of the area and tried to achieve the Branch Target. D.P. Statements were submitted to the Regional Office but the same did not return for months together. The loans sanctioned by you were under different priority sector advances. You further submitted that the Regional Office never instructed that the Branch had violated Regional Manager's Order. Repayments were forthcoming during your time but you were released from the Branch in June 1992. The loans sanctioned by you were under different priority sector advances. You further submitted that the Regional Office never instructed that the Branch had violated Regional Manager's Order. Repayments were forthcoming during your time but you were released from the Branch in June 1992. I find that the concerned Regional Manager instructed you not to use your discretionary power in sanctioning of new advances except advances under Govt. Sponsored Scheme until further instruction as per letter dated 11.07.1991 (MEX-1) followed by two reminder letters dated 22.07.1991 and 18.11.1991 (MEX-46 and MEX-3). In view of the said specific instruction of the Regional Manager, your submission is not tenable. Your submission with respect to Charge Nos. 2 and 3 are general in nature. You stated that you had submitted D.P. Statements but Regional Manager's Office did not inform that the Branch had violated Regional Manager's order. Your submission is not tenable in view of specific order of the Regional Manager in respect of sanction of advances and also H.O. Circular about credit restraint. Your other submissions are inconsequential to me. 7. Thus you acted beyond your authority and power violating restrictions imposed by the Regional Manager. Purbanchal Region who is the immediate superior and controller of Branches under the Region. In the process, you exposed the Bank to total financial loss of Rs. 21,89,071.85p as on 4.9.1995 plus applicable interest thereon. 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case and observations mentioned above, I find that misconduct committed by you is grave and serious in nature and warrants, in my opinion imposition of major penalty of reduction of Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management Grade Scale-I as per Regulation 4(g) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal Regulation, 1976. Now, therefore, in exercise of power vested in me in terms of Regulation 7(3) of the said Regulations, I impose upon you the following penalty in terms of Regulation 4(g) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations with immediate effect : Reduction of Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management Grade Scale-I with your Basic pay being fixed at Rs. 9,820/-. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant General Manager (D. & I.R.) and Disciplinary Authority. 10. 9,820/-. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant General Manager (D. & I.R.) and Disciplinary Authority. 10. Present writ petition is filed simply on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner in his defence statement for challenging the impugned letter/impugned order dated 20.2.2002 as if this Court is an appellate authority for re-appreciating the evidence and record available before the departmental enquiry to decide as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner in his defence statement are correct or justified. It is the proved fact which cannot be denied by the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as Manager of the UBI Paona Bazar Branch from 27.11.91 to 29.5.1992 and during the period he, as a Branch Manager, had sanctioned and disbursed loan amounting to the extent of Rs. 18,31,699.00/- in 29 loan accounts and the said 29 loan accounts are not for the Government sponsored schemes and also that out of 29 loan accounts, the outstanding debit balance limit exceeded the sanctioned limit in respect of the 25 loan accounts as on 04.9.1995 and remaining 4(four) loan accounts though debit balance did not exceed sanctioned amount as on 4.9.1995, there were hardly any repayment therein and as a result a total amount of Rs. 18,56,587-NP in the said 29 loan accounts have been categorized as NPA. It is also clear from the fact that the petitioner had sanctioned 29 loan accounts in utter disregard and gross violation of the instruction of the Regional Manager, Purbanchal vide his letter No. RMP/Adv/DP/ 26/02/91 dated 11.7.91 and RMP/Adv/ DV/26-A/03/1991 dated 22.7.1991. Appellate Authority : 11. This Court, in a writ proceeding, cannot sit as an appellate Court over an order of the disciplinary authority passed basing on the findings of the departmental enquiry. As the High Court cannot exercise power of the appellate Court/authority over the finding of the departmental enquiry, the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited, for instance, where it is found that domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of the principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable 'opportunity, finding are based on no evidence or punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. The Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Asok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 held (para 20 of the SCC) that : 20. The Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Asok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 held (para 20 of the SCC) that : 20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate Court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1723 , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975)2 SCC 557 , Corpon. Of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra, (1981)2 SCC 714 , and Nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711 . 12. It is fairly well settled that High Court and Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226 and Art. 32 respectively, could not re-appreciate the evidence as if they are the appellate authority over the findings on the disciplinary authority. No doubt, its power extends to the case where the finding is based no evidence on record, perverse or unreasonable. The Apex Court in Joginath D. Badge v. State of Maharasthra, (1999) 7 SCC 739 held thus : 51......The law is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence on record or the findings recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no reasonable person would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the matter. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999)2 SCC 10 , this Court, relying upon the earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1978) 3 SCC 366 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983 , Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel, (1976) 1 SCC 518 as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn, (1984)4 SCC 635 laid down that although the Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. It was observed that the power of judicial review available to a High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution take in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the Courts 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. 13. The Apex Court in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank & Others, (2003) SCC 3 at page 583 also held that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and punishment inflicted on a delinquent employee on that basis. Enquiry Procedures, Evidence and Proof: 14. The evidence in the disciplinary proceedings must link the charged officer with the alleged misconduct (Article of charge), otherwise, it would be no evidence (Ref. Sher Bahardur v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 142 ). 15. The High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction ought to have examined as to whether the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer had nexus with the charge and could or could not lead to the guilt of the employee. Enquiry Officer was entitled to draw his own inference and so long as the inference drawn by him was supported by some materials on record, a Court of judicial review would not interfere therewith. (Ref. Narinder Mohan Arya v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713 ). 16. Enquiry Officer was entitled to draw his own inference and so long as the inference drawn by him was supported by some materials on record, a Court of judicial review would not interfere therewith. (Ref. Narinder Mohan Arya v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713 ). 16. The Apex Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajay Pandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 held that : It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this Court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by re-appreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority. 17. The ratio laid down in A. Rajay Pandian's case (supra) is followed in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 . Para 21 of AIR in Apparel Export Promotion Council's case read as follows : 21. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1995 AIR SCW 4374). this Court opined (at p. 4379 of AIR SCW) : The disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a Disciplinary Enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. Further it was held (at P. 4380 of AIR SCW): A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately would the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. (emphasis supplied) Sufficiency or Insufficiency of Materials : 18. The findings of the departmental enquiry cannot be interfered with for the ground that there is insufficiency of evidence for which finding in a writ proceeding; but it be interfered with when the finding is based on no evidence. The Apex Court in Syed Rahimuddin v. Director Central C.S.I.R. and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2418 held : 5. The further grievance that the findings of the Enquiring Officer are findings on no evidence is belied by the very report of the Enquiring Officer. The Enquiring Officer has dealt with the Articles of charge chronologically and the relevant materials on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion is arrived at. It is well settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interfered with by the Court only when there is no materials for the said conclusion; or that on the materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. Having examined the report of the Enquiring Officer, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the Enquiring Officer cannot be held to be findings based on no evidence. 6. The only other contention that survives for consideration is the allegation of bias. Though no specific allegation of bias had been made but the contention is based upon the very reasoning of the Enquiring Officer and the conclusion arrived at. 6. The only other contention that survives for consideration is the allegation of bias. Though no specific allegation of bias had been made but the contention is based upon the very reasoning of the Enquiring Officer and the conclusion arrived at. According to the counsel for the appellant, a reference to the order of the Enquiring Officer would indicate that the said Officer was actuated with bias and proceeded to deal with the materials with that bias in the mind which resulted in the ultimate conclusion of finding of guilt of the charges levelled against the delinquent. We were taken through paragraph 4.2 which is at page 290 volume II of the paper books that is produced before us and before the Tribunal paragraph 4.11 which is at page 296 of the same volume had been placed. On going through the aforesaid two paragraphs, we are unable to accept the contention that the assertions made in those paragraphs indicate or establish any bias of the Enquiring Officer towards the delinquent. Bias undoubtedly, would have to be established either by evidence or on the materials on record which are relied upon by the Enquiring Officer in coming to his conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent. In the case in hand, after applying our mind to the relevant materials, we do not find any substance on the allegation of bias made by the delinquent as against the Enquiring Officer. 19. The judicial review of this Court cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal, but only a review of the matter in which the decision was arrived at and power of judicial review could be exercised in case the finding of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse; i.e. not based on legal evidence. The Apex Court in Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P. & Ant. v. M. Adinaryana, (2004) 12 SCC 579 held that : 24. The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well-considered order of TDP is unwarranted. APAT corrupt sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. The Apex Court in Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P. & Ant. v. M. Adinaryana, (2004) 12 SCC 579 held that : 24. The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well-considered order of TDP is unwarranted. APAT corrupt sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of APAT to review the same and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well settled that if the findings recorded by the Tribunals or of the disciplinary authorities, are found to be perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence, then the Administrative Tribunal or the Court is empowered to treat such flaw as a legal flaw and quash the impugned action. In the instant case, the fact finding authority has based its findings on legally permissible substantive evidence. And, therefore, such a finding on fact based on substantive evidence is not permissible to be interfered with. 25. In our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of the disciplinary authority or the Tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the charge is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of the Court or tribunal under judicial review which, in our opinion, cannot extend to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge. In our view, the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court or appeal over a decision based on finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. This Court, time and again, categorically stated that Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment where mere is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material has reasonable support, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Tribunal. It is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. 26. In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision was made. It is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. 26. In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision was made. We have therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for reasons stated (supra). The order passed by the Government removing the respondent from service is in order and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant State stands allowed. Further, there will be no order as to costs. 20. The Apex Court in High Court of judicature of Bombay v. Sushilkumar & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 22 , held that adequacy and reliability of the evidence in the decision of the departmental enquiry cannot be canvassed in the writ petition. Para 16 of the AIR in Sushilkumar's case (supra) read as follows : 16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of the departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole Judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based; then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Punishment : 21. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based; then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Punishment : 21. It is fairly well settled that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority could be interfered with in a writ proceeding only when such punishment is shockingly disproportionate for the misconduct committed by the delinquent. For this settled position of law, it may not be required to cite number of cases, rather it would be sufficed to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794 where the Apex Court at paras 14 and 15 held thus: (para 14 and 15 of SCC). 14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednes busy case the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The Scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision. 15. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 22. It is well known fact that Bank Officer should act utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and should do nothing unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The Bank Officer acting beyond his authority even if not causing any loss to the Bank, is nonetheless committed the act of misconduct. The Apex Court in Chairman Managing Director Union Bank & Ors. 22. It is well known fact that Bank Officer should act utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and should do nothing unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The Bank Officer acting beyond his authority even if not causing any loss to the Bank, is nonetheless committed the act of misconduct. The Apex Court in Chairman Managing Director Union Bank & Ors. v. K.C. Karkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 , held that : (para 14 of the SCC). 14. 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 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. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 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. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, this Court has given anxious consideration to the case of the writ petitioner in the given facts and is of the considered view that for the reasons discussed above, this Court cannot persuade itself to interfere with the findings of the departmental enquiry basing on which the impugned letter/order being No. PD/DIRJ496/ 1239/2002 dated 20.2.2002 issued by the authority. This Court further reiterate, that this Court cannot sit as appellate Court; therefore, is not re-appreciating the evidence of the respective parties for coming to a finding contrary to that of the findings of the departmental enquiry inasmuch as the findings of the departmental enquiry is based on legally acceptable evidence and also more particularly, when this Court cannot exercise power of judicial review over the findings of the departmental enquiry for sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence of the finding of the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, present writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed.