Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank. He was issued a charge sheet dated 16.08.2006. The charge leveled reads as follows: “That you have been working as Asst. Manager at Goa, Curchorem branch since 2.5.2000 until you were placed under suspension vide proceedings/order dated 15.10.2005. While working in your position as such you abused your official position and put through various fraudulent transactions and misappropriated bank’s funds to the tune of Rs.69.06 lakh by creating fictitious Loans on Deposits and closing such loans by raising debits to Interest on Deposit account; making fictitious debit entries to interest on Deposit account and crediting to SB accounts of customers closely known to you: raising debits directly to SB General Ledger without making debit entries in any SB account: passing withdrawal slips/cheques in SB accounts of customers closely known to you without debiting the instruments to the respective accounts etc. You also committed various other irregularities”. 2. The petitioner submitted a reply. On one hand, he denied the charge and on the other hand, he stated that he ha reimbursed the amount. Not satisfied, Mr.A.K. Jayashankar, Manager (IR), was appointed as the Inquiry Authority, to inquire into the said charge sheet. Mr.K.Srinivas Murthy, Manager (IR) was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Petitioner participated in the enquiry along with his Defence Assistant Mr.Manjunath S.Bhagwath, Assistant Manager. For the bank, 3 witnesses deposed and MEX-1 to MEX-171 were marked. Petitioner got himself examined as DW-1 and DEX-1 to DEX-14 were marked. After conclusion of the enquiry, petitioner submitted his written submission on 14.05.2007. Enquiry Officer after appreciating the record of enquiry, found the charge leveled against the petitioner as proved. Inquiry Report dated 16.07.2007 was submitted to the bank and a copy thereof was furnished to the petitioner on 18.07.2007, to make his submissions, if any. In response, written submission dated 10.08.2007 was submitted by the petitioner, Disciplinary Authority, by an order dated 29.08.2007, held the petitioner guilty of the charge and taking into consideration the gravity of the charge held as proved. Dismissed the petitioner from service of the bank. 3. Petitioner submitted an Appeal dated 24.10.2007, which upon consideration, having been found to be unacceptable, the order of dismissal from the service of the bank was confirmed. Dismissed the petitioner from service of the bank. 3. Petitioner submitted an Appeal dated 24.10.2007, which upon consideration, having been found to be unacceptable, the order of dismissal from the service of the bank was confirmed. Petitioner submitted a Review Petition on 11.06.2008, which having been examined in the light of the relevant records and finding, no fresh grounds to reconsider the punishment, the Reviewing Authority confirmed the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Questioning the said orders, this writ petition has been filed.4. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in justification of the said orders passed against the petitioner. 5. Sri Vishnu Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that: i. The preliminary investigation report was not furnished, which being unfair and unjust, the enquiry conducted is vitiated. ii. The case is one of no evidence and the findings in the enquiry report and that of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are perverse. iii. There is gross violation of the provision under Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and also the principles of natural justice. iv. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is neither a considered nor a reasoned order. The order passed by the Reviewing Authority is also not a considered and/or reasoned order. v. Despite the amount having been remitted, the punishment of dismissal imposed being excessive/disproportionate, may be modified to one of compulsory retirement, so tat the petitioner can draw the provident fund and gratuity, since he has rendered long and unblemished service to the bank and is left with no means to survive and take care of the dependent family. 6. Sri K.Radhesh Prabhu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that: i. The inquiry was held in accordance with the provisions in the Regulations and there is due observance of principles of natural justice all along and there is no denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner i.e., from the stage of commencement of the enquiry, till the passing of the last of the impugned orders. ii. The preliminary investigation report being an inter-departmental communication between Officers in the bank, preliminary to the holding of inquiry, the same having not been relied upon in the disciplinary enquiry, the non-furnishing of the same has not resulted in any denial of opportunity to the petitioner. ii. The preliminary investigation report being an inter-departmental communication between Officers in the bank, preliminary to the holding of inquiry, the same having not been relied upon in the disciplinary enquiry, the non-furnishing of the same has not resulted in any denial of opportunity to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Krishna Chandra Tandon vs. The Union of India – AIR 1974 SC 1589 . iii. The case is one of admission of guilt by the petitioner. The documents MEX-1 and MEX-171 are that of the petitioner himself, wherein, he has admitted the guilt. That apart, the document MEX-151, is one submitted by the petitioner’s wife, in the matter of the amount defrauded by the petitioner. That apart, there is abundant material placed on record of enquiry, in proof of the allegations made in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, which has been appreciated by the enquiry officer. Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and the charge leveled against the petitioner having been proved with credible material, the finding of misconduct and the imposition of penalty is justified. iv. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is a considered and a reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity. v. Regulation 18 is with regard to Review, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come or brought to the notice of the Reviewing Authority to exercise the power and pass the order. The petitioner in the Review Petition did not point out any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case and hence the Reviewing Authority is justified in holding that there is no ground to re-consider the punishment and in confirming the penalty imposed. vi. vi. The misconduct committed by the petitioner being misappropriation of huge amount of the bank, in the form of fraudulent withdrawals, deriving pecuniary gain for himself and being one of the most serious offences, the bank having lost confidence in the petitioner, is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal and there is no scope for interference with the punishment. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of State Bank of Mysore & Others Vs. M.C.Krishnappa AIR 2011 SC 2717 . 7. I have perused the writ record. The rival contentions have received my consideration, the point for determination is: Whether the impugned orders suffer from any material infirmity? 8. It is trite that, Writ Court will not act as an Appellate Court and re-assess the evidence led in a domestic enquiry, if the enquiry has been held fairly and properly and the findings are based on evidence. Interference is permissible where the findings are based on no evidence or the findings are perverse, in that, where the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority, acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Interference is permissible in case the Court finds that there is violation of Statutory Regulations or principles of natural justice or the order, if found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous consideration. In a case where the punishment imposed on an employee by the Management is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of proved misconduct, interference with quantum of punishment is permissible. 9. The bank before initiating the disciplinary proceedings, to find out whether there exists a case to proceed against the petitioner under the Regulations, directed the concerned officer to investigate in the matter and submit report. The preliminary investigation, having found prima-facie case of commission of misconduct by the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued and an enquiry as per the provisions in the regulations was ordered. Indisputedly, the preliminary investigation report, which led to the issue of charge sheet and the consequential disciplinary proceedings, was not relied upon by the Management, to prove the charge leveled against the petitioner. Unless the Management relies upon such material in the enquiry or thereafter, it is not necessary for the bank to furnish to the petitioner, the preliminary investigation report. 10. Unless the Management relies upon such material in the enquiry or thereafter, it is not necessary for the bank to furnish to the petitioner, the preliminary investigation report. 10. In the case of Krishna Chandra Tandon (supra), repelling a contention that, the reports received from the Departmental Authorities before the charge sheet was served on the delinquent had not been made available to the appellant, which resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend himself, it has been held as follows: “16. …..It appears that on complaints being received about his work the Commissioner of Income-tax had asked the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Shri R.N.Srivastava to make a report. He made a report. It is obvious that the appellant was not entitled to a copy of the report made by Mr.Srivastava or any other officer unless the enquiry officer relied on these reports. It is very necessary for an Authority which orders an enquiry to be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for holding a disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, before he makes up his mind he will either himself investigate or direct his subordinates to investigate in the matter and it is only after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not. Therefore, these documents of the nature of inter-departmental communications between officers preliminary to the holding of enquiry have really no importance unless the Enquiry Officer wants to rely on them for his conclusions. In that case it would only be right that copies of the same should be given to the delinquent. It is not the case here that either the Enquiry Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax relied on the report of Shri.R.N.Srivastava or any other officer for his finding against the appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in this submission”. (Italicized by me for emphasis) 11. In the case of Syndicate Bank vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati – (2006) 3 SCC 150 , considering a contention that, although the documents may not form part of the charge or be relied upon by the prosecution in the course of enquiry, denial of the same would prejudice the delinquent’s case because, denial of contemporary documents deprive the right of the delinquent to set up an effective defence, it has been held as follows: “18. In our view, non-supply of documents on which the enquiry officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the enquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would cause prejudice. being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of the delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. It is well-settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be pout in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice”. (Italicized by me for emphasis) In the instant case, the petitioner has not shown as to how he has suffered prejudice on account of the preliminary enquiry report, being not produced. Petitioner did not even call upon the bank to produce or furnish the same. 12. For the Management, MWs 1 to 3 deposed. MW-3 is a material witness. The charge against the petitioner was that, he abused his official position and put through various fraudulent transactions and misappropriated bank funds to the tune of Rs.69.06 lakhs, by creating fictitious loans on deposits and closing such loans by raising debits to interest on deposit account, etc. 13. MEX-1 is a letter dated 10.10.2005 of the petitioner, wherein, he has stated as follows: “It is unfortunate to say that I have made misappropriation to the tune of about 46 lakhs for which I am extremely sorry for that. I have started this misappropriation since about one and half years. During my tenure in Loan Dept, I have started this misappropriation by availing LD against PD of Mr.Rama Naik and NRC/cD/89 of Milagris and then in SB.20771 of Sayyad Ali and in SB.19364 or 18264 of Zinna Bi Shaikh and one to two SB accounts which I claim reimbursement entirely. The entire misappropriated amount of Rs.46 lakhs has been given by me to Mr.Prakash Solanki, Bhavani Sweet Meet at Curchorem, Goa, directly or through his servants. He used to ask me again and again and blindly I used to give him the money. The entire misappropriated amount of Rs.46 lakhs has been given by me to Mr.Prakash Solanki, Bhavani Sweet Meet at Curchorem, Goa, directly or through his servants. He used to ask me again and again and blindly I used to give him the money. Here I admit that I have no other relation with Mr.Prakash Solanki. The entire amount of appx.40 lakhs paid by me to Mr.Prakash Solanki is without any expectation”. 14. MEX 171 is another letter dated 03.01.2006 of the petitioner, wherein, he has stated as follows: “During my tenure in this Branch I have worked in various Department particularly more in S.B.Dept. Unfortunately, I have committed some misappropriation in L.D’s. LOD’s and SB.Dept. This is because of my helping to one Mr.Prakash Solanki, whom I met him in the train at Margao in May 2000, while coming from my native to Curchorem, Goa. Mr.Prakash Solanki then opened pigmy Account with us and used to pay about Rs.5,000/- per day. He then availed loan (OSL + OD) from our Bank also. Every now and then he used to request money from me. In the beginning I used to pay from my pocket and then I started paying him from the bank without having any knowledge or thinking seriously. I used to give him the bank money foolishly. I don’t know what was happening on me whenever he used to come to me for help. Mr.Prakash Solanki was running five shops and doing the business well that time. Every time he was assuring me that after getting rid from SBI loan he will get fresh loan from some other bank and will repay the entire amount but not turned. Here I admits that I have not used a single rupee from this but totally duped by Mr.Solanki, Mr.Prakash Solanki had already given letter to the Manager for having taken money from me which is self explanatory. However I have already reimbursed about 80 to 85% of the amount misappropriated by me. My entire family members helped me in this regard”. 15. MEX 151 is a communication dated 23.10.2005, submitted by the petitioner’s wife to the bank, enclosing share certificates for demating and authorizing the bank to dispose of the same and credit the proceeds to her SB Account in the bank. My entire family members helped me in this regard”. 15. MEX 151 is a communication dated 23.10.2005, submitted by the petitioner’s wife to the bank, enclosing share certificates for demating and authorizing the bank to dispose of the same and credit the proceeds to her SB Account in the bank. The share certificates submitted stood in the joint names of the petitioner and his wife and also in the individual name of petitioner. In the said communication, it has been stated as follows: “The proceeds of the above DD’s are towards partial reimbursement of the amount defrauded by my husband Mr.L.I.Bhat who is working there as an Asst. Manager in your Branch”. (Italicized by me) 16. The petitioner has not disputed the said documents nor has offered any explanation. It is clear form the exhibited documents, noticed supra, that the petitioner has admitted the misconduct of committing misappropriation in LDs, LODs and SB accounts, to the tune of Rs.46 lakhs, for a period stretching about 1 ½ years. The above quoted letters of the petitioner and his wife are admission in clear terms that the petitioner misappropriated his official position in the bank and misappropriated the bank funds. In my opinion the charge against the petitioner is proved on his own admission. Apart from the said documents, the evidence of MWs 1 to 3 and other exhibited documents clearly show that, the petitioner committed the misconduct alleged against him in the charge sheet and the findings recorded in the enquiry report are based on the evidence brought on record. In the circumstances, the contention that, the case is one of ‘no evidence’ is totally misconceived. 17. The record shows that in the matter of holding the disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer has followed the provisions in the Regulations and has extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Sri Vishnu Bhat, except contending that the charge sheet was not accompanied by a list of documents and a list of witnesses, did not point out any other material deficiency in the mater of conducting of Disciplinary enquiry. With regard to the contention regarding list of witnesses and the list of documents having not been annexed to the charge sheet, it has to be observed that, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. With regard to the contention regarding list of witnesses and the list of documents having not been annexed to the charge sheet, it has to be observed that, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. On the date the preliminary enquiry was held, the Presenting Officer produced the list of 171 documents and the list of 3 witnesses, which the Management intended to rely upon in the regular enquiry and the copies thereof were made available to the petitioner, which the petitioner confirmed, before the Enquiry Officer. The record shows that, petitioner was permitted to verify the Management documents by granting time and to submit his side of witnesses & documents. The petitioner having verified the documents has confirmed his satisfaction & the correctness, whereafter, the matter w as adjourned by the enquiry officer for holding of regular enquiry. Having perused the record, in my opinion, there is neither any breach of the provisions of the Regulations nor any violation of principles of natural justice, by denying reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 18. The Disciplinary Authority considering the record of the enquiry and the written submission of the petitioner has passed a detailed order, which shows the application of mind and consideration of the matter in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority, considering the contentions raised in the appeal and having examined the record of the enquiry, has passed a detailed order, which cannot be termed as, neither a considered nor a reasoned order. The Appellate Authority has adverted to material aspects of the matter and having been satisfied that, there is no breach of provisions of the Regulations and principles of natural justice and that the charge leveled against the petitioner having been proved by placing the credible material on record, which had been correctly appreciated by the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority and that, the findings recorded being neither perverse nor illegal, has concurred with the findings. While examining the quantum of punishment imposed, finding that, the petitioner has proved himself to be a person, who has abused his official position to perpetrate fraud on his own institution and thereby belied the expectations of the bank and by observing that petitioner’s continuance in the bank will be fraught with grave risk to the society in general and the bank in particular and having lost trust reposed in the petitioner, held that, there being no extenuating circumstances warranting modification of the punishment confirmed the punishment. Thus, the order passed by Appellate Authority does not suffer from any material infirmity. 19. Regulation 18 is with regard to Review. It is not the case of petitioner that, along with the Review Petition, any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available when the orders were passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, was produced. However, the Reviewing Authority having considered the record of the case and finding no grounds to re-consider the punishment, confirmed the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Since a case as contemplated in Regulation 18 was not made out by the petitioner, the contention urged against the order of the Reviewing Authority is devoid of merit. 20. While considering the punishment of dismissal imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee by the bank is an important and relevant factor. The record shows that, the petitioner had adopted scheme and design for committing misappropriation, which stretched for a long period. Misappropriation of the funds of the bank has been admitted by the petitioner. He has remitted part of the misappropriated amount. Merely because the misappropriated amount was remitted, the delinquent cannot seek modification of the penalty. The misappropriation committed was not on a single day/single instance, but is otherwise. The petitioner held an important position in the bank and has breached the confidence imposed on him by the employer. Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that, punishment is primarily a function of the Management and the Courts rarely interfere with the quantum of punishment. The charge of misappropriation leveled against the petitioner has been proved. The charge proved is very grave. Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that, punishment is primarily a function of the Management and the Courts rarely interfere with the quantum of punishment. The charge of misappropriation leveled against the petitioner has been proved. The charge proved is very grave. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have found that the bank has lost confidence in the petitioner and his continuance is detrimental to the interest of the society in general and to the institution in particular. 21. In the case of M.C.Krishnappa (supra), the charge leveled against him was that, he prepared and passed a withdrawal slip for Rs.10,000/- despite being aware that there was not sufficient balance in the account and derived pecuniary gain for himself and that, he caused fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- in an SB Account, without posting the voucher to the account and to conceal the acts, himself had checked the ledgers on the day the voucher was passed. In the departmental enquiry, the charge having been held as established. Disciplinary Authority passed the order of his removal from service and the Appeal filed their against was rejected and in the Review, there was partial relief by modification of the punishment from removal to demotion, with a bar against promotion for a period of 7 years. When the order was questioned with regard to the punishment awarded, it was held that, the punishment levied is too harsh and disproportionate to the charge leveled and the bar of promotion for a period of 7 years was modified. The bank having questioned the said modification of punishment, while allowing the appeal, the Apex Court has observed that, the punishment is primarily a function of the Management and Courts rarely interfere with the quantum of punishment and has held as follows: “9. In this case the proven charge against the respondent was of financial irregularities and of making fraudulent withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain for himself. In a bank an offence of this kind is one of the most serious offences and the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order of removal against the respondent. In the facts of the case even that punishment could not be said to be unreasonable or unduly harsh. The reviewing Authority modified the order of punishment and gave him a lighter punishment instead. At that time the respondent accepted it without ado. In the facts of the case even that punishment could not be said to be unreasonable or unduly harsh. The reviewing Authority modified the order of punishment and gave him a lighter punishment instead. At that time the respondent accepted it without ado. In those facts we fail to see any scope for interference with the punishment on a purely subjective view taken by the High Court”. 22. In the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd vs. A.L.Mohan Rao – (2006) 1 SCC 63 , the respondent was working as an attender in the bank and was charge-sheeted for gross misconduct of colluding with one of the Branch Managers and enabling grant of fictitious loan. After inquiry, he was found guilty and was terminated, against which, a dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the claim, whereafter, writ petition was filed, wherein, it was found that the misconduct had been proved, but the punishment was interfered with and the challenge put forth in an Appeal by the bank having failed, when questioned by the bank, the Apex Court has held as follows: “6. In our view, a gross misconduct of this nature does merit termination. We fail to see what other type of misconduct would merit termination. It is not for the courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature with the decision of the disciplinary authority so long as the inquiry has been fair and proper and misconduct proved. In such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment. In any case on such a misconduct, it could never have been said the termination of service is not the appropriate punishment”. 23. Keeping in view the nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner, in my opinion, the punishment imposed on him by the bank is not shockingly excessive or disproportionate, even to direct the bank to re-consider the case, the modification of punishment to one of compulsory retirement. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner, held as proved being grave, the punishment of dismissal imposed on him being justified, no case for interference is made out. In the result, the writ petitioner being devoid of merit, shall stand dismissed. Rule nisi ordered stands discharged. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.