JUDGMENT By Court.–Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.1999 contained at Annexure-23 passed by the Zonal Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 where under substituted findings have been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in place of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Bank of India Officer and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from the service of the bank vide order dated 6.8.1999 contained at Annexure-24 passed by the respondent No. 2 under Clause 4(j) of the Regulations. He is also aggrieved by the same. Petitioner's appeal against the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority was also rejected vide order dated 8.12.1999 contained as Annexure-26 to the writ petition whereby the said order of punishment was also confirmed. The Disciplinary Authority had also directed for recovery of the amount of Rs.15.62 lakhs which are alleged to be the loss caused to the Bank because of the misconduct and action of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the show-cause notice dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure-28) for effecting the recovery of the amount of loss. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as clerk cum typist on 12.12.1966 in the respondent-Bank. After undergoing probation he was designated as Clerk Accounts in September. 1971. On 1.12.1972 he was promoted to the Officer Grade and thereafter was transferred from one branch to another. Thereafter, in May, 1988 the petitioner was posted at the overseas branch of Bank of India at Paris. France where he remained till his tenure was completed on December, 1992. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his joining at Lucknow Zonal Office in the month of April, 1993. The petitioner is said to have forwarded his resignation on 10.4.1993 (Annexure-3) to the competent Authority of the Bank for acceptance. It is the contention of the petitioner, by referring to the agreement (Annexure-2) entered into with the Bank that the stipulations contained therein provide that on return from foreign posting the employee has to remain with the Bank for 5 years, thereafter, However, if he intends to leave the service of the Bank within the said 5 years he has to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the Bank. 1 lakh to the Bank. According to the petitioner correspondences were exchanged with the Bank upon his letter forwarding his resignation and petitioner informed the Bank on 5.5.1993 that there are sufficient deposit in his account for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh as also salary for 3 months period. It is however stated by the petitioner that thereafter the Bank remained silent for considerable length of time and did not pay the post retirement benefits to the petitioner. Therefore petitioner had occasion to approach the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1336 of 1997(R) for payment of his terminal benefits which was preferred on 28.4.1997. The petitioner contended that only upon filing of the writ petition the memorandum of charges was served upon him vide Annexure-5 dated 11.4.1997 which is alleged to be ante dated. The preliminary show-cause submitted by him was not accepted and inquiry was commenced by appointing an Inquiry Officer on 7.10.1997. The petitioner raised certain grievances relating to non-supply of documents before the Inquiry Officer on 5.3.1998 (Annexure-9) and also repeated it on a number of occasion including on 6.4.1998 (Annexure-10). The petitioner even proposed to send questionnaire to the officers posted at Paris Branch in relation to the allegations made against him for misconduct during his tenure at the foreign branch. However, the same was declined by the Inquiry Officer who advised him to call for any officer who worked at Paris Branch. The petitioner again responded by stating that none of the Officers who were serving in the Bank at the relevant time posted at Paris are available as they have left the services of the Bank. Therefore he cannot adduce their evidences. In these background the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and rendered his report on 20.2.1999 (Anncxure-20). The Inquiry Officer found the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 not proved against him. However, charge No.3 relating to his absence from 10.4.1993 was found to be proved. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on 8.3.1999 the petitioner was asked to furnish his representation vide Annexure-21, by the Disciplinary Authority incorporating purported reasons differing with report of the Inquiry Officer with regard to the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Petitioner submitted his reply on 21.3.1999 (Annexure-22) explaining his defence. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on 8.3.1999 the petitioner was asked to furnish his representation vide Annexure-21, by the Disciplinary Authority incorporating purported reasons differing with report of the Inquiry Officer with regard to the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Petitioner submitted his reply on 21.3.1999 (Annexure-22) explaining his defence. However the Disciplinary Authority was not convinced with the reply and passed the order substituting the findings of the Inquiry Officer on 12.4.1999 (Annexure-23) holding all the charges against the petitioners as proved including Charge Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the penalty of dismissal from service was passed on 6.8.1999 (Annexure-24) by the respondent No.2, the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Lucknow. The petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure-25 which however has been rejected vide order dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure-26) passed by the General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority of the respondent-Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner has also been issued show-cause for recovery of the Joss of amount of Rs.15.62 lakhs said to have been caused to the Bank because of petitioner's misconduct. These orders are therefore challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the following grounds :– (i) that the initiation of the Disciplinary proceeding in the month of April, 1997 after almost 4 years of submission of resignation on 10.4.1993 is actuated by malafide and also on account of the petitioner's filing writ petition seeking terminal benefits from the Bank. (ii) that the reasons indicated by the Disciplinary Authority for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer are no different from what have been taken into account by the Inquiry Officer himself while considering the materials produced during the inquiry and submitting the Inquiry report. (iii) that the documents which have been referred to by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of article of Charge No. 1 are such materials which were not part of the inquiry proceeding and have been relied upon in a wholly arbitrary manner being extraneous to the materials which were part of the inquiry proceeding. The petitioner, therefore, has been denied proper opportunity of rebutting the same. (iv) learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the petitioner after the Disciplinary Authority has differed from the report of the Inquiry Officer before substituting his own findings in passing the order of penalty which is the requirement of law. (iv) learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the petitioner after the Disciplinary Authority has differed from the report of the Inquiry Officer before substituting his own findings in passing the order of penalty which is the requirement of law. The petitioner has also submitted by way of supplementary affidavit filed on 10.10.2011 that similarly placed employee N. Venkatachalam who was posted at Paris in the said branch was served with charge-sheet in the year 1993 itself and was exonerated by simple warning by the Disciplinary Authority in 1994. Therefore, it is submitted that for similar set of charges since the said employee had been let of with a warning, petitioner should not have been imposed with harsh punishment of dismissal from services in view of the fact that the Inquiry Officer did not find the charges No. 1 and 2 proved against the petitioner and also held that the collection of cheques were normally handled by the Trainee Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore submits that the impugned orders arc bad in law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and findings of the Disciplinary Authority are also devoid of merit as the liability of the petitioner, does not stand conclusively established on the basis of the materials on record. In these circumstances, therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed by the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank on the other hand in reply bas stated that no mala fide can be attached to the initiation of the departmental proceeding as they are based upon sufficient documents and materials which related to the tenure of the petitioner in service during his foreign posting as also in relation to Charge No. 2 for his posting as Branch Manager, Adityapur Industrial Estate Branch, Jamshedpur. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted by the Bank and conveyed to him on 4.6.1993 itself. These findings have also come in the order passed in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner himself by the learned single Judge. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge has also found that the initiation of the Disciplinary proceeding cannot be held to be bad because the resignation of the petitioner was refused by the respondent-Bank. These findings have also come in the order passed in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner himself by the learned single Judge. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge has also found that the initiation of the Disciplinary proceeding cannot be held to be bad because the resignation of the petitioner was refused by the respondent-Bank. Therefore, it is submitted that no ground for mala fide or lack of jurisdiction can be alleged for initiation of the Disciplinary proceeding. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent-Bank that so far as the Charge No.3 is concerned, which related to absence from duty by the petitioner, the same has neither been refuted and on the contrary, has been conclusively established on the basis of the materials on record. Admittedly after submission of the resignation letter on 10.4.1993, the petitioner never joined the services of the Bank or discharged his duty under the respondents till the date of his dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner's absence from the duty was grave misconduct and petitioner is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. It is however submitted that so far as the Charge No. 1 is concerned, the action of the petitioner while being posted at Paris Branch under the respondent-Bank were in the nature of serious misconduct which led to pecuniary loss to the Bank to the extent of FFR [French Franc) 2,24,790.97 i.e. approximately Rs. 15.50 lakhs which squarely stands established. It is further stated that Disciplinary Authority has given cogent reason while asking for reply from the petitioner on the reasons for differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the documents which are referred to in the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer were produced by the petitioner himself i.e. Ext. DX2. The said Exhibit DX2 dated 31.7.1989 itself indicate the outstanding entry in the reconciliation statement regarding cheque of 4.5 Lakh FFR deposited by the customer Mr. Pravin Patel which had not been honoured because of lack of insufficient funds. DX2. The said Exhibit DX2 dated 31.7.1989 itself indicate the outstanding entry in the reconciliation statement regarding cheque of 4.5 Lakh FFR deposited by the customer Mr. Pravin Patel which had not been honoured because of lack of insufficient funds. It is stated that even after reconciliation statement recorded on 31.7.1989 the petitioner who was serving as senior officer of the bank at the Paris Branch did not take any corrective step to safeguard the Bank's interest as the customer ultimately withdrew the said amount between 13.9.1989 to 25.10.1989 and thereby caused severe pecuniary loss to the respondent-Bank. The said customer finally committed suicide in July, 1990. Petitioner was found to be lacking in taking diligent steps for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the said customer even though he was alive till July, 1990. It is further submitted that the reasons indicated by the Disciplinary Authority in the memorandum calling for representation dated 8.3.1999 (Annexure-21) so far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned also shows that petitioner had failed to obtain security document before sanctioning over draft, in the current account of one customer under the Branch at Adityapur Industrial Estate. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, therefore submitted that the reasons indicated by the Disciplinary Authority were cogent supported by materials brought during the course of Inquiry and petitioner failed to submit adequate explanation to the same which led to the substitution of the findings by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-23 dated 12.4.1999. Both the charge Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be established and in violation of Regulation 3(1) and 24 of the regulations, 1976 which governs the petitioner's services. In these circumstances, once the charges which are serious in nature causing pecuniary loss to the bank is established and the absence from the duty has been proved for considerable length of time, no fault can be found in the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service as also holding that the petitioner has caused pecuniary loss to the bank. According to the respondent the Appellate Authority has also considered the memorandum of appeal and the ground taken by the petitioner while rejecting the same by the order passed by the General-Manager dated 8.12.1999 which is proper in the eye of law. According to the respondent the Appellate Authority has also considered the memorandum of appeal and the ground taken by the petitioner while rejecting the same by the order passed by the General-Manager dated 8.12.1999 which is proper in the eye of law. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in a case of Bank employee where a relationship of utmost confidence is required to be maintained between the employer and the employee, no interference is required to be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2090 as also in the case of Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and others, reported in 1997(4) SCC 565 . Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also distinguished the argument of the petitioner that similar placed employee namely N. Venkatachalam have been let off with a simple warning for the same charges. It is submitted that the said employee was only a Trainee at the relevant point of time but the petitioner was Senior Officer posted in the Branch who had no explanation to offer in respect of the negligence and failure to pass reverse vouchers on the said cheque being dishonoured and communicated to the Bank on 30th June, 1986 and also reflected in the reconciliation statement dated 31.7.1989. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The charges for which the petitioner was proceeded against are contained at Annexure-5 dated 11.4.1997. The article of charge No. 1 alleges that during the course of his duty at Paris Branch as Staff Officer, a Cheque for FFR (French Franc) 4,50,000/- was deposited by Dr. Pravin Patel, a customer of the branch for collection in his current account with the Branch. The said cheque was sent for clearance through BNP Paris and at the same time, the customer's account was credited with FFR 4,50,000/- as per the prevailing practice at the relevant point of time. The cheque, however, was returned unpaid and with the relevant cheque return advice was received, by the branch on 30.6.1989. The said cheque was sent for clearance through BNP Paris and at the same time, the customer's account was credited with FFR 4,50,000/- as per the prevailing practice at the relevant point of time. The cheque, however, was returned unpaid and with the relevant cheque return advice was received, by the branch on 30.6.1989. It is alleged that the petitioner did not pass reverse vouchers and therefore, the credit remained in the customer's account though the effects were not cleared. The BNP through whom the cheque was sent for collection, debited the branch account with them on 7.7.1989 and the relevant statement of account was received on 16.7.1989. The customer Dr. Pravin Patel withdrew funds to the tune of FFR 439050 from the account and was reported to have committed suicide in July, 1990. In such circumstances, the bank had to enter into a compromise proposal for recovery with the successors of Dr. Patel which envisages sacrifice to the tune of Rs.15.62 lacs approximately towards waiver of 50% of total uncharged interest in the account up to 1995 and also write off legal expenses to the tune of FFR 57,020.47. These acts of the petitioner was alleged to be in gross negligence of his duty and in contravention of Regulations 3(1) and 24 of the Regulations, 1976. The charge No. 2 against the petitioner alleged that while working as Manager of Adityapur Industrial Estate Branch, Jamshedpur, he sanctioned a TOD of Rs. 3,500/ - in the current account of M/s Amiya on 4.3.1990 with an intention to accommodate the borrower and committed various other lapses/irregularities. This was also in contravention of aforesaid regulations. Charge No.3, is related to unauthorized absence from duty from 10.4.1993. 7. From the facts, which have been stated on behalf of the petitioner and have been recorded in the earlier part of the judgment it is apparent that the petitioner was posted in the overseas Branch at Paris from May, 1988 to December, 1992. The petitioner after, completion of tenure of foreign posting joined at Lucknow Zonal Office. In April, 1993 he sent his resignation vide Annexure-3 with a request to the competent Authority to recover an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation which were under the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement (Annexure-2) in case an employee intends to leave the service within a period 5 years of return from the foreign posting. In April, 1993 he sent his resignation vide Annexure-3 with a request to the competent Authority to recover an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation which were under the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement (Annexure-2) in case an employee intends to leave the service within a period 5 years of return from the foreign posting. Though correspondences were exchanged between petitioner and the respondent-Bank but the petitioner's request was refused on 4.6.1993. In these backgrounds the petitioner waited for considerable length of time and preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1336 of 1997(R) seeking payment of post retirement benefits. In the said judgment the fact was also raised by the respondent-Bank on the question of initiation of Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner for the said alleged charges. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court vide order dated 23.9.1999 by recording that since the employer had not accepted the resignation preferred by the petitioner, the resignation never became effective. The petitioner was therefore deemed to be continued in the employment under the respondent-Bank. In the aforesaid background, therefore it is not in dispute that the request for acceptance of resignation was refused by the respondent-Bank on 4.6.1993 itself and Disciplinary proceeding which were initiated on 11.4.1997 are proper and valid in the eyes of law treating the petitioner to be employee of the Bank. The contention of the petitioner that the initiation of the Disciplinary proceeding only upon filing of the writ petitioner seeking terminal benefit is actuated by mala fide is not justified. As a matter of fact the petitioner could have claimed post retirement benefits as legitimate dues if his resignation had been accepted in 1993 itself, which was not the case. Since the petitioner was treated to be employee of the Bank on the refusal of the resignation, the proceeding does not appear to be actuated by mala fide. The Disciplinary proceeding started after service of chargesheet and after refusal of acceptance of preliminary show-cause by appointment of the Inquiry Officer on 7.10.1997. The petitioner is said to have asked to be served documents before the Inquiry Officer which were declined and was asked to adduce evidence in support of his own case. The Inquiry Officer, however after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding found the Charge Nos. The petitioner is said to have asked to be served documents before the Inquiry Officer which were declined and was asked to adduce evidence in support of his own case. The Inquiry Officer, however after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding found the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 not proved against the petitioner while found him guilty of Charge No.3 relating to unauthorized absence. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-21 dated 8.3.1999, asked the petitioner to furnish his representation against the said memorandum containing the reasons differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officers. 8. The petitioner has alleged that reasons for differing with the Inquiry Officer as contained in Annexure-21 were nothing different from what has been discussed by the Inquiry Officer himself and that certain documents which were referred to in the discussion made by the Disciplinary Authority were not part of the Inquiry proceeding. Upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the said memorandum dated 8.3.1999, it is clear that the document DX2 dated 31.7.1989 was exhibited by the petitioner himself during the inquiry proceeding. It has been taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority while recording the reasons that the petitioner had failed to notice the outstanding entries reflected in the reconciliation Statement dated 31.7.1989 and had not taken corrective steps to safeguard the Bank's interest. The discussion made by the Disciplinary Authority also shows that the customer Mr. Pravin Patel had withdrawn the funds on different dates on 13.9.1989 to 25.10.1989 and committed suicide in July, 1990. This withdrawal was obviously after the reconciliation statement DX2 dated 31.7.1989 relied by the petitioner himself during the inquiry proceeding. The petitioner being senior officer in the branch had the responsibility to notice the said outstanding entries reflected in the reconciliation statement and should have passed reverse voucher in the account of the customer in which the cheque of 4.5 lakhs FFR were found to be dishonoured because of lack of insufficient fund. Even after July, 1989 the petitioner was not found to have taken any steps for recovery of the said amount from the said customer though he remained alive till July, 1990. The discussion, therefore, made by the Disciplinary Authority does not appear to be based upon any extraneous material which were not before Inquiry Officer or were lacking in adequate reasons for differing with the Inquiry Officer's report. The discussion, therefore, made by the Disciplinary Authority does not appear to be based upon any extraneous material which were not before Inquiry Officer or were lacking in adequate reasons for differing with the Inquiry Officer's report. In fact in respect of Charge No.2 also the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner had sanctioned the over draft in the account of one M/s Amiya while posted at the Adityapur Industrial Estate Branch. Jamshedpur without obtaining security document before sanctioning of such over draft. This amounted to substantial financial loss to the respondent-Bank and this is not normal in the banking transactions. These reasons indicate that the Disciplinary Authority had applied his mind to the inquiry report and also the materials produced during the course of inquiry before substituting his finding differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which exonerated the petitioner in respect of the charge Nos. 1 and 2. The charge No. 3 apparently stood established because the petitioner remained absent from duty from 10.4.1993 onwards simply after forwarding his request for accepting resignation by the competent Authority, though the same was rejected on 4.6.1993 itself. 9. In these backgrounds reply furnished by the petitioner to the said memorandum dated 8.3.1993 was found to be not satisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority substituted the findings of the Inquiry Officer through his own findings holding the charge Nos. 1 and 2 also established against the petitioner vide Annexure-23 dated 12.4.1999. The misconduct of the petitioner actually caused pecuniary loss to the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 15.62 lakhs in Indian currency. The petitioner was also unauthorizedly absent from 10.4.1993 itself. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the order of punishment by imposing penalty of dismissal from service as also holding petitioner liable of causing loss to the Bank. A perusal of the original order of punishment indicates that all the contents of the charges including the findings arrived at during the course of inquiry and substituted by the Disciplinary Authority after show-cause reply by the petitioner have been taken into account while imposing the said penalty. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However in his appeal he has not taken the plea before the Appellate Authority that one Mr. N. Venkatachalam had also been proceeded against for the same charges and has been let off with a simple warning. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However in his appeal he has not taken the plea before the Appellate Authority that one Mr. N. Venkatachalam had also been proceeded against for the same charges and has been let off with a simple warning. Apparently from perusal of the documents brought on record by the petitioner through the supplementary affidavit in respect of the alleged charges against the said Mr. N. Venkatachalam and his reply, it appears that the said employee had been posted in the Paris Branch initially as Trainee Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, in such circumstances took a lenient view in respect of the said employee letting him off with a minor punishment of warning. Petitioner on the other hand was senior officer at overseas branch at Paris of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner also had a supervisory role over the subordinate staffs of the bank and could not claim to be exonerated of his responsibility which led to the pecuniary loss to the respondent-Bank. A perusal of the appellate order also shows that the Appellate Authority has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner-appellant and concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has therefore failed to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order of punishment. The petitioner being an employee of the Bank was under onerous and fiduciary responsibility with his employer i.e. the respondent-Bank where huge transactions of public money takes place. The petitioner being an employee was expected to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. His acts has also caused pecuniary loss to the Bank. In such circumstances, the judgment relied upon the respondent-Bank in the case of an employee of the bank who was also dismissed from service appears to be applicable to the present case as well. Rigid standards are to be adopted in such matters concerning employees who are working in an organization like the respondent-Bank where huge transaction of public money takes place. 10. It is trite to state that in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court is concerned with the judicial review of the decision making process and not required to enter into in the merits of the decision like an Appellate Authority unless they are based upon no evidence or are otherwise perverse. 10. It is trite to state that in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court is concerned with the judicial review of the decision making process and not required to enter into in the merits of the decision like an Appellate Authority unless they are based upon no evidence or are otherwise perverse. In the instant case however even the scrutiny of the materials adduced during the course of the proceeding in the inquiry and available on record shows that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct leading to substantial loss to the Bank. In such circumstances, therefore no grounds for any interference are being made out on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.