JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20/03/2002 (Annexure-IX) by which the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The departmental appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by Annexure-XI order dated 17/03/2003, which is also under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard Mr. S. Bharali, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. F. Khan, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the entire materials on record including the disciplinary proceeding file produced by Mr. Sarma. 2. The petitioner while was serving as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the respondent bank was placed under suspension by order dated 08/11/1997 on the ground of committing certain serious irregularities while was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk in Mangaldoi Branch of the Bank. The order of suspension was followed by the charge sheet dated 01/09/1999 in which the following charges were levelled. (i) On 12.5.97, you accepted unauthorisedly an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in cash from Shri Hiren Kr. Saharia, meant for depositing in his Saving Bank Account No. 39/79. You returned to the account-holder, the counterfoil of the relative pay-in-slip initialed by you as a token of having received the amount. The amount was not deposited by you in the said Savings Bank account of Shri Hiren Kr. Saharia. The amount was misappropriated by you. (ii) On 03-04-97, you accepted unauthorisedly an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in cash from Smt. Mikumoni Sarma, daughter of Shri Mohan Chandra Sarma for the purpose of depositing the amount in the Savings Bank account No. 11/86 of Shri Mohan Chandra Sarma. You did not credit the amount in the said Savings Bank account of Shri Mohan Chandra Sarma, although the amount was entered in the relative pass-book of the account holder under your initials. The amount was misappropriated by you. Also a superfluous debit entry for Rs. 5,300/- was made by you in the pass-book of the said S.B. account on 11.4.97 under your initials. (iii) From the Savings Bank account No. 45/93 of Smt. Rina Devi, two amounts of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were withdrawn by means of withdrawal forms on 25.10.94 and 01.11.94 respectively. The account holder denies having withdrawn the said amounts. 5,300/- was made by you in the pass-book of the said S.B. account on 11.4.97 under your initials. (iii) From the Savings Bank account No. 45/93 of Smt. Rina Devi, two amounts of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were withdrawn by means of withdrawal forms on 25.10.94 and 01.11.94 respectively. The account holder denies having withdrawn the said amounts. It has been found that the account holder's signatures on the reverse side of both the withdrawals were verified by you although the signatures of Smt. Rina Devi on the said withdrawals differ with the recorded specimen signature of the account holder. You were instrumental in the fraudulent withdrawals of the said sums. (iv) You accepted unauthorisedly amounts in cash for Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 18,200/- on 08.08.95 and 06.06.96 respectively from Dr. B.K. Daimari, for the purpose of depositing in his Savings Bank account No. SIB/81/2145. Both the amounts were not credited to the said Savings Bank account of Dr. Daimari although the counterfoils of the relative pay-in-slips were returned by you to the account holder duly signed by you as a token of receipt of the amount. Also superfluous credit entries for the amounts were made by you in the relative pass-book of the account holder. The amounts were misappropriated by you. 3. Upon levelling the aforesaid charges against the petitioner, it was alleged that the act on the part of the petitioner referred to in the charges violative of the laid down instructions of the Bank and that the petitioner had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and also that such conduct had tarnished the image of the bank before the public. 4. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet and submitted his reply denying the same. As regards the charge No. 1 and 4, it was contended that the question of misappropriation of the amount involved did not arise as the amounts were taken back by the customers. 5. The Disciplinary Authority of the bank being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner decided to hold an enquiry in which the petitioner duly participated. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14/11/2000 holding the petitioner guilty of charge No. 1 and 4 beyond doubt. The petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report which he submitted on 28/02/2001. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14/11/2000 holding the petitioner guilty of charge No. 1 and 4 beyond doubt. The petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report which he submitted on 28/02/2001. Thereafter, upon proposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, from service, he was imposed with the same vide the impugned order dated 20/03/2002. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal to the appellate authority but the same was also dismissed by order dated 17/03/2003. 6. Referring to the report furnished by the Enquiry Officer, it is the submission of Mr. Bharali, learned counsel for the petitioner that the report being cryptic, on the basis of such a report, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement. He further submits that even the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority being without any reason, they are not sustainable in law and thus liable to be interfered with. 7. Countering the above argument, Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the respondent Bank submits that the procedure to be followed in a departmental proceeding being not akin to the procedure to be followed in a criminal proceeding, the petitioner cannot challenge the disciplinary proceeding on technical please without showing any prejudice caused to him in conducting the enquiry proceeding. He further submits that the facts alleged in the charges having been admitted by the petitioner that by itself was sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. Referring to the disciplinary proceeding file, he submits that the documents exhibited in the enquiry would go to show that the petitioner himself had admitted the charges levelled against him. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As to what are the charges levelled against the petitioner has been noted above. All the charges pertain to non-deposit of amounts handed over to the petitioner by the customers. However, in the enquiry while the charge No. 1 and 4 stood established, other two charges could not be established. As to what are the charges levelled against the petitioner has been noted above. All the charges pertain to non-deposit of amounts handed over to the petitioner by the customers. However, in the enquiry while the charge No. 1 and 4 stood established, other two charges could not be established. It is the own case of the petitioner that the amounts indicated in the charge No. 1 and 4 had been returned to the customers by him, but what is required to be considered is as to whether such return of the amount could absolve the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner had admitted the charges. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, the letter of confession of the petitioner has been referred to. As regards the production of letters by the particular customers showing return of the amounts by the petitioner, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the said fact would go to prove the charges against the petitioner. There is no dispute that so far as the charge No. 4 is concerned, the amounts in question were returned by the petitioner to the particular customer after several years. 10. While it is true that in the enquiry report, no detail discussions have been made but there is reference to the exhibited documents i.e. P-4, P-9, P-10 in respect of Article No. 1 and P-2, P-4, P-8, P-11, P-13, P-14 and D-4 in respect of the charge No. 4. I have consulted the said documents as available in the enquiry proceeding file. Document P-4 is the counter foil showing deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as indicated in charge No. 1. Ext. P-9 is the letter written by the customer Shri Hiren Kr. Saharia which is dated 12.5.1997 addressed to the Branch Manager of the bank. By the said letter, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner stating that he had gone to the bank to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in his account. However, the petitioner took the money from him assuring depositing the same in his account. Accordingly, the amount was handed over to him and thereafter the petitioner handed over the counterfoil showing deposit of the amount. Later on, he also made necessary entries in the pass-book. 10,000/- in his account. However, the petitioner took the money from him assuring depositing the same in his account. Accordingly, the amount was handed over to him and thereafter the petitioner handed over the counterfoil showing deposit of the amount. Later on, he also made necessary entries in the pass-book. However, the complaint was withdrawn by his letter dated 13.5.97 as the amount was returned to the customer. Document P-10 is the complaint lodged by the customer to the same effect. 11. From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner took the amount from the complainant assuring him depositing the same in his account and immediately thereafter with due seal and signature, the counterfoil was handed over to him. However, the fact of the matter is that the amount was never deposited. It is another thing that the amount was returned to the customer when he lodged the complaint but it is altogether different thing as to how the action of the petitioner is to be tested in the touchstone of the confidence reposted on him by the bank. 12. As regards the Article No. 4, Ext. P-2 is the pass-book pertaining to the complainant Dr. B. K. Daimari. Ext P-4 has already been referred to above. Ext P-8 is the letter dated 10/01/2000 written by said Shri Daimari to the Branch Manager stating therein that since had received back the money as indicated in Article No. 4, he would not have any claim against the bank. Document P-1 is the vital document, by which the petitioner confessed that the amount mentioned in Article No. 4 although had been received but was not deposited. By the said letter dated 20/09/97, the petitioner assured the Branch Manager that he would return back the money within 15 days failing which he would be liable in law. 13. Document P-13 is the complaint lodged by Dr. B.K. Daimari, stating therein that although he had deposited the amounts mentioned in Charge No. 4 but such deposit was not shown in the pass book. It was stated in the letter that the amounts were handed over to the petitioner. Document P-18 is another complaint dated 3.10.2007 lodged by Dr. Daimari naming the petitioner. In the said complaint also non-deposit of the amounts in his account by the petitioner was alleged. It was stated in the letter that the amounts were handed over to the petitioner. Document P-18 is another complaint dated 3.10.2007 lodged by Dr. Daimari naming the petitioner. In the said complaint also non-deposit of the amounts in his account by the petitioner was alleged. Document P-15 is a report of the Branch Manager furnished to the higher authority about the aforesaid incident. 14. Referring to the above documents, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge No. 1 and 4. Even in the counter affidavit filed on 29.6.2006, the respondents have annexed the documents marked as Annexure-A, B, C and D. Annexure-A is the letter by which Shri Hiren Kr. Saharia addressed the Branch that he received the amount in question. Annexure-B is the document pertaining to the personal hearing that was given to the petitioner in respect of the proposed penalty. The submission of the petitioner was that he would not repeat the wrong done in future and that he be imposed with a lesser penalty. 15. Annexure-C and D are the documents already referred to above by which the petitioner undertook to deposit the amount shown in article of Charge No. 4 within 15 days and the letter of the depositor i.e. Dr. Daimari dtd. 10.1.2007 intimating the Branch Manager that the amount was returned to him. It would be pertinent to mention here that the incident pertaining to Article No. 4 was of 8.8.95 and 6.6.96 and the amount involved was returned to the depositor by the petitioner later on. 16. Needless to say that the job involved in respect of an employee of a financial institution like Bank is that of confidence. It is an admitted position that the amounts involved in Article No. 1 and 4 were not deposited by the petitioner although were shown deposited. Even the counter foil showing deposit was handed over to the depositor and the pass book was also updated. However, when the complaint was lodged the amount in respect of Article No. 1 was returned back. So far as the charge No. 4 is concerned, both the amounts were returned to the customer after a considerable length of time. This will go to show that the petitioner had taken the amount for the purpose of deposit against the accounts of the customers, but was not deposited. So far as the charge No. 4 is concerned, both the amounts were returned to the customer after a considerable length of time. This will go to show that the petitioner had taken the amount for the purpose of deposit against the accounts of the customers, but was not deposited. This conduct on the part of the petitioner led to initiation of departmental proceeding in which he clearly admitted the charges levelled against him. 17. Above being the position, if the Disciplinary Authority decided to enforce the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, no fault can be attributed to it. When the matter was last taken up on 6.5.2013, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent bank was asked to obtain instruction as to whether pursuant to the compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner, he has been paid his dues. Upon instruction, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to get retirement gratuity and his PF amounts. However, he submits that the petitioner having not approached the bank by submitting necessary information, the amount could not be released. 18. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed upholding the order of the penalty. However, it is hereby directed that the respondent bank shall release the admissible amount to the petitioner upon approach being made by the petitioner and observing necessary formalities. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed