JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the Zonal Manager, United Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office as the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service, as affirmed by order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the appellate authority. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 2. While the petitioner was serving in the Regional Office of United Bank of India, Sibsagar Region, he was placed under suspension by order dated 22.5.2001 issued by the Deputy General Manager(Personnel) of the United Bank of India (Bank). It was stated that disciplinary action was contemplated against the petitioner for certain gross misconduct allegedly committed by him as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 28.5.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Zonal Manager of the Bank, Guwahati Zonal Office, being the disciplinary authority, informing him that an enquiry was proposed to be held in terms of Regulation 6 of United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on the eight articles of charge mentioned therein. All the charges related to the tenure of the petitioner as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch during 24.2.1997 to 22.9.2000. The substance of the allegations is that petitioner had misused his position as Branch Manager and had granted loans without ensuring proper security and some without authority, even by creating fake ledger-sheet, thereby exposing the Bank to financial risk. 3. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 10.6.2002 denying the allegations. He also stated that it could not be concluded that Bank was likely to suffer financial loss on account of loans granted. 4. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and accordingly, it was decided to hold departmental enquiry under Regulation 6 of United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Regulations). Accordingly, Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the case of the Bank at the enquiry. 5. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted wherein petitioner participated. At the end of the enquiry, written submissions were filed by the Presenting Officer as well as on behalf of the petitioner. In his written statement, petitioner stated that he had served the Bank for almost four decades and had an unblemished service record. 5. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted wherein petitioner participated. At the end of the enquiry, written submissions were filed by the Presenting Officer as well as on behalf of the petitioner. In his written statement, petitioner stated that he had served the Bank for almost four decades and had an unblemished service record. Dehing Tea Estate Branch was a single officer branch and he could not manage the entire work load by single supervisory hand. However, for the errors, omissions and procedural irregularities committed, petitioner expressed sincere regret. There was no mala fide intention on his part. Loan accounts which may have turned NPA are secured by documents and the Bank may initiate legal proceedings to realize the dues. 6. On conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.4.2003. All the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved except Charge No. 2(ii), which was held to be partially proved. Disciplinary authority vide the forwarding letter dated 17.4.2003 furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to submit his defence statement on the enquiry report. In respect thereto, petitioner submitted his representation dated 8.5.2003 contending that submissions made on behalf of the defence were not given due consideration. Nothing was recorded by the Enquiry Officer as to why defence arguments were acceptable or non acceptable to him. He, therefore, prayed for exonerating him from the charges. 7. Disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2003 agreeing with the views of the Enquiry Officer. He came to the conclusion that misconduct of the petitioner had been proved in the enquiry. He therefore held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence in breach of Regulation 3(i) read with Regulation 24 of the Regulations as was expected of a responsible officer of the Bank, Consequently, the punishment of dismissal, which is ordinarily a disqualification for future employment, was imposed on the petitioner. 8. Against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner preferred appeal dated 23.7.2003 before the appellate authority. 8. Against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner preferred appeal dated 23.7.2003 before the appellate authority. General Manager (Treasury Management) of the Bank at its Head Office at Kolkata acting as the appellate authority passed order dated 31.3.2004 holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved in a properly constituted departmental enquiry and that the punishment imposed on him by the disciplinary authority was appropriate, proper and commensurate with the nature of the misconduct. He, therefore, confirmed the punishment imposed and dismissed the appeal. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 10. Contention of the petitioner is that there is no merit in the charges leveled against him. There was no mala fide intention by the petitioner in granting loans. The Branch was a single Officer branch and the petitioner was over burdened with work. He did not commit any misconduct within the meaning of the Regulations. The Zonal Manager failed to consider the version of the defence before submitting his report. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is extremely harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. 11. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that the charges leveled against the petitioner were very serious in nature and the petitioner conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Manager of a Bank. Petitioner committed misconduct as defined under the Regulations and failed to give satisfactory explanation in his written statement. Petitioner was given adequate opportunity in the enquiry and he was given assistance of defence representative. Management witnesses were duly cross examined by him. Enquiry Officer in his report held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his representation on the enquiry report was duly considered. After due consideration, the impugned penalty was imposed which is appropriate and commensurate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner was duly considered by the appellate authority and by a reasoned order, the same was rejected. In the circumstances, respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. In his reply affidavit, petitioner has stated that except the present proceeding, during his entire service career he had no occasion to face any disciplinary proceeding. Appeal filed by the petitioner was duly considered by the appellate authority and by a reasoned order, the same was rejected. In the circumstances, respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. In his reply affidavit, petitioner has stated that except the present proceeding, during his entire service career he had no occasion to face any disciplinary proceeding. Because of the pro-active steps taken by him as Branch Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch, there was a significant increase in the deposits of the said Branch. Petitioner has stated that punishment imposed is of extreme nature, unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The departmental proceeding was conducted in a pre-determined manner. The customers to whom loans were advanced were all valued customers with long standing relationship with the Bank. Petitioner has stated that he had opted for pension and would have retired in April, 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation but because of the impugned punishment he has been deprived of all his service benefits which he had earned by dint of his long service in the Bank. He has further stated that Bank is not legally authorized to withhold gratuity due to the petitioner under the law. It is also stated that since there is no allegation of misappropriation or opening of fake accounts etc., Court may consider taking a lenient view of the matter so that petitioner at least gets the post retirement benefits. 13. Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the charges leveled against the petitioner did not make out any case of misconduct committed by the petitioner. Petitioner had discharged his duty keeping in mind the best interest of the Bank. No financial loss has been caused to the Bank. In such circumstances, imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged. He fairly submits that since the petitioner would have superannuated in April, 2004, question of reinstatement in service may not arise at this stage. No financial loss has been caused to the Bank. In such circumstances, imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged. He fairly submits that since the petitioner would have superannuated in April, 2004, question of reinstatement in service may not arise at this stage. He, however, contends that Court may consider the extreme nature of the penalty imposed because of which he has been deprived of all the service benefits which he had earned by dint of his long and dedicated service in the Bank. The authority completely overlooked the fact that petitioner had rendered about four decades of service in the Bank and other than the present proceeding, he was not subjected to any other proceeding. He submits that even the disciplinary authority had at one point of time suggested imposition of major penalty of "compulsory retirement" in which case, petitioner would have been entitled to the post retirement benefits but it appears that he was prevailed upon by his higher authorities and because of that, extreme penalty was imposed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following two decisions:- (i) (2005) 1 SCC 13 , Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. (ii) (2007) 1 SCC 681 , Narmada Pd. Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 15. Opposing the submissions made by Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner had committed serious misconduct while discharging his duty as a Branch Manager. He had unauthorizedly granted loans to various persons even by making fake ledger-sheet. His actions had not only put the Bank to serious risk of financial loss but has also resulted in actual loss to the Rank as there were default in many of the loan accounts. In any case, he submits that the question of Bank having suffered actual loss is immaterial. It is a question of trust. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the domestic enquiry which found the charges against him to be proved. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his representation on the same was duly considered. It is a question of trust. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the domestic enquiry which found the charges against him to be proved. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his representation on the same was duly considered. Learned counsel submits that petitioner foiled to display honesty and integrity in the discharge of his duty and he having lost the confidence of the Bank management, no punishment other than the punishment of dismissal could have been imposed. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is shocking to the judicial conscience. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition should be dismissed. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court a plethora of decisions covering almost all aspects of the law relating to disciplinary proceeding and imposition of punishment with particular reference to bank employees. The decisions are as under:- (i) (1996) 9 SCC 69 : Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager & Ors. Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik. (ii) 1997 (2) GLT 132: State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Partha Pradeep Dutta. (iii) (2012) 1 SCC 442 : Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (iv) (1997) 6 SCC 271: Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar Vs. Bank of India. (v) (2005) 6 SCC 321 : Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy. (vi) (2003) 4 SCC 364 : Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar. (vii) (2007) 15 SCC 775: Narendra Nath Bhalla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (viii) (1996) 3 SCC 750 : State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & Anr. (ix) (1996) 2 SCC 12 : Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra Vs. Prabhakar Chaturvedi & Anr. (xi) AIR 2003 SC 1724 : Nithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 16. In his reply, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to distinguish the judgments relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that all the judgments would have to be read in the contextual facts of the case. There is no such inflexible formula or principle that once charge of misconduct against a Bank Officer is proved, the only punishment that should be imposed is dismissal. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that all the judgments would have to be read in the contextual facts of the case. There is no such inflexible formula or principle that once charge of misconduct against a Bank Officer is proved, the only punishment that should be imposed is dismissal. He submits that the arguments sought to be advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had lost the confidence of the Bank management would not apply in the present case as there is no question of reinstatement in service since petitioner would have superannuated in April, 2004 had he remained in service. He submits that after almost four decades of dedicated service, impugned punishment imposed which has deprived him of all service benefits is certainly an extreme penalty and not at all commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct His long and unblemished service career was a relevant consideration which ought to have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority while imposing the penalty and affirming the same. He has again placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) AIR 1975 SC 661 : L. Michael & Anr. Vs. M/s. Johnson Pumps Ltd. (ii) AIR 1957 SC 7 : Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Shri Nand Kishore Singh. (iii) AIR 2003 SC 1377 : Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank & Ors. 17. Submissions made have been considered. 18. Before proceeding further, the charges framed against the petitioner may be briefly referred to. As already noticed above, all the charges framed against the petitioner related to his tenure as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch. The substance of the allegations in brief is that petitioner had misused his position as Branch Manager and had recklessly granted loans to various parties without proper verification and authority, sometimes even by creating fake ledger-sheets, thereby exposing the Bank to financial risk. The substance of the allegations in brief is that petitioner had misused his position as Branch Manager and had recklessly granted loans to various parties without proper verification and authority, sometimes even by creating fake ledger-sheets, thereby exposing the Bank to financial risk. The charges framed against the petitioner were as under:- (A) Articles of charge: During the tenure of your service as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch of the Bank from 24.02.1997 to 22.09.2000 you failed to take every possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honestly, devotion and diligence in breach of Regulations 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and in that: (1) You sanctioned one demand loan a/c No. 63/97-98 for Rs. 1.00 lac to Shri B. Dey on 04.04.1997 against the primary security of RIP Certificate No. 086689 (A/c No. 98/96) for Rs. 3.50 lacs. The loan was liquidated on 10.04.1997 and the said RIP a/c was prematurely closed on 07.08.1997 by credit to 12 RIP accounts (Receipt Nos. 687140 to 687151) for sums aggregating to Rs. 3.50 lacs, the interest of Rs. 31,203.00 was transferred to Interest Payable on RIP a/c. While closing the said loan a/c and RIP a/c No. 98/96 you did not make "closed" on the said RIP receipt and the relevant loan documents. Instead you prepared one fake RIP Ledger Sheet making a/c No. 98/96 and issuing the said RIP Certificate and the said loan documents, you created a demand loan a/c No. 101/97 for Rs. 1.00 lac on 20.12.97 in the name of Shree B. Dey and disbursed the sum by credit to C.C. a/c No. 3 of Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee. Thus, you by distorting Bank's documents, abusing your own position as Manager of the branch and in breach of trust reposed by the Bank on you passed on undue financial benefits to outsider and has caused loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,58,939/- plus applicable interest thereon. (2) During the period from 09.10.98 to 15.06.2000 you debited Demand Loan Accounts in your name on 16 occasions as per Annexure 'F' for sums aggregating Rs. 2,66,500/- without obtaining sanction from your Higher Authority, when you were already enjoying an unauthorized Demand Loan limit of Rs. 10,000/- and availed yourself of the above sum. 1,58,939/- plus applicable interest thereon. (2) During the period from 09.10.98 to 15.06.2000 you debited Demand Loan Accounts in your name on 16 occasions as per Annexure 'F' for sums aggregating Rs. 2,66,500/- without obtaining sanction from your Higher Authority, when you were already enjoying an unauthorized Demand Loan limit of Rs. 10,000/- and availed yourself of the above sum. Thus, you have enjoyed Bank's fund unduly for sums aggregating Rs. 2,76,500/- without any security in violation of Bank's rules. In order to conceal your misdeeds, you did not make necessary ledger entries pertaining to such debits in Demand Loan Accounts. You have also deposited sums aggregating Rs. 1,26,704.00 on 8 occasions (On 26.11.98, 10.12.98, 08.01.99, 04.03.99, 18.05.99, 08.07.99 and 21.09.2000). Interest for Rs. 1,782/- has also been charged by you. Thus, Bank is out of fund for a sum of Rs. 1,51,578.00 plus interest caused by your unauthorized acts of enjoying clean advance. (3) You unauthorisedly and irregularly allowed the under mentioned clean loan without any security. You also did not record any such sanction of loan in Loan ledger and suppressed the fact to your Regional Office exposing the Bank to suffer financial risk to the extent of Rs. 3,850/- besides applicable interest thereon. Name of the Loans Outstanding amount (Rs) D. Dehingia Rs. 1,000.00 Ajit Dutta Rs. 1,350.00 Sanjeeb Bhuyan Rs. 1,500.00 Total Rs. 3,850.00 4. You unauthorisedly and irregularly allowed loans to Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee without any security on several occasions as detailed below. Thus, you acted unauthorisedly in violation of Bank's Circular No. OPD/DP/03/06/OM-07/94 dated 06.04.1994, OPD/DP/03/12/OM-207/94-95 dated 10.09.94 and O & M/DP/03/14/PM-259/98 dt. 11.11.98 pertaining to sanction of Clean Advance. You did not record the said debits in the respective loan ledger of Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee and it is evident that your unauthorized act has exposed the bank to suffer financial risk to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- besides applicable interest thereon. You concealed the said act from the Regional Manager by not reporting through Discretionary Power Statement. Date 20.11.97 Amount of Loan (in Rs.) 30,000.00 Amount deposited (in Rs.) Outstanding balance (Dr.) 30,000.00 23.12.97 24.03.98 31.03.98 02.04.98 20.04.98 30.04.98 26.05.98 22.10.98 - 35,000.00 - 13,000.00 7,000.00 8,0000.00 54,000.00 30,000.00 - 20,000.00 - - - 34,000.00 3,000.00 NIL 35,000.00 15,000.00 28,000.00 35,000.00 43,000.00 63,000.00 60,000.00 5. Date 20.11.97 Amount of Loan (in Rs.) 30,000.00 Amount deposited (in Rs.) Outstanding balance (Dr.) 30,000.00 23.12.97 24.03.98 31.03.98 02.04.98 20.04.98 30.04.98 26.05.98 22.10.98 - 35,000.00 - 13,000.00 7,000.00 8,0000.00 54,000.00 30,000.00 - 20,000.00 - - - 34,000.00 3,000.00 NIL 35,000.00 15,000.00 28,000.00 35,000.00 43,000.00 63,000.00 60,000.00 5. You unauthorisedly and recklessly allowed excess drawings in 5(Five) Cash Credit (CC) Accounts on several occasions as detailed in Annexure 'A' to Annexure 'E'. Although your Discretionary Power was withdrawn by the Regional Manager of Dibrugarh Region by letter No. RO/DBR/ADV/DTE/05/97 dated 26.09.97, you continued to allow excess drawings in 4 Cash Credit accounts as detailed in Annexure 'B' to Annexure 'E'. You did not report the said excess drawings to the Controller of Dibrugarh Regional Office through irregularity sheets for the relevant months for their noting. Thus, you not only acted beyond your authority but also suppressed your these misdeeds. Due to your aforesaid misdeeds Bank has been exposed to financial risk of Rs. 4.73 lacs on turning the accounts of Shri Pradip Mondal, Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee and Shri Sujit Dey into NPA. 6. You did not conduct pre-sanction and post-sanction inspections in the accounts mentioned under Annexure 'A' to Annexure 'E' for ensuring and use of Bank's fund. You also allowed drawings in those accounts without calculating the drawing power and thus violated the rules of the Bank. 7. You sanctioned one Cash Credit limit of Rs. 1.00 lac to Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee (CC RT a/c No. 3) on 02.05.97. You allowed payment against 5 cheques aggregating Rs. 84,000/- on 5 different dates in this account without ensuring posting of those cheques in the relevant ledger sheet and debiting the account. Thus, you by abusing your position allowed undue financial benefit to the borrower. With a view to covering up this portion of misdeeds you deliberately showed the ledger outstanding balance as Rs. 3,06,779.00 instead of Rs. 1,44,445.40 while debiting interest of Rs. 4,979.00 on 31.12.99. 8. You unauthorisedly, irregularly and in breach of Banks laid down norms sanctioned and disbursed 9 (nine) Demand Loans, as indicated under Annexure-G enclosed herewith. You sanctioned those loans without security and also without obtaining adequate margin. You did not report such sanction of demand loan to Regional Office through Monthly Discretionary Power Statement with a view to suppress the fact. You unauthorisedly, irregularly and in breach of Banks laid down norms sanctioned and disbursed 9 (nine) Demand Loans, as indicated under Annexure-G enclosed herewith. You sanctioned those loans without security and also without obtaining adequate margin. You did not report such sanction of demand loan to Regional Office through Monthly Discretionary Power Statement with a view to suppress the fact. As a result of your such act Bank has been exposed to suffer a financial risk to the extent of Rs. 4.74 lacs besides, applicable interest thereupon. 19. A full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted to enquire into the above charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, so also a Presenting Officer. In the enquiry conducted, petitioner participated and he was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case which he availed. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.4.2003 to the disciplinary authority. All the charges against the petitioner barring one part of Charge No. 2 which was partially proved, were held proved by the Enquiry Officer. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide his forwarding letter dated 17.4.2003 with a request to make his representation on the report. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 8.5.2003 contending that enquiry report reflected non-application of mind and suffered from technical lapses. No mention was made by the Enquiry Officer as to why the defence version was found to be non-acceptable. Petitioner, therefore, prayed for his exoneration. 20. Disciplinary authority on due consideration passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2003 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. Impugned order dated 25.6.2003 reads as under:- A charge-sheet was issued to you through Bank's letter No. ZO/DISC/SIB/236/2002-03, dt. 28.05.2002 under Regulation 6 of United Bank of India, Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A departmental enquiry was held into the charges leveled against you in the aforesaid charge-sheet providing you with all reasonable opportunities to defend your case in the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. You participated in the said Departmental Enquiry alongwith your Defence Representative. The enquiry officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 12.04.2003 a copy of which was forwarded to you under cover of letter No. Z0/DISC/DTE/SKR/038/078/2003-04, dt. 17.04.2003 of the undersigned for your defence statement on the said enquiry report. You submitted your defence statement through your letter dated 08.05.2003. 2. You participated in the said Departmental Enquiry alongwith your Defence Representative. The enquiry officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 12.04.2003 a copy of which was forwarded to you under cover of letter No. Z0/DISC/DTE/SKR/038/078/2003-04, dt. 17.04.2003 of the undersigned for your defence statement on the said enquiry report. You submitted your defence statement through your letter dated 08.05.2003. 2. From the above charge-sheet it was alleged that during the tenure of your service as Manager of Dehing Tea Estate Branch from 24.02.97 to 22.09.2000 you had committed several irregularities including abusing your position as Manager for undue benefit of yourself and others, creating clean loans beyond your authority, allowing excess drawing, sanctioning loans beyond your authority and beyond the norms of the Bank exposing the Bank to financial loss, concealment of fact from your higher authority etc. as enumerated in the said and thereby committed misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 3. I have considered the charge-sheet in the background of explanation thereto, proceedings of the enquiry, the oral and documentary evidence produced and adduced in the enquiry, the enquiry report and all other papers and documents connected with the enquiry. After application of my mind independently and thoroughly on all papers and documents in connection with the aforesaid charge-sheet and having gone through the report of the enquiry officer I am of the view that the misconduct has been proved in the enquiry and I therefore find that you failed to discharge your duty with utmost integrity, honestly, devotion and diligence in breach of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as is expected of a responsible officer of the Bank. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the above case, proven exposing the Bank to financial loss warrants a punishment of "DISMISSAL" as per Regulation 4(j) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. 5. So, in exercise of power conferred upon me under Regulation 7(3) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I hereby impose upon you the punishment of DISMISSAL WHICH SHALL ORDINARILY BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT, with immediate effect. 21. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the imposition of penalty was rejected by the appellate authority by a reasoned order dated 31.3.2004. 21. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the imposition of penalty was rejected by the appellate authority by a reasoned order dated 31.3.2004. The punishment of dismissal was confirmed. 22. Law relating to holding of departmental proceeding and imposition of penalty after holding of full-fledged enquiry is well settled and needs no re-statement. A writ Court would not sit over the decision of the disciplinary authority or of the appellate authority as an appellate Court. Judicial review in such matters would be limited to examining as to whether a fair procedure was followed while dealing with the delinquent, whether principles of natural justice were complied with and whether the evidence or the materials on record would entitle the enquiry authority and the disciplinary authority to take a reasonable view of the delinquency by applying the standard of preponderance of probability. The Court may also examine as to whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Moreover, in case of misconduct on the part of a bank employee, the approach of the Court would be further restrained as it involves banking reputation of the Bank. Therefore, having regard to the settled legal position, dilation on the cited decisions is considered not necessary. 23. In the present case, I am of the considered view that petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Necessary procedural requirements were followed. Petitioner was a Bank Manager and will have to take the responsibility for his acts of omission and commission, which have been proved in a full-fledged departmental enquiry. As has been reiterated in numerous judgments, standard of discipline expected of a bank employee is much higher than in any other service sector. It is a question of trust and public confidence in the functioning of a bank. If the disciplinary authority for good and valid reason loses its confidence on an employee guilty of proven misconduct, it will be difficult to retain such an employee in service. 24. Viewed in the above context, this Court finds no infirmity either in the procedure followed in the departmental proceeding or in the penalty imposed. In such circumstances, the Court would not like to intervene in the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 25. However, despite holding so, there is one aspect of the matter, which has engaged the attention of the Court. In such circumstances, the Court would not like to intervene in the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 25. However, despite holding so, there is one aspect of the matter, which has engaged the attention of the Court. The Court has given its due and anxious consideration to the submission advanced by Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding his dismissal from service, petitioner cannot be deprived of or denied the gratuity that is due to him. 26. As would be evident from the materials on record, petitioner had joined the Bank on 26.4.1966 and rose through the ranks to become Manager. He rendered continuous service in the Bank from 1966 till his dismissal from service on 25.6.2003 i.e. for more than 37 years. Respondents have not been able to place any material or show any other instance of misconduct by the petitioner other than the one covered by the disciplinary proceeding in the present case. 27. Question therefore is as to whether imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service would automatically lead to forfeiture of gratuity? 28. Payment of gratuity to an employee is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act) which provides for a scheme for payment of gratuity to employees, is a welfare piece of legislation and withholding of gratuity due to an employee is not permissible under any circumstances other than those enumerated in Section 4(6) of the Act. The conditions under which gratuity can be forfeited are enumerated in sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, which is quoted hereunder:- 4(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited]- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for the riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the service of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is seen that gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for an act of misconduct causing damage or loss can be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. Therefore, for forfeiture of gratuity, two conditions are required to be fulfilled, namely, (i) service of the employee should be terminated for an act of misconduct which caused damage or loss to the employer (ii) forfeiture of gratuity shall be to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. In other words, to invoke the provision of Section 4(6)(1)(a), quantification of the extent of damage or loss so caused is essential. 29. A Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bijan Dhar Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. in WP (C) No. 3189/2008 referring to the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) of the Act and the Central Bank of India Employees Gratuity Fund Rules held that loss sustained by the Bank due to misconduct has to be quantified. Learned Single Judge further held that Bank before causing forfeiture of the gratuity must cause an enquiry relating to the extent of loss sustained by the Bank, giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee. In the facts of that case, learned Single Judge directed release of the gratuity amount alongwith interest @ 7%. 30. This was challenged by the Bank in appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 234/2010. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.12.2010 dismissed the said appeal observing that forfeiture is permissible only in case there is a financial loss caused to the Bank which postulates quantification of the financial loss and not likelihood of financial loss. The Division Bench held as under:- In our opinion Rule 12 of the Central Bank of India Employees' Gratuity Fund Rules makes it clear that forfeiture is permissible in case there is a financial loss caused to the appellant Bank. This postulates quantification of the financial loss and not the likelihood of a financial loss. The reason for this is that if there is a loss of a small amount of money, a Bank may take a view that it has suffered an enormous loss in terms of its credibility and its clients may withdraw their deposits with the Bank. This can lead to a completely unreasonable situation detrimental to the interests of the employee. The reason for this is that if there is a loss of a small amount of money, a Bank may take a view that it has suffered an enormous loss in terms of its credibility and its clients may withdraw their deposits with the Bank. This can lead to a completely unreasonable situation detrimental to the interests of the employee. It is for this reason that actual loss is postulated and not potential loss. In so far the present case is concerned, there is no quantification of the financial loss caused to the Bank but only the likelihood of the loss. It does not, in our opinion, meet the requirement of Rule 12 of the Central Bank of India Employees' Gratuity Fund Rules which requires quantification of the financial loss. 31. The constitutional validity of the Act particularly, Section 4(1)(b) thereof, which is the pivotal section providing for payment of gratuity to the employees, was challenged in Bakshish Singh Vs. M/s. Darshan Engineering Works & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 251 . Though the High Court had initially struck down the said provision as being unconstitutional, the judgment of the High Court was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While upholding the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision, the Apex Court made a detailed survey of the relevant law and held as under:- 7. The aforesaid survey of the relevant authorities shows that in labour jurisprudence the concept of "gratuity" has undergone a metamorphosis over the years. The dictionary meaning may suggest that gratuity is a gratuitous payment, a gift or a boon made by the employer to the employee as per his sweet-will. It necessarily means that it is in the discretion of the employer whether to make the payment or not and also to choose the payee as well as the quantum of payment. However, in the industrial adjudication it was considered as a reward for a long and meritorious service and its payment, therefore, depended upon the duration and the quality of the service rendered by the employee. At a later stage, it came to be recognized as a retiral benefit in consideration of the service rendered and the employees could raise an industrial dispute for introducing it as a condition of service. At a later stage, it came to be recognized as a retiral benefit in consideration of the service rendered and the employees could raise an industrial dispute for introducing it as a condition of service. The industrial adjudicators recognized it as such and granted it either in lieu of or in addition to other retiral benefits such as pension or provident fund depending mainly upon the financial stability and capacity of the employer. The other factors which were taken into consideration while introducing gratuity scheme were the service conditions prevalent in the other units in the industry and the region, the availability or otherwise of the other retiral benefits, the standard of other service conditions etc. The quantum of gratuity was also determined by the said factors. The recognition of gratuity as a retiral benefit brought in its wake further modifications of the concept. It could be paid even if the employee resigned or voluntarily retired from service. The minimum qualifying service for entitlement to it, rate at which it was to be paid and the maximum amount payable was determined likewise on the basis of the said factors. It had also to be acknowledged that it could not be denied to the employee on account of his misconduct. He could be denied gratuity only to the extent of the financial loss caused by his misconduct, and no more. Thus even before the present Act was placed on the statute book, the Courts had recognized gratuity as a legitimate retiral benefit earned by the employee on account of the service rendered by him. It became a service condition wherever it was introduced whether in lieu of or in addition to the other retiral benefits. The employees could also legitimately demand its introduction as such retiral benefit by raising an industrial dispute in that behalf, if necessary. The industrial adjudicators granted or rejected the demand on the basis of the factors indicated above. It is true that while doing so, the industrial adjudicators insisted upon certain minimum years of qualifying service before an employee could claim it whether on superannuation or resignation or voluntary retirement. This was undoubtedly inconsistent with the concept of the gratuity being an earning for the services rendered. What is, however, necessary to remember in this connection is that there is no fixed concept of gratuity or of the method of its payment. This was undoubtedly inconsistent with the concept of the gratuity being an earning for the services rendered. What is, however, necessary to remember in this connection is that there is no fixed concept of gratuity or of the method of its payment. Like all other service conditions, gratuity schemes may differ from establishment to establishment depending upon the various factors mentioned above, the prominent among them being the financial capacity of the employer to bear the burden. There has commonly been one distinction between a retiral benefit like provident fund and gratuity, viz., the former generally consists of the contribution from the employee as well. It is, however, not a necessary ingredient and where the employee is required to make his contribution, there is no uniformity in the proportion of his share of contribution. Likewise, the gratuity schemes may also provide differing qualifying service for entitlement to gratuity. It is true that in the case of gratuity an additional factor weighed with the industrial adjudicators and Courts, viz., that being entirely a payment made by the employer without there being a corresponding contribution from the employee, the gratuity scheme should not be so liberal as would induce the employees to change employment after employment after putting in the minimum service qualifying them to earn it. But as has been pointed out by this Court in the Straw Board Mfg. Co. Ltd. case ( AIR 1977 SC 941 ) (supra), in view of the constantly growing unemployment, the surplus labour and meagre opportunities for employment, the premise on which a longer qualifying period of service was prescribed for entitlement to gratuity on voluntary retirement or resignation, was unsupported by reality. In the face of the dire prospects of unemployment, it was facile to assume that the labour would change or keep changing employment to secure the paltry benefit of gratuity. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.....It would thus be apparent both from its object as well as its provisions that the Act was placed on the statute book as a welfare measure to improve the service conditions of the employees. The provisions of the statute were applied uniformly throughout the country to all establishments covered by it. They applied to all employees drawing a monthly salary up to a particular limit in factories, shops and establishments etc. The provisions of the statute were applied uniformly throughout the country to all establishments covered by it. They applied to all employees drawing a monthly salary up to a particular limit in factories, shops and establishments etc. whether the employees were engaged to do any skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory technical or clerical work. The provisions of the Act were thus meant for laying down gratuity as one of the minimal service conditions available to all employees covered by the Act. There is no provision in the Act for exempting any factory, shop etc. from the purview of the Act covered by it except those where, as pointed out above, the employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits which are no less favourable than the benefit conferred under the Act. The payment of gratuity under the Act is thus obligatory being one of the minimum conditions of service. The non-compliance of the provisions of the Act is made an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine. It is settled law that the establishments which have no capacity to give to their workmen the minimum conditions of service prescribed by the Statute have no right to exist .......................... * * * * * * * * ....The present Act is of the genre of Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Bonus Act, the Provident Funds Act, Employees' State Insurance Act, and other like statutes. These statutes lay down the minimum relevant benefits which must be made available to the employees. We have solemnly resolved to constitute this country, among others, into a socialist republic and to secure to all its citizens, which, of course, include workmen, social and economic justice. Article 38 requires the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which, among other things, social and economic justice shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Article 39 states that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing, among others, that the citizens have the right to an adequate means to livelihood and that the health and strength of workers are not abused. Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to make effective provision, among others, for securing public assistance in old age and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to make effective provision, among others, for securing public assistance in old age and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 42 enjoins the State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work while Article 43 requires the State to endeavour to secure by (sic) conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. Article 47 requires that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as one of its primary duties. Further, there is a restriction placed on the exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) by clause (6) of the said Article. That clause states that nothing in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by that sub-clause. It cannot be disputed that the present Act is a welfare measure introduced in the interest of the general public to secure social and economic justice to workmen to assist them in their old age and to ensure them a decent standard of life on their retirement. On both grounds, therefore, viz., that the provisions for payment of gratuity contained in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act are one of the minimal service conditions which must be made available to the employees notwithstanding the financial capacity of the employer to bear its burden and that the said provisions are a reasonable restriction on the right of the employer to carry on his business within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, the said provisions are both sustainable and valid. Hence the decision of the High Court has to be set aside. 32. The Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663 held that the Act provides for a close-knit scheme providing for payment of gratuity. It is a complete code containing detailed provisions covering the essential provisions of a scheme for gratuity. 32. The Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663 held that the Act provides for a close-knit scheme providing for payment of gratuity. It is a complete code containing detailed provisions covering the essential provisions of a scheme for gratuity. It not only creates a right to payment of gratuity but also lays down the principles for quantification thereof as also the conditions on which an employee may be denied gratuity. The amount liable to be forfeited would only be to the extent of damage or loss caused, which has to be quantified and while quantifying the said amount, an opportunity of hearing must be given to the employee. 33. From a conjoint and careful reading of the legal provisions as noticed herein above, it becomes evident that to withhold or to make forfeiture of gratuity, the employer is first required to quantify the damage or loss caused due to the misconduct of the employee. In the exercise of quantification, the employee must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Only after the damage or loss is quantified, the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity should be limited to that extent only. 34. In the present case, there is no quantification of the loss suffered by the Bank. What has been contended is the loss visualized or the possible loss. In the absence of quantification in the manner indicated above, the Bank could not have withheld the amount of gratuity statutorily due to the petitioner. 35. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the penalty of the dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner. But notwithstanding such penalty, Court is of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to gratuity. Accordingly, the respondents, shall release the admissible gratuity amount due to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Disposed off