Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order of Compulsory Retirement as punishment for proved misconduct. 2. The petitioner was employed as Manager with the Indian Bank and while serving as Branch Manager at Adamangalam Branch in Thiruvannamalai District, he was served with a charge memo dated 12.08.1998, pointing out certain irregularities. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo on 18.09.1998. The petitioner was thereafter served with 2nd charge memo dated 14.12.1998, which was again replied by the petitioner on 30.12.1998. The petitioner did not hear anything thereafter. 3. It is the case of petitioner, that the Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2000 vide circular dated 09.11.2000, which was open between 27.11.2000 and 26.12.2000. The petitioner opted for Voluntary Retirement on 27.11.2000, but his application was rejected by the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner, being aggrieved by rejection of the request for Voluntary Retirement Scheme filed W.P.No.18174 of 2001. 4. It is the case of petitioner, that in order to justify rejection of the request of petitioner for Voluntary Retirement, departmental proceedings were initiated based on the Articles of Charges dated 13.03.2002. The charges leveled in the charge memo dated 13.03.2002 were same as the one issued to him earlier on 12.08.1998 and 14.12.1998. 5. It is submitted, that the petitioner has been victimised for having approached this Court against the decision of the respondent in refusing to permit the petitioner to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 6. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as under: "A. That complaints have been received from parties/borrowers of the branch that I had demanded and received money as illegal gratification for extending certain credit facilities to them. B. That I instigated Village Presidents/Vice Presidents of various villages to give a representation to the then Regional Manager, Thiruvannamalai not to take action against me and to drop allegations. C.-a. That I had sanctioned IRDP loan to Smt.Shantha when her husband Shri.T.Ramasamy was having an overdue loan under CGC. b. That I had sanctioned PMRY loan to Shri.R.Vijayakumar, S/o.T.Ramasamy against guarantee of Shri.T.Ramasamy who was a loan defaulter. D. That I had sanctioned jewel loan to a customer against pledge of a jewel the net weight of which is insufficient to cover the balance out standing. b. That I had sanctioned PMRY loan to Shri.R.Vijayakumar, S/o.T.Ramasamy against guarantee of Shri.T.Ramasamy who was a loan defaulter. D. That I had sanctioned jewel loan to a customer against pledge of a jewel the net weight of which is insufficient to cover the balance out standing. E. That I had sanctioned fresh limit to Shri.E.Raja, an overdue borrower and released a security (jewels) despite lien marked in the ledger." The petitioner denied the charges. 7. It is not in dispute, that enquiry was held against the petitioner on 07.05.2004, where five witnesses were examined by the Management. The Management also produced the documentary evidence. 8. The petitioner also examined one witness in defense and produced 20 documents in defense. 9. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 08.04.2005 and held that the charges in 1(a) and 1(b) as partly proved and 1(c) as not proved. The 2nd charge was held to be not proved. The charges in 3(a), 3(b) and 4 were held to be proved. The charge No. 5 (a) was held to be not proved, whereas and charge No.5(b) was held to be proved. 10. The petitioner was served with a copy of enquiry report to which he submitted his explanation. It is the case of petitioner, that considering the submissions made by the petitioner, 4th respondent imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service. 11. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of Compulsory Retirement, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 16.05.2006. The petitioner also preferred Review petition against the order dismissing the appeal, which was also rejected on 30.03.2007 It is the case of petitioner, that a copy of order was supplied to him on 13.07.2007. 12. The order of Compulsory Retirement is challenged by petitioner, on the ground of it being arbitrary, capricious and illegal. 13. It is submitted, that the findings of enquiry officer in holding the charge no.1 to be proved are totally perverse, as it was not supported by evidence on record. 14. The petitioner has referred to the discrepancies in the statement, and questioned the credibility of the witnesses. It is submitted, that in proving charge 1(b), reliance has been placed on the witnesses, who were defaulters in repayment of jewels loan. 15. 14. The petitioner has referred to the discrepancies in the statement, and questioned the credibility of the witnesses. It is submitted, that in proving charge 1(b), reliance has been placed on the witnesses, who were defaulters in repayment of jewels loan. 15. It is further case of petitioner, that the witnesses were motivated, as they had grudge against the petitioner, whereas these facts were not taken note of by the enquiry officer. 16. In response to the charge No. 3(a), the submission of petitioner is that, the loan was sanctioned on the basis of Head Office Circular in HO AGFD Circular No.127/94-95 dated 12.12.1994. Similarly, finding in 3(b) is under challenge, on the ground, that the mortgaged property was adequate to secure the loan. Therefore, his decision was right, as the loanee had already mortgaged the property with the Bank, which could cover this loan also. 17. As regards charge 5(b) is concerned, the defense of petitioner is that as IRDP loan stood closed, and there was no loss to the Bank on account of release of jewels to E.Raja. 18. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the appellate and reviewing authority, on the ground, that they have not applied their independent mind and not dealt with the defense raised by petitioner. 19. The document and file shows, that the competent authority considered the enquiry report as well as the objections raised by petitioner and keeping in view the gravity of charges, decided to impose the punishment of Compulsory Retirement. 20. The order is a detailed order. Similarly, it may be noticed, that the appellate authority also passed a detailed order, taking note of the contention raised by petitioner. The appellate authority agreed with the findings recorded by the competent authority while dismissing the appeal. 21. The Reviewing Authority again took note of the charges proved against the petitioner and also took note of the argument raised by the petitioner and thereafter dismissed the review. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, the findings of the enquiry officer are totally perverse, on the face of record, as the charge no.1 against the petitioner was that complaints have been received from parties / borrowers regarding demand of illegal gratification for extending credit facilities. Though the charge was not bifurcated, the finding recorded shows, that the enquiry officer held charge nos. Though the charge was not bifurcated, the finding recorded shows, that the enquiry officer held charge nos. 1 (a) and 1(b) to be proved, which clearly shows non application of the mind of the enquiry officer, as also of the competent authority and appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, who have committed the same error in accepting such findings. The findings being perverse therefore cannot be sustained in law. 23. On consideration, I find that though this argument looks attractive on the face of record, but when seen in depth, it does not have legs to stand. It may be noticed, here that the petitioner was fully aware of the charges, and was allowed to take defense and also lead evidence in defense. The enquiry officer dealt with the complaints received from the different borrowers, and it is for that reason, he bifurcated the charges into a, b and c for recording the findings as to whether charges was not proved or not. 24. It is not the case of petitioner, that enquiry was not held properly or there was any violation of principles of natural justice. 25. The challenge to the enquiry findings is on the ground, that the enquiry officer has not gone into discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses, to contend, that the findings are perverse. 26. This Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the findings and cannot reappraise the evidence. The reading of enquiry report shows, that the principle of natural justice were followed and reasons have been given for holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The charges against petitioner were serious, i.e. of illegal gratification. 27. As regards charge no.5 is concerned, the only ground taken is that there has been no loss to the Bank for not having sufficient security for the loan. 28. It is true that the loss to the bank is one of the considerations to consider the gravity of punishment. The petitioner has been imposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement alone, meaning thereby that accrued benefits of petitioner for services rendered have been allowed to him. Therefore, punishment cannot be said to be harsh. 29. 28. It is true that the loss to the bank is one of the considerations to consider the gravity of punishment. The petitioner has been imposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement alone, meaning thereby that accrued benefits of petitioner for services rendered have been allowed to him. Therefore, punishment cannot be said to be harsh. 29. It cannot be said, that the findings recorded are perverse and that there has been any violation of principle of natural justice for this Court to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or order passed by competent authority as confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authority. 30. No merit. Dismissed. 31. No costs.