Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17956 of 2001 filed this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Syndicate Bank in the year 1975 and thereafter, he was promoted as an officer. On 23-09-1995, he was served with a memo alleging that he committed irregularities when he worked as Branch Manager at Donkeshwar and was required to submit explanation within seven days. Since there was no response from the petitioner, another letter was addressed on 09-05-1996, wherein certain other acts of alleged misconduct were pointed out. Ultimately, charge sheet dated 05-10-1996 was issued to the petitioner by the appointing authority wherein quite a large number of alleged acts of misconduct were mentioned. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 23-10-1996. Not satisfied with that, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting a detailed departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 05-12-1998 holding that some facets of the charges are proved and as regards others, benefit of doubt was given to him. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 10-09-1999 with a request to exonerate him from the alleged charges. The same was not accepted and the disciplinary authority passed order dated 09-02-1999 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Departmental appeal filed before the 1st respondent was rejected on 15-04-1999. Challenging the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. According to them, a detailed enquiry was conducted and substantial number of charges which were grave in nature were held proved. The various contentions urged in the writ petition such as that the list of witnesses was not furnished and that the charges are vague, were denied. The plea as to proportionality of the punishment was also raised. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 05-09-2005. Hence, the writ appeal. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment against the appellant without there being any evidence worth its name. He contends that the charges themselves were vague and that the list of witnesses was not furnished in advance. Hence, the writ appeal. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment against the appellant without there being any evidence worth its name. He contends that the charges themselves were vague and that the list of witnesses was not furnished in advance. He contends that though the charge alleging bribery was held not proved, the same was taken into account by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment and that the same is disproportionate to the acts of misconduct held proved. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges are very clear in their purport and grave in nature and that substantial number of them were held proved in the departmental enquiry. He contends that the enquiry report running into 60 closely typed pages was submitted and every minute aspect pleaded by the petitioner was discussed at length, with reference to the record and the evidence. He submits that as many as 143 documents were filed in the enquiry, apart from examining three witnesses and 33 documents filed by the petitioner were also taken into account, and the petitioner was assisted by two officers who are the office bearers of the union. He submits that the disciplinary authority has taken into account, only the charges, that were held proved and imposed a fairly mild punishment of compulsory retirement though the facts of the case warranted a more severe punishment. Three principal charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge contained several items and seventh item in turn contains seven sub-headings. All of them are in relation to recommendation, sanction or release of credit facilities to various customers contrary to the relevant regulations. The second charge is about receiving of applications from 32 fishermen for sanction of new loans and an application for renewal of crop OD facility. The third heading was about handling of cheques while working as a Branch Manager at Donkeshwar. In the departmental enquiry, voluminous oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. Though it is submitted that the charges are vague, the basis therefor is that the disciplinary authority was not clear whether the irregularity was about the recommendation or sanction or release. In the departmental enquiry, voluminous oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. Though it is submitted that the charges are vague, the basis therefor is that the disciplinary authority was not clear whether the irregularity was about the recommendation or sanction or release. In this regard, a perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that such alternative expressions were used, to cover quite large number of instances which fell into the respective categories. On that account, it cannot be said that the charges are vague. In his elaborate enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer took note of each and every contention with reference to every minute aspect and held that substantial number of instances mentioned in the respective charges are proved. The learned single Judge has also taken note of the findings on the respective charges, An attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to impress us that the disciplinary authority has taken into account, the allegation pertaining to bribery and imposed serious punishment of compulsory retirement. We do not find any support from record to this submission. Though it is not necessary for a disciplinary authority to reproduce the charges and discuss the findings; and he can simply impose the punishment based upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; the disciplinary authority in the instant case, has referred to the charges in detail and has undertaken discussion. He observed thus: “The acts so committed and proved to the extent established in the inquiry against Sri C. Prabhakar Rao, are grave and serious in nature notwithstanding that a few imputations of the charges are not held as established by the Inquiring Authority and the said acts of the CSOE which have been held as proved/established in the inquiry seriously reflect on his failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and since the CSOE exhibited such conduct unbecoming of a bank officer, the bank has lost trust and confidence in him particularly since the entire banking business stands on the edifice of mutual trust and confidence amongst the responsible officers/staff members and the vast clientele. Moreover, being a financial institution dealing with public money, it is not conducive for the bank to continue such officer in its service with proven misconduct of grave nature.” From this, it is clear that the disciplinary authority did not travel beyond the enquiry report and he did not disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer even on a minute aspect to the detriment of the petitioner. The learned single Judge has also taken the view that the decision making process did not suffer from any illegality and the decision as such cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious and disproportionate. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.