ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of North Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.12.2002, whereby the appellate authority i.e. the Chairman of the Bank has communicated the decision of the Board of Directors on the petitioner’s appeal preferred against the original order dated 02.04.2002. 3. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Branch Manager, Siwan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Siwan. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while posted as Branch Manager, Sakra under Siwan. Altogether eight charges were framed against him which included allegation of serious irregularities in disbursement of loan and misappropriation of bank money. It appears that in course of the proceeding before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner accepted all the charges. The Inquiry Officer, accordingly, submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges as he did not deny any of the charge. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer imposed punishment upon the petitioner directing him to deposit the amount misappropriated by him and to make good the loss caused to the Bank because of his conduct. The order stipulated that in the event of failure on the part of petitioner to deposit such amount, the petitioner will be treated as having been dismissed by the order of the disciplinary authority. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Board of Directors of the Bank. From the decision of the appellate authority as communicated to the petitioner, it appears that the original order of disciplinary authority has been modified to considerable extent. 4. The order of the appellate authority contemplates that the petitioner will not get any increment for next five years and will not be given the job of the Branch Manager for next ten years. As per the said appellate order the petitioner has been debarred from promotion for five years. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of disciplinary proceeding under some assurance given by his superiors that some minor punishment shall be imposed for the charges levelled against him. As per the said appellate order the petitioner has been debarred from promotion for five years. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of disciplinary proceeding under some assurance given by his superiors that some minor punishment shall be imposed for the charges levelled against him. He submits that though the petitioner accepted the guilt in course of the disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority was required to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner for the proposed punishment. This having not been done, the action of the disciplinary authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner raised all grounds in his memo of appeal but referring to the order of the appellate authority, he contends that the appellate authority has completely failed to consider the points raised by him in the memo of appeal. 6. Whether the action of the disciplinary authority is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice is to be seen in the background of conduct of the petitioner. This is not in dispute that the petitioner accepted his guilt in course of the inquiry. Memo of charge was served upon him. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that he ever denied any of the charges levelled against him. In such circumstance the petitioner cannot have a grievance that finding of guilt with respect to the charges, arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are without any basis. As a matter of fact, in the background of the facts and circumstance of the case, to the extent the authorities came to the finding of the petitioner’s guilt, the petitioner cannot make any grievance. I have perused the charges. For a bank employee, such charges are grave in nature. The punishment which has been imposed finally by the appellate authority cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. The plea that the petitioner accepted the guilt under some assurance given by the superior does not sound logical. The petitioner, while accepting the guilt must have been knowing well the seriousness and consequences of such admission. 7. The plea that the petitioner accepted the guilt under some assurance given by the superior does not sound logical. The petitioner, while accepting the guilt must have been knowing well the seriousness and consequences of such admission. 7. Though from the order of the appellate authority, as communicated to the petitioner, it cannot be deciphered that the petitioner’s grounds taken in his appeal have been taken into account, but in the background of present facts and circumstances of the case, finding of guilt cannot be questioned. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the said appellate order on this ground. 8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.