Judgment By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By the order dated 20.11.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office at Lalpur, Ranchi, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the prevalent rules, without disqualification from future employment. The petitioner's appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority cum Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India, Jamshedpur Branch, respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.9.2004 (Annexure-5) to the writ petition. Both the orders are impugned herein. 3. The petitioner, who was a clerk in the respondent Central Bank of India at Chandri Branch was proceeded under the charge sheet dated 31.3.1999(Annexure-1) inter-alia on the following grounds:- Charge No.1:-that the petitioner accepted deposits amounting to Rs.1500 from Sri Yugleshwar Ram, the IRDP borrower of the branch (IRDP loan A/C No. 16/17) on 14.6.1996 towards recovery of loan amount and issued him the receipt by putting his initial signature thereon but the amount was not found credited in Bank's account. He therefore had embezzled the Bank's fund and failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, which constituted gross misconduct under Clause No. 19.5.(J) of the Bipartite Settlement; Charge No.2:- that petitioner refused to accept the lawful order of the management dated 13.12.1997, 26.12.1997 and further on 3.2.1998. Therefore, he disobeyed the lawful order of the higher authorities, which is a gross misconduct under Clause No. 19.5(e) of the aforesaid settlement; Charge No.3:- that the petitioner had stolen purposely with some ulterior motive the blank DD leaves from the branch premises, Chandri Branch bearing no. 004878-004900 i.e. 23 Blank DD leaves, which have been found later on by the Staff members from his residence at the time of search of his house. For these charges, petitioner was proceeded against and the Enquiry Officer, Sri S.N.Barik, Manager, Central Bank of India was initially appointed. However, after conclusion of the departmental Enquiry, on the petitioner's appeal against the earlier order dated 28.3.2002, Sri S.R. Sukla, A.G.M cum Appellate Authority directed to conduct a fresh Enquiry where after Sri Amrit Kumar, Manager, Upper Bazar Branch and Sri Rameshwar Rajak, Assistant Manager, Ranchi Branch were appointed as Enquiry Officer and Management representative respectively. However, after conclusion of the departmental Enquiry, on the petitioner's appeal against the earlier order dated 28.3.2002, Sri S.R. Sukla, A.G.M cum Appellate Authority directed to conduct a fresh Enquiry where after Sri Amrit Kumar, Manager, Upper Bazar Branch and Sri Rameshwar Rajak, Assistant Manager, Ranchi Branch were appointed as Enquiry Officer and Management representative respectively. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer held the charge no.1 and 2 as proved and charge no.3 was found to be not proved against the petitioner vide his enquiry report dated 20.12.2002, which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Petitioner, thereafter was served with second show cause on 5.9.2003 by the Disciplinary Authority also enclosing the enquiry report and the proposed consolidated punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the prevalent rules and that too without disqualification from future employment. After the petitioner's reply to the second show cause the impugned order imposing the said punishment has been passed vide Annexure-3 issued by the Disciplinary Authority holding him guilty of charge no.1 and 2. The petitioner preferred memo of appeal , Annexure 4, before the Appellate Authority inter-alia challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed upon him, which however was not accepted and the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal on 28.9.2004 (Annexure-5) upholding the order of punishment. 4. In the chronology of aforesaid facts of the case, challenge to the impugned order of punishment has been made on behalf of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter-alia on the grounds that the complainant, upon whose allegation the first charge was levelled against the petitioner namely Balkeshwar Ram did not turn up in the enquiry, was neither produced by the management and he was also not the account holder. His non examination has prejudiced the petitioner's case. At the same time, it is stated that the real account holder namely Yugleshwar Ram came forward as defense witness to say that his money was kept at his own residence. Therefore, learned senior counsel has contended that the most serious allegation of embezzlement of bank's fund is not established and it is the case of no evidence where this Court is entitled to interfere while exercising the powers of judicial review. Therefore, learned senior counsel has contended that the most serious allegation of embezzlement of bank's fund is not established and it is the case of no evidence where this Court is entitled to interfere while exercising the powers of judicial review. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others Vrs. Jai Bhagwan reported in (2011)6 SCC 376 as also in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vrs. Commissioner of Police and others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 , para 8 thereof. Learned senior counsel has further assailed the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority stating that none of the contention raised in the reply of the petitioner to the second show cause has been dealt with and the impugned order is non speaking one. In this context, he has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of East Coast Railway and another Vrs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others reported in (2010)7 SCC 678 para 23 thereof in support of his aforesaid contention that the order of Disciplinary Authority suffers from non application of mind and is arbitrary. Learned senior counsel has further assailed the Appellate order on the ground that it has not dealt with the points raised by the Appellant petitioner and is therefore non speaking order. The Appellate Authority was required under the law to deal with the specific contention raised by the charge-sheeted employee while passing the order, which has not been followed in the instant case. Therefore the Appellate order also stands vitiated. In support of the aforesaid contention also learned senior counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others Vrs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469 . Lastly, learned senior counsel has assailed the impugned order stating that the order of punishment is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct. The petitioner had a clean service record since his appointment in the year 1985 till he was charge- sheeted in 1999 which have not been established. He has also submitted that the impugned action were motivated as he was the only representative of the Trade Union at Ranchi Region. The petitioner had a clean service record since his appointment in the year 1985 till he was charge- sheeted in 1999 which have not been established. He has also submitted that the impugned action were motivated as he was the only representative of the Trade Union at Ranchi Region. In the wake of lack of any evidence, such maximum punishment of removal from service was not justified. On these grounds the impugned order has been assailed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Bank has stated that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy of review which is available to the petitioner before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court. According to him in similar circumstances, in the case of another bank employee namely Rama Shankar Singh in W.P.S. No.444 of 2004, vide judgment dated 1.3.2012 learned Single Bench of this Court relegated the said petitioner to avail the remedy of review. It is further submitted on his behalf that the charge-sheet itself reflects the allegation of embezzlement of bank's fund; a serious misconduct which on being established warranted the maximum punishment of removal from service. Learned senior counsel has defended the original order of punishment and the Appellate order stating that the Disciplinary Authority has fully considered the enquiry report, reply of the delinquent and came to an independent finding, which has also been upheld by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not in relation to the case of embezzlement of fund in any bank rather they are related to police service where the facts situation are different. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. The question posed by the petitioner to be answered in the present writ application is whether the punishment of removal from service is based on no evidence. It is stated that the complainant also had not deposed before the Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer had also adversely commented upon the inability of the prosecution to produce the said witness. The content of the enquiry report(Annexure-6) has been referred by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention. It is stated that the complainant also had not deposed before the Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer had also adversely commented upon the inability of the prosecution to produce the said witness. The content of the enquiry report(Annexure-6) has been referred by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention. In the present case as it appears from the materials on record, including the enquiry report, that about 16 exhibits were adduced by the Management being ME-1 to ME-16 and 7 Management witnesses were adduced. The defence also adduced 2 witnesses in their support including the account holder Yugleshwar Ram, IRDP borrower and 10 exhibits i.e, DE-1 to DE-10. On perusal of the Inquiry report and on the question relating to establishment of first charge, which is of grave nature, it is to be considered whether the allegation can be established on the basis of documentary evidence as are available in banking transactions in such bank or for the said purpose evidence of any complainant was a mandatory requirement, absence of which has prejudiced the petitioner's case. From the contents of the enquiry report, it is evident that there are 3 material documents which are maintained in the normal course of business in the bank and have been exhibited by the management namely ME-3, Counterfoil of loan deposit slip no. 23069 of Rs. 1500 in respect of Loan account of Mr. Yugleshwar Ram, ME-4, Cash receipt scroll book for 14.6.1996 of bank office, Chandri in which the said deposit was being made and ME-5, Agricultural loan ledger folio 66 of loan A/c 16/17 pertaining to Mr. Yugleshwar Ram. It appears that the cash receipt scroll book of 14.6.1996(ME-4) and Agricultural loan ledger folio(ME-5) did not bear any deposit of Rs.1500, which was alleged to have been received by the petitioner in lieu thereof. The counterfoil of the loan deposit slip no. 23069 was issued allegedly signed by him being ME-3. It therefore appears that if ME-3 was issued by the petitioner being the counterfoil of the loan deposit slip in question, for the sum of Rs. 1500, and entry of which has been found to be absent in the cash receipt scroll book and Agricultural loan ledger of the concerned borrower, this would lead to the only conclusion that the amount has been embezzled by the concerned employee i.e. petitioner. 1500, and entry of which has been found to be absent in the cash receipt scroll book and Agricultural loan ledger of the concerned borrower, this would lead to the only conclusion that the amount has been embezzled by the concerned employee i.e. petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after consideration of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Management Witness no.1 Sri Arup Kumar Mandal who was the Branch Manager at Chandri Branch, during the re-examination had identified the signature of the petitioner on ME-3 i.e. the counterfoil of loan deposit slip no. 23069 of Rs. 1500 of the loan account of the borrower, which was duly signed by the petitioner with slip of cash receipt on 14.6.1996, on the basis of ME-6 which is the attendance register of staff members of the Bank from 13.6.1996 to 15.6.1996. Management Witness no.4, who was the Assistant Manager at Sakchi, Jamshedpur Branch had also stated on re-examination that both initial match to some extent. The Enquiry Officer has also found that the defence witness i.e. borrower Yugleshwar Ram, during cross examination also stated that M.E.3 was prepared by the petitioner. Based upon these definite findings, the Enquiry Officer found the charge no.1 proved against the petitioner, though the complainant Balkeshwar Ram, who was the father of the borrower had not come forward otherwise to depose in favour of the prosecution during the course of enquiry proceeding. Though the borrower, Yugleswar Ram may have appeared later on in defence of the petitioner but the documents which are maintained in ordinary course of transaction in the bank and which have been exhibited and proved during the enquiry proceeding definitely establish the first charge against the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence are not sustainable on facts and the discussions made herein above on perusal of the contents of the enquiry report. The second charge which was proved, was of course minor in nature, which entailed minor punishment of withholding of increments as proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. In the wake of such findings of guilt in the enquiry proceeding, petitioner was given second show cause notice vide Annexure-2 proposing the punishment to be inflicted upon him and thereafter upon consideration of his reply the order of punishment has been passed. 8. In the wake of such findings of guilt in the enquiry proceeding, petitioner was given second show cause notice vide Annexure-2 proposing the punishment to be inflicted upon him and thereafter upon consideration of his reply the order of punishment has been passed. A perusal of the original order of punishment indicates that after recording the chronology of facts relating to the enquiry proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority has made categorical finding on each of the charge no. 1 and 2 after consideration of the relevant materials that the same were found proved. In fact in respect of the first charge the Enquiry Officer has held the charge proved on the basis of said M.E.3, counterfoil of the loan deposit slip no. 23069, ME-4, Cash receipt scroll book for 14.6.1996 and ME-5, Agricultural loan ledger folio 66 of loan A/c 16/17.Therefore the second ground to challenge the impugned order of punishment i.e. Disciplinary Authority has not considered the contention of the petitioner and not recorded any findings on his own is not substantiated on the perusal of the same. The judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on these point in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others Vrs. Jai Bhagwan(supra) and Kuldeep Singh Vrs. Commissioner of Police and others (supra), therefore do not come to his aid in respect of the grounds of challenge of no evidence and non presence of the complainant. Perusal of the said judgments indicates that they do not apply to the fact of the instant case as the same are rendered in the case of Police Constable in which documentary evidence of such conclusive nature may not be said to exist as in the case of banking transaction like in the present case. Therefore, the absence of the complainant would not lead to infirmity in the findings of misconduct if charges are otherwise established by cogent evidence adduced and proved during the course of Enquiry. The Appellate Authority also seems to have considered the contention of the petitioner and thereafter did not find infirmity in the order of punishment and has rejected his appeal. 9. The Appellate Authority also seems to have considered the contention of the petitioner and thereafter did not find infirmity in the order of punishment and has rejected his appeal. 9. In the case of nature of such act of embezzlement of public money of the bank where the relationship of the employee and the Bank is of fiduciary nature and also involves relationship of confidence, such acts of the petitioner definitely have resulted in shaking the confidence of the employer leading to the passing of the punishment of removal from service. In the facts and circumstances, which have discussed herein above and the reasons recorded, therefore the order of punishment does not appear to be excessive and disproportionate to the established misconduct. In the totality of facts and circumstances, therefore this Court finds none of the grounds raised by the petitioner sustainable for interference in the impugned orders of punishment by this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review. 10. Therefore, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.