JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was originally appointed as Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 28.10.1974 in the respondent Bank. Subsequently, in the year 1986, he was promoted as Scale-I Grade Officer and again, in the year 1999, he was promoted as Scale-II Grade Officer. While he was working as Scale-II officer between 2001 and 2004 in the Kumbakonam Branch, he was transferred to Mandaveli Branch, Chennai, with promotion as Senior Manager (Scale-III Grade Officer), whereby, he worked between 2004 and 2007. In the year 2007, he was transferred to Alapuzha, Kerala. Whileso, he was issued with three memos dated 07.11.2007, 26.11.2007 and 17.12.2007 by the Chief Manager of Alleppy Branch alleging certain misconducts, which were alleged to have been committed by him, when he was working as Manager of Kumbakonam Branch, Trichy Region and Senior Manager of Mandaveli Branch, Chennai Region. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanations to the memos, the Disciplinary Authority, as per the Rules of the Bank, issued a charge memo dated 02.06.2008, containing five charges and thereafter, he was placed under suspension on the same date. For better understanding, alleged charges, containing five counts, are extracted hereunder: Charge No.1: Shri I. Savarinathan, during his tenure as Branch Manager at Kumbakonam Branch between August, 2001 to May, 2004, had committed the following irregularities in the account of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited. i. Shri I. Savarinathan, while recommending the original sanction to Unit No.I of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited to the Sanctioning Authority/Regional Manager, Trichy, did not mention that M/s.Muthu Fisheries Privated Limited was a defaulter, who already had availed credit facilities with Bank of Baroda, Veppathur, which later became NPA & suit filed. He did not conduct the pre-sanction inspection properly. ii. He did not obtain the confidential credit information report, credit asset status of M/s.Muthu Fisheries P Ltd., the closed NPA account with Bank of Baroda, Veppathur Branch. He also did not ascertain the conduct of the NPA account with Bank of Baroda. He did not appraise the true picture of the Company while recommending the original proposal to Regional Manager, Trichy. iii. At the time of original sanction of the proposal of Unit No.I, subsequent enhancements and at the time of recommendation for fresh credit requirement to Unit No.II, he projected a highly and abnormally inflated worth of directors without proper assessment and justification. iv. iii. At the time of original sanction of the proposal of Unit No.I, subsequent enhancements and at the time of recommendation for fresh credit requirement to Unit No.II, he projected a highly and abnormally inflated worth of directors without proper assessment and justification. iv. Satisfactory market report/financial reports on the promoters directors, were not obtained by Shri I.Savarinathan. v. Valuation reports of the collateral security offered were not obtained from the approved FIV. vi. Techno economic viability report from a Competent Authority on the project was not obtained/insisted from the party. vii. Despite the above lacunae, he recommended the proposal to Sanctioning Authority for sanction and Sanctioning Authority on the strength of the recommendations, sanctioned the fresh proposal. viii. He did not ensure infusion of margin money for the term loan sanctioned as per the stipulations. ix. He failed to effectively monitor the account and scrutinise the stock properly. x. Out of the boat advance of Rs.90 lacs sanctioned as term loan, an amount of Rs.87.20 lacs was paid to one Shri.M.Amanulla, a close relative of Shri.Shahul Hameed, Managing Director of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Privated Limited, instead of paying the amount to fishermen, who are the beneficiaries, thereby facilitated Shri.Amanulla to siphon off the Bank's fund. xi. Out of the term loan of Rs.300 lacs sanctioned to Unit No.II of M/s.Muthu Fisheries P. Ltd., Shri Savarinathan without ascertaining the standing and reputation of M/s.Kovai Engg Equipments the machinery supplier, issued numerous DDs as detailed in annexe-II in favour of M/s.Kovai Engg Equipments at Coimbatore without ensuring whether such a factory exited and involved in machinery manufacturing activities, thereby facilitated Shri Syed Hassan, Managing Partner of M/s. Kovai Engg Equipments, a close relative of Shri Sahul Hameed, Managing Director of M/s.Muthu Fisheries P Ltd to siphon off Bank's funds to the tune of Rs.130 lacs. xii. He released the working capital limit in full to Unit No.II before the unit obtained final clearance to commence production activity from Pollution Control Board, regular connection from TNEB. As on 01.06.2004, full working capital facility was released whereas the Company obtained clearance from Pollution Control Board on 07.06.2006 and regular power connection from TNEB on 31.07.2006. xiii. He failed to obtain the receipts from the civil contractors who had given their quotations for construction. As on 01.06.2004, full working capital facility was released whereas the Company obtained clearance from Pollution Control Board on 07.06.2006 and regular power connection from TNEB on 31.07.2006. xiii. He failed to obtain the receipts from the civil contractors who had given their quotations for construction. On account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri. Savarinathan, the accounts have slipped into NPA and exposed Bank's funds to serious financial risk to the tune of Rs.1353.62 lacs. Charge No.2: Shri I. Savarinathan, while working as Senior Manager at Mandaveli Branch under Chennai Region from 09..06.2004 to 12.05.2007 has sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to the various parties in violation of the Bank's lending norms envisaged under housing loan scheme. Instances of the acts of omission and commission are enumerated hereunder: i) Shri I.Savarinathan sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to the various parties. a. without obtaining approved plan of the flats/house. b. disbursed 80-90% of the loan amount in one shot immediately on sanction instead of releasing the same in stages. c. appraisals were done by I Savarinathan himself. d. valuation reports were not obtained at the time of disbursement of the loans. e. EM not registered with Sub-register's office. f. statements of assets and liabilities of the borrowers/guarantors were not obtained. ii. Possessions of the property were not taken by the borrowers but remained with the builder and housing loans were sanctioned without adhering to the norms. iii. Housing loans were sanctioned to borrowers who were located 50 kms away from Mandaveli Branch, where Bank's branches already existed nearby. The distance factor hindered the free monitoring of the account. iv. Housing loans were sanctioned to the close relatives of the builders thereby extended under accommodation to the parties. v. Sanctioned housing loans to the builders which is against the norms. vi. Housing loans were sanctioned to members of the family members exceeding his sanctioning powers and without adhering to the norms. vii. Housing loans were sanctioned to borrowers who were already NPA loanees/taken over NPA account from seller who is a NPA borrower and in violation of norms. viii. Sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to property allotted by Government to SC/SC beneficiary who is not authorized to sell the property before completion of the requisite tenure. ix. vii. Housing loans were sanctioned to borrowers who were already NPA loanees/taken over NPA account from seller who is a NPA borrower and in violation of norms. viii. Sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to property allotted by Government to SC/SC beneficiary who is not authorized to sell the property before completion of the requisite tenure. ix. Even before commencement of construction activity / completion of construction, Shri I Savarinathan transferred the old housing loans and the loan liabilities in the name of new borrowers. On account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri. Savarinathan the accounts have slipped in NPA and exposed Bank's funds to serious financial risk. Charge No.3 Shri I. Savarinathan sanctioned cent mortgage loans in violation of Bank's lending norms Charge No.4 Shri I Savarinathan had opened 2 trust accounts viz. M/s International Calvari Mission Trust (CD 890), Vellor Calvari Mission Trust (CD 889) without observing KYC norms, without exercising sufficient care and diligence and without obtaining the approval of RO, Chennai. He allowed huge transactions in the trust accounts inviting strictures from RBI. Charge No.5 Shri I Savarinathan as Senior Manager did not ascertain the genuineness of the construction agreement and the sale deed of the property offered as collateral security in the account of M/s.PTJ Exporters, thereby facilitated the borrower to defraud the Bank to a tune of Rs.10.96 lacs + interest. One Mr.D.V.Prakash, Chief Manager, Mount Road Branch, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry, Mr.G.Pari, Branch Manager, Mandaveli and Mr.R.Varadarajan, Branch Manager, Kumbakonam, were examined in support of the charges and on other hand, the petitioner did not examine any witness. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.11.2008 holding that all the five charges were duly proved. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanations on the findings of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. After considering the explanations offered by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority/first respondent herein passed an order dated 11.09.2009, imposing various punishments viz. in respect of charge No.1, punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanations on the findings of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. After considering the explanations offered by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority/first respondent herein passed an order dated 11.09.2009, imposing various punishments viz. in respect of charge No.1, punishment of dismissal from service. in respect of Charge No.2, punishment of removal from service in respect of Charge No.3, reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years in respect of Charge No.4, Censure in respect of Charge No.5, reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent/Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.07.2010. The present writ petition is against the above said impugned orders passed by the respondents. 2. Assailing the impugned orders passed by the respondents, Mr.M.Ramamoorthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, rebutting the charge about the account of M/s.Muthu Fisheries (P) Limited and its status as NPA before coming to the Central Bank of India, contended that the petitioner, before opening the Account, obtained No Due Certificate dated 29.12.2001 from the Bank of Baroda, Veppathur Branch, with whom the said M/s.Muthu Fisheries were having their accounts, to the effect that the firm was enjoying various credit facilities with them and closed all their account dues from them as on date and no amount was due from them. This No Due Certificate was given on 29.12.2001 much prior to the sanction of loan to the said firm on 05.01.2002. Apart from that, search report of the Registrar of Companies which were marked as Exhibits M.Ex.10 and M.Ex.11, would also show that there is no due to either Bank of Baroda or any other Bank. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is contended, the question of Non-performing Asset (NPA) does not arise at all. Based on the said No Due Certificate, proposal forwarded to the Regional Office, Trichy, to their perusal and sanction of loan and thereby, the Competent Authority also accorded permission and hence, the proposal sent by the petitioner was complete in nature. The Presiding Officer of the respondent Bank did not file any evidence to show that the account with Bank of Baroda was Non-performing Asset. The Presiding Officer of the respondent Bank did not file any evidence to show that the account with Bank of Baroda was Non-performing Asset. Therefore, in the absence of such vital evidence, the impugned orders passed by the respondents confirming the charges levelled against the petitioner, cannot stand to any good reason. 3. In respect of the charge that the petitioner failed to counter check the agreement entered into between the proprietor of M/s. Muthu Fisheries Private Limited and the fishermen and whether these fishermen really own the Boats in their name as per the agreement, it is contended that although the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority were aware of the practice and procedure prevailing in agricultural and fisheries sector where there are large number of small and tiny farmers and fishermen, who are not easily accessible, they summarily rejected the petitioner's argument for routing the payments to fishermen through borrowers procurement agent and that agent engages men, who have executed the sale agreement for uninterrupted supply of raw materials. Hence, the findings and observations of the Authorities below are perverse in this regard, he contended. 4. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that when the fundamental right of the petitioner was being treated equally and on par with higher officers, namely, the Regional Manger, Trichy and the Senior Manager, Chennai, insofar as the first imputation of charges, with regard to the sub-charge numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the first imputation of charge regarding M/s.Muthu Fisheries account at Kumbakonam is concerned, they are common for the petitioners as well as to the above said officers. Moreover, the documentary evidence is also common for all the three cases and there is no oral evidence in that regard. But, the petitioner alone has been held guilty of the aforesaid three sub charges. On the other hand, it has been held to be not proved in the case of Mr.B.Chandrakumar, who was the then Regional Manager, Trichy. These approach adopted by the respondents is in clear violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, on that basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 5. These approach adopted by the respondents is in clear violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, on that basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 5. While assailing the findings on charge No.2, it has been contended that the total alleged loss to the bank is Rs.6.4 crores and this has been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and thereby punishment of removal from service has been imposed only against the petitioner alone, whereas other two officers of the Bank were not imposed with the same punishment. Adding further, he pleaded that at page 208 of the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, it could be seen that the total NPA as on 31.03.2007 was Rs.17,57,483.19, whereas the total NPA as on 31.03.2008 was Rs.2,79,34,313.68. But, the petitioner was relieved as Senior Manager, Mandaveli Branch, in May 2007 itself. Therefore, on the date of the corresponding financial year ended in March, 2007, the NPA was only Rs.17,57,483.19. Hence, this charge itself is misconceived one and that the findings of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority should be interfered with. Again, it is stated that negligence per-se will not constitute misconduct and to constitute misconduct in cases of negligence, there must be an unlawful behaviour in relation to the discharge of duties which is wilful in character. 6. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P.Kata Rao (2008-III-LLJ-555 (SC), whereby, the Hon'ble High Court, by interfering with the quantum of punishment, categorically opined that the employee had merely committed some inadvertent mistakes and the purported misconduct was neither wilful nor there existed any fraudulent intention. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Union of India and others v. Parameswaran and another (2008 II LLJ 1105 (Mad), wherein it is held that before initiating disciplinary action, the department must have a prima facie material to show recklessness and that the officer had acted negligently or by his order unduly favoured a party and his action was actuated by corrupt motive. On the basis of the said ruling, learned counsel pleaded that the petitioner, having suffered the punishment of dismissal from service and having attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011, cannot legally seek for reinstatement, however, he prayed for interference with the punishment of dismissal, so that the petitioner would get terminal benefits in the case of imposition of compulsory retirement as punishment. 7. Finally, he contended that the findings of the enquiry authority is a perverse one and the infirmities in the enquiry report in reference to the evidence and the Bank's polices, schemes, circulars and instructions, were brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority, but, they have not at all considered the same and in contra, they simply confirmed the report submitted by the enquiry officer, therefore, with the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 8. Per contra, Mr.V.Karithick, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, while subscribing the punishment awarded to the petitioner, contended that when the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of Kumbakonam Branch between 2001 and 2004, M/s.Muthu Fisheries, a SSI Unit, with registered office at Kumbakonam, approached the petitioner for sanction of certain credit facilities. While forwarding the proposal for sanction of credit facilities, though he submitted No Due Certificate from the existing banker i.e. Bank of Baroda, he had failed to report that the borrower's account with Bank of Baroda was a Non-Performing Asset and that the said Bank filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.18.56 lakhs. He has also further submitted that though it is mandatory for the Bank Manager to directly give boat advance of Rs.90/- lakhs to the fishermen, the petitioner paid to one Amanaulla, a close relative of the promoter -- M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited, and thereby facilitated siphoning of Bank funds and he had also issued numerous Demand Drafts to Kovai Engineering, machinery supplier, without ascertaining the existence of the factory. 9. He further contended that the petitioner was in connection with grant of housing loans to various customers in violation of bank's norms and while disbursing the amount, he did not release the amount in stage wise, but in contra, he released the entire amount with one stretch. He even granted housing loan to the borrowers, who were located 50 kms. He further contended that the petitioner was in connection with grant of housing loans to various customers in violation of bank's norms and while disbursing the amount, he did not release the amount in stage wise, but in contra, he released the entire amount with one stretch. He even granted housing loan to the borrowers, who were located 50 kms. away from the branch and also allotted to the members of the family and thereby, exceeding his sanctioning power. As a result of this attitude of the petitioner, many accounts of the Bank have been classified as Non-performing Assets. He further contended that if a cursory glance of the transaction made by the petitioner is viewed, it will depict that the petitioner did not show due diligence towards the discharge of his duties entrusted to him as a Senior Manager of the Bank. Since the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner was very serious one, the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, on that basis, he pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition, since the scope of interference in the quantum of punishment of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited one and unless, the petitioner is able to show that there was procedural violation or violation of principles of natural justice or that the findings of fact were so perverse, the petitioner cannot invite attention of this Court to nuances of re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a conclusion different than what has been arrived at by the authorities, especially, he, being the custodian of Bank, expected to take care of the interest of the bank at all times, and in the matters of assessing credit worthiness, an officer of the field, like the petitioner, who was working as a Manager of the Branch, will have to view all parameters which are necessary to form a subjective opinion about the capacity of a borrower to repay the loan so that recoveries could be effected in case of default and in other words, the Superior Officers are guided by the Assessment Officer concerned and it is this assessment and inputs which will form the basis for higher officials to arrive at a conclusion whether or not to sanction any credit and if so on what basis. While narrating the above said general principles, he contended, in the case on hand, the petition did not discharge his duty with utmost diligence entrusted to him as a Senior Manger of the Bank, hence, he contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to monetary benefits other than what has been paid to him. 10. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 612) for a proposition that every officer of the Bank at all times take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. 11. He has also relied upon yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya ( (2011) 4 SCC 584 ) for a proposition that the Courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. With the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had worked in the Kumbakonam Branch as a Scale-II Officer between August, 2001 to May, 2004, and on promotion, he was transferred to Mandaveli Branch, Chennai, whereby he worked from May, 2004 to May, 2007, before his transfer to Alapuzha, Kerala. While he was working at Alapuzha, he was issued with a charge memo dated 02.06.2008, containing the above said five counts fof charges. One D.V.Prakash, former Chief Manager, Mount Road Branch, was appointed as Enquiring Authority, to enquire into the said charges. One L.N.Suresh, former Manager, Zonal Office, Chennai, was appointed as Presenting Officer, to present the Bank's claim. On behalf of the management side, two witnesses were examined and Exs.M1 to M225 were marked and on the side of the defendant/petitioner herein, Exs.D1 to D98 were marked and no witness was produced. After considering the claim of both sides, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.11.2008, holding all the charges as proved. On behalf of the management side, two witnesses were examined and Exs.M1 to M225 were marked and on the side of the defendant/petitioner herein, Exs.D1 to D98 were marked and no witness was produced. After considering the claim of both sides, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.11.2008, holding all the charges as proved. The said report was forwarded to the petitioner to enable him to submit his explanation. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 11.09.2009, imposing various punishments viz. in respect of charge No.1, punishment of dismissal from service. in respect of Charge No.2, punishment of removal from service in respect of Charge No.3, reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years in respect of Charge No.4, Censure in respect of Charge No.5, reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years. The above said punishment was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority, when the petitioner preferred an appeal. 14. The first charge held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer pertains to the account of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited. It is seen from Ex.M10 produced by the Bank that M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited was enjoying various credit limits with Bank of Baroda, Veppathur Branch, and from Ex.M11, dated 08.01.2002, it is seen that the above said account of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited was adjusted. But, without looking into such details, the petitioner had obtained only No Due Certificate from the Bank of Baroda and the same did not contain any details about the operation of account with Bank of Baroda. It is also evident from Ex.M3 that the petitioner had not made any true assessment while processing the proposal for credit sanction. But, in contra, he had merely forwarded the proposal to the Regional Manager, Trichy, for sanction and he did not apprise the true picture of the said M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited, as per the guidelines of the Bank. If he had done so, the account would not have turned into Non-performing Asset and exposed the Bank's fund to serious financial risk. If he had done so, the account would not have turned into Non-performing Asset and exposed the Bank's fund to serious financial risk. Another imputation of charge was that a total of Rs.87.20 lacs were paid to one Mr.M.Amanulla, a close relative of Mr.Shahul Hameed, Managing Director of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited, instead of paying the same to the fisherman and that he failed to counter-check the agreement entered into between the proprietor of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited and the fishermen and that whether these fishermen really own the boats in their name as per the agreement and RC Book. To substantiate this charge, the Bank produced Exs.M18, 19, 26, 27, 28 & 39 and on perusal, it is clear that the petitioner has transferred an amount of Rs.87.20 lakhs in favour of one Mr.Amanulla, who is a close relative to the Managing Director of the said M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited, and thereby, he failed in discharging his duties by remitting the funds to the fishermen. Therefore, from the records adduced before me, it is explicit that the petitioner, who had worked as Branch Manager at Kumbakonam, is the responsible person for the account turning indebted and had the petitioner taken necessary steps in controlling the account, the Bank's funds would not have been put to serious peril. 15. Another imputation of charge was that, out of the term loan, Rs.300 lacs sanctioned to Unit No.II of M/s.Muthu Fisheries Private Limited. But, the petitioner, without ascertaining the reputation and accreditedness of M/s.Kovai Engineering Equipments / the machinery supplier, had issued DDs in favour of M/s.Kovai Engineering Equipments payable at Coimbatore, without ensuring whether such a factory existed and involved in machinery manufacturing activities. A mere perusal of Exs.M16, 22, 30 and 40 show that the DDs were issued favouring M/s.Kovai Engineering Equipments to the tune of Rs.132 lakhs and while presenting such DDs, the petitioner failed to ascertain whether M/s.Kovai Engineering Equipments was capable of manufacturing machinery and whether such a factory existed at Coimbatore, their capacity and its status report. Without looking into those aspects, he simply granted loan to the said concern. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the charge. 16. Without looking into those aspects, he simply granted loan to the said concern. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the charge. 16. The next charge deals with grant of housing loans to various persons in violation of Bank's norms envisaged under the Housing Loan Scheme, while he was discharging his duties as a Senior Manager in the Mandaveli Branch. It is seen from the charge sheet that near about 30 instances have been enumerated, which included release of 80-90% of the loan amount as on date of sanction, non registration of equitable mortgage and non-verification of genuineness of the title deeds, release of 80-90% of the loan amount even in case where possession was not handed over, grant of housing loan in respect of borrowers who were located 50 kms. away from the branch and housing loans to the family members. The documents produced by the Bank would vividly show that the petitioner has been granting housing loans to various persons violating banking norms. A mere perusal of the transactions made by the petitioner at Mandaveli Branch did not depict the due diligence adopted by the petitioner, while discharging his duties entrusted to him as a Senior Manager. Therefore, I find that the respondents have taken a correct view in imposing the punishment of removal from service, since the allegations levelled against the petitioner was very serious one. 17. In respect of three other charges, the counsel for the petitioner did not press any of them as the same did not end in capital punishment. 18. From the above said observations, it is explicit that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duty with utmost devotion entrusted to him as a Senior Manager of the Bank. Therefore, now, the petitioner, by way filing a writ petition, cannot convert the writ Court as an Appellate Authority and to invite the attention of this Court to nuances of reappreciation of evidence to arrive at a conclusion different than what has been arrived at by the authorities below. Hence, in the absence of any material evidence to show that the decision making process was in any way vitiated, it would not be open to the petitioner to say that the respondents have passed an order imposing the punishment of dismissal of service without application of mind. 19. Hence, in the absence of any material evidence to show that the decision making process was in any way vitiated, it would not be open to the petitioner to say that the respondents have passed an order imposing the punishment of dismissal of service without application of mind. 19. It is now well settled that the Courts will not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations. A reference can be had from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya ( (2011) 4 SCC 584 ). 20. In the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 this Court held that a bank officer's acting beyond his authority constituted misconduct and no further proof of loss is necessary. In the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC. vs. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605 , this Court held in paragraph 10 at scc p.614 as under: "If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal". In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 , this Court said in paragraph 14 at scc p.376 as under: "A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to project the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court In Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court". In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of bank's Regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the bank's Regulation required that every officer of the bank at all times take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with malafide, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case. 21. As observed above, in the case on hand, the petitioner acted beyond his authority and thereby violated the bank's Regulation. It is must be very vital to note that the petitioner, inter-alia, admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he does not deny that there may be some lapses but such lapses were routine and happen at all branches and are rectified during the course of time. This admission would show his attitude towards his duty while performing as custodian of the Bank. Therefore, in such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with malafide, or in violation of principles of natural justice. In the case on hand, as observed above, no such case is made out. 22. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.