JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J - The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier and subsequently allowed to discharge his duty as Field Officer in the Cuttack Gramya Bank, subsequently, renamed as Odisha Gramya Bank, has filed this application challenging the order of imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority in Annexure-10 dated 30.04.2003 by degrading him to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier with a basic pay of Rs. 3,020/- in the present scale of pay of Rs. 3,020-8,980/- in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2003 and withholding his promotion of CSO for five chances on his eligibility by debarring him to participate in the promotion from clerical cadre to officer post. and further treating the period of his suspension as period not spent on duty, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-13 dated 09.10.2003. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Casher on 10.11.1978 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Field Officer on 01.01.1984. While he was working in Talachua Branch, he was transferred and posted at Kotapur Branch as Manager vide order dated 24.06.2002, where he was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.07.2002. Thereafter, he was served with the statement of allegation and article of charges vide office order dated 18.09.2002 and he was directed to file written statement of defence, which was filed on 19.10.2002. Having not satisfied with the written statement of defence, Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold a domestic enquiry on 24.02.2003 at 4 p.m.. Accordingly, he was requested to attend the enquiry. During his continuance as Field Officer in Junior Management Grade, he was indulged in various act of omissions and commissions and committed irregularities as mentioned in the charge sheet itself. The Enquiry Officer on perusing the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has admitted all the six charges and therefore, there is no scope to proceed with the matter and accordingly, enquiry was stopped. The petitioner was reinstated in the service as Field Officer and posted at Telengapentha Branch vide Office Order dated 11.03.2003. Thereafter vide letter dated 12.03.2003 (Annexure-8), copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner with a request to submit his comments, if any, within seven days. The petitioner was reinstated in the service as Field Officer and posted at Telengapentha Branch vide Office Order dated 11.03.2003. Thereafter vide letter dated 12.03.2003 (Annexure-8), copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner with a request to submit his comments, if any, within seven days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.03.2003 disputing all the allegations made against him, but the disciplinary authority taking into consideration the defence statement filed by the petitioner imposed following punishment. "xx xx xx 5. The Disciplinary Authority hereby passes the following order with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 38(1) of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers & Employees Service Regulation, 2000. (a) Degrading the CSO to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier with a basic pay of Rs. 3,020/- in the present scale of Rs. 3,020-8,980/- in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2003. (b) Withholding his promotion of CSO for five chances on his eligibility by debarring him to participate in the promotion exercise from clerical cadre to officer post. 6. The period of his suspension shall be treated as period not spent on duty." Against the said order of imposition of punishment in Annexure-10, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority after considering the materials available on record confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-13, which reads as follows: "Under the above background the members of the Appellate Board after careful going through the Memorandum of the Appeal, Proceedings file and all the materials on records, upheld the order dated 30.04.2003 passed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority to the part (a) i.e. degrading the CSO to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier with a Basic Pay of Rs. 3,020/- in the present scale of Rs. 3,020/- Rs. 8,980/- in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2003" Hence this application." 3. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that when the petitioner disputed the charges levelled against him before the Enquiry Officer, relying upon the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, he could not have been visited with punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and the same should not have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is alleged that after misconstruing the statements made in the written statement of defence, the enquiry having been conducted without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, there has been violation of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, this Court should interfere with the same. It is further alleged that from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 1973 till 2003 the petitioner having completed 25 years of service without any blemishes or allegation against him, for the trivial mistake while discharging the duty as Field Officer, imposition of the impugned punishment is harsh. Therefore, he seeks for reconsideration of the same. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in G.S. Srivastav Vs. Union of India, (2014) 2 ILR (Ori) 618 : (2014) 2 OLR 258 , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 120 FLR 610 : (2009) 2 JT 176 : (2009) 2 LLJ 21 : (2009) 1 SCALE 284 : (2009) 2 SCC 570 : (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 398 : (2009) 3 SLJ 14 : (2009) 4 SLR 78 : (2008) 1 UJ 183 and Khirod Kumar Sahu v. Odisha Gramya Bank and another, (W.P.(C) No. 9376 of 2003 disposed of on 05.09.2014). 4. Mr. K.C. Kanongo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties states, that in view of admission of guilt, the punishment imposed, is wholly justified and no principle of natural justice is required to be followed and also the punishment so imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate warranting interference by this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Bhursinh Hamsinh Rajput v. The State of Gujarat and another, All India Services Law Journal, Page- 697 of Gujarat High Court, Rupnarain Singh Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Ori 167 , Sri Manoj Kumar Kar v. Board of Directors, Kalinga Gramya Bank, 2012 (I) OLR 180 , Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 3 CLT 140 : (2008) 117 FLR 377 : (2008) 4 JT 51 : (2008) 2 LLJ 645 : (2008) 4 SCALE 172 : (2008) 5 SCC 569 : (2008) 3 SLJ 424, Chairman cum Managing Director, Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 3 CLT 140 : (2008) 117 FLR 377 : (2008) 4 JT 51 : (2008) 2 LLJ 645 : (2008) 4 SCALE 172 : (2008) 5 SCC 569 : (2008) 3 SLJ 424, Chairman cum Managing Director, Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others, AIR 2010 SC 75 : (2009) 123 FLR 601 : (2009) 11 JT 472 : (2009) 4 LLJ 672 : (2009) 11 SCALE 608 : (2009) 15 SCC 620 : (2009) 13 SCR 487 : (2009) 7 SLR 546 : (2009) 7 SLR 251 : (2009) 9 UJ 4097 : (2009) AIRSCW 5596, Krushna Chandra Behera Vs. Union of India and Others(2015) LabIC 3422 : (2015) 1 OLR 725 . 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above and having regard to the parameters of judicial review, it is for consideration by this Court as to whether the authority has committed any error in the decision making process in imposing the impugned punishment in the Department Proceeding. 6. The admitted fact is that the petitioner while continuing as Field Officer was committed omissions and commissions and irregularities for which it was decided to hold enquiry against him under Regulation 38 of the Cuttack Gramya Bank (Officers and Employee) Service Regulation, 2000. Accordingly, he was served with a statement of allegations and article of charges under Annexure-3, wherein the allegation was that the petitioner has violated Regulation 17 and 19 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers & Employees Services Regulation, 2000 and he was called upon to submit his reply/statement of defence on the charges levelled against him in Annexure-3. 7. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply and candidly admitted in paragraph-7 to the following effect. "xx xx xx As a responsible officer, I can not evade my responsibility for this negligence. I appeal you to excuse me for this negligence." And also stated reply to the following extend. "xx xx xx Though the period is not a good period for recovery because of the only crop is paddy, which will be harvested in the month of November or December. After that good recovery flow comes in. In this adverse situation the loan recovery was in tune of Rs. 16,15,000/- (without L.A.D.) in the said period." Having not satisfied with the reply so submitted, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After that good recovery flow comes in. In this adverse situation the loan recovery was in tune of Rs. 16,15,000/- (without L.A.D.) in the said period." Having not satisfied with the reply so submitted, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer called upon the petitioner to submit his show cause reply to the charge sheet dated 18th September, 2002 and participate in the process of enquiry conducted by the authority. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his written reply for kind consideration of the Enquiry Officer in Annexure-5. In the reply, the petitioner, inter alia, stated as follows: "xx xx xx Therefore, I am to submit that as a disciplined & sincere Officer of the Bank since 25 years of my Service and basing on the above submission, I admit the charges framed against me. Considering the above submission, I pray before you to exonerate me from all the charges for which act of your kindness, I shall be ever obliged to you. Further, I assure you, sir, I shall not commit any mistake and irregularities in future." 8. On the basis of the written reply submitted as mentioned above, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and statement of the petitioner was recorded in Annexure-6 which reads as follows: "xx xx xx I.O. to C.S.O. Do you admit all the six charges framed against you vide chargesheet No. PAD/HO/VIG/179/2002-2003, dated: 18.9.2002. Do you also admit statement of Allegation enclosed to the above chargesheet. C.S.O Yes, I admit all the six charges framed against me alongwith the statement of allegation issued to me vide No. PAD/HO/VIG/179/2002-03. dated: 18.09.2002 as a disciplinary and sincere officer of the bank. My written submission dated: 24.02.2003 may kindly be taken into account with a sympathetic view. E.O. to C.S.O. So you admit all the six charges framed against you alongwith the statement of Allegation vide No. PAD/HO/VIG/179/01-03 dated 18.09.2002 issued to you? Please answer. C.S.O Yes, I admit all the six charges framed against me alongwith the statement of allegation as I have said above I am once again requesting that my written submission may kindly be viewed sympathetically. E.O. to C.S.O. Finally I am asking you that you have already admitted all the six charges alongwith statement of allegation framed against you vide chargesheet dated: 18.09.2002, please confirm. Xx xx xx" 9. E.O. to C.S.O. Finally I am asking you that you have already admitted all the six charges alongwith statement of allegation framed against you vide chargesheet dated: 18.09.2002, please confirm. Xx xx xx" 9. Since the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer as mentioned above on the allegations made against him, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceeding and submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner in charge sheet dated 18.07.2002 have been proved vide Annexure-8, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "xx xx xx Charge Sheeted Officer had requested while admitting the charges vide his letter dated 24th Feb'03 to consider the written admittance sympathetically exonerate him from the charges. However, in the light of admittance of allegations & charges by the C.S.O., Shri Harihar Prasad Das (PF. No. OR/1547/67) F.O. (U/S) in writing also, there is no need to hold full fledged enquiry. Presenting Officer also requested to close the enquiry proceedings. In view of admittance of charges by the Charge Sheeted Officer Shri Harihar Prasad Das, I held the charges leveled against him vide Charge Sheet No. PAD/HO/VIG/179/02-03 dated 18th Sept' 2002 as "PROVED" 10. On the admission of the guilt made by the petitioner, the following punishments were imposed by the disciplinary authority; "xx xx xx 5. The Disciplinary Authority hereby passes the following order with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 38(1) of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers & Employees Service Regulation, 2000 (a) Degrading the CSO to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier with a basic pay of Rs. 3,020/- in the present scale of Rs. 3,020-8,980/- in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2003. (b) Withholding his promotion of CSO for five chances on his eligibility by debarring him to participate in the promotion exercise from clerical cadre to officer post 6. The period of his suspension shall be treated as period not spent on duty" The petitioner preferred appeal and after due consideration, the Appellate Authority has passed the following order "Under the above background the members of the Appellate Board after carefully going through the Memorandum of the Appeal, Proceedings file and all the materials on records, upheld the order dated 30.04.2003 passed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority to the part (a) only i.e. degrading the CSO to the post of Clerk cum Cashier with a Basic Pay of Rs. 3,020/- in the present scale of Rs. 3,020/- -Rs. 8,980/- in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2003. The period of his suspension shall be treated as period not spent on duty" 11. Reliance is placed on Roop Singh Negi (supra), wherein the apex Court has held that the departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and mere production of documents is not enough, rather the contents of documentary evidence has to be proved by examining witnesses. Though the applicant is alleged to have confessed to police that he was involved in stealing of bank draft book, the so called confession itself was not sufficient and therefore, evidence ought to have been brought on record that appellant was involved in stealing. This case is not applicable to the present context, where the officer has admitted his guilt as discussed above. So also the judgment of Khirod Kumar Sahu (supra), Rupnarain Singh (supra), G.S. Srivastav (supra) and Sri Manoj Kumar Kar (supra) as mentioned above, have been decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of those cases. But this cases stands in a different footing than that of the cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The law laid down by the apex Court in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited (Supra), in paragraph-18 is to the following effect. "18. It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions and that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. In a case such as the present one where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference." Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in Chairman & Managing Director V.S.P. & Others (supra). 12. In Krushna Chandra Behera (supra) this Court has taken into consideration the admission of the guilt by the delinquent officer and confirmed the punishment imposed by the authority. 12. In Krushna Chandra Behera (supra) this Court has taken into consideration the admission of the guilt by the delinquent officer and confirmed the punishment imposed by the authority. So far as judicial review is concerned, with regard to quantum of punishment, the apex Court in Deputy Commissioner, KVS and Others Vs. J. Hussain, (2013) 6 ABR 758 : (2013) 10 AD 433 : AIR 2014 SC 766 : (2014) 140 FLR 463 : (2013) 13 JT 253 : (2013) LabIC 4548 : (2013) 5 LLN 401 : (2013) LLR 1174 : (2013) 12 SCALE 416 : (2013) 10 SCC 106 : (2013) 2 SCC(L&S) 833 : (2013) 4 SCT 746 : (2014) 1 SLJ 226 has clearly held that In exercise of power of judicial review, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate suggesting lack of good faith. 13. Having regard to the admission of the guilt by the petitioner and keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in Deputy Commissioner KVS and others (supra) this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority in Annexures-10 and 13 respectively. Hence, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed