ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 27.04.2006, pertaining to dismissal from services and the order dated 02.02.2007, passed by the appellate authority and has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his post with consequential benefits. 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that when the petitioner was continuing as a Head Cashier (Category-'E'), Bank of India, Baghmara Branch he was placed on suspension for gross misconduct alleged to have been committed by him for fraudulent withdrawal of amounts from the SB Accounts of different account holders in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary action. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charge-sheet containing five charges for gross misconduct of doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of Clause 5 (j) of the bipartite settlement, dated 10.04.2002, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. In pursuance to the charge-sheet, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding all the charges levelled against the charge-sheeted employees to be proved. The disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 3) on the basis of the enquiry report, served a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner for proposed punishment of dismissal vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent-disciplinary authority putting forth the detailed reply denying the charges and the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 27.04.2006 by imposing punishment of dismissal from services as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 02.02.2007, passed the order affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigation of his grievances. 3. Mr. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigation of his grievances. 3. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has vehemently submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner without any conclusive evidence, that too on the circumstantial evidences is grossly arbitrary and actuated by mala fide exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has mechanically acted on the enquiry report without scrutinising the culpability of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-9 of the writ application, the report of the Chief Handwriting Expert, which, inter alia, specifically mentions that by applying the scientific method of Handwriting identification, forgery can be detected but not the forger i.e. it cannot be answered, who has done the forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the said note of the Handwriting Expert has vociferously contended that the petitioner could not have become scapegoat, when the specimen signature of the hand-writings of all other employees of the Bank were available. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the supplementary affidavit, dated 02.05.2016, has further submitted that for same set of allegation, criminal case against the petitioner vide G.R. No. 6181 of 2005 has ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad (as per Annexure-10 to the writ application). In view of the changed circumstances, the impugned order of dismissal from services, passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority ought to be considered afresh. 4. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank of India has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank has assiduously submitted that the action of Management in dismissing the petitioner is fully justified as he has done misconduct of fraudulent withdrawals from the customers' A/Cs. Moreover, proper procedure of the departmental enquiry was followed and reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to him for his defence, which he has fully availed and the findings of the enquiry is based on proper analysis of evidences on record. Moreover, proper procedure of the departmental enquiry was followed and reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to him for his defence, which he has fully availed and the findings of the enquiry is based on proper analysis of evidences on record. Learned senior counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority by relying on the enquiry report, has passed the order of dismissal, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, so there is no scope for interference in the impugned order of punishment, since there has been no infirmity in the procedural irregularity from the initiation of the departmental proceedings till its culmination nor the entire proceedings is based on no evidence. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank has referred to the decisions rendered in the case of reported in the case of Union of India & ors. v. P. Gunasekaran reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 para 13 as also on the decision in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5457 as well as on the decision in the case of Jayesh Mehta v. State Bank of India & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 457 . It has further been urged that the impugned order of dismissal being affirmed by the appellate authority do not warrant any interference on any of the grounds. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment being affirmed by the appellate authority do not warrant any interference in view of the reasons stated herein below: - (i) The parameters on which the findings and the punishment in the Departmental Inquiry are required to be gone into, are well laid down by the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. v. P. Gunasekaran reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondents as well, Para-13 of the said judgment outlines the circumstances and postulates guidelines in the matter of exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the findings of the Disciplinary Inquiry. The said paragraph 13 is quoted hereunder. "13. The said paragraph 13 is quoted hereunder. "13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." (ii) The petitioner, who was the Head Cashier (Category-'E'), Bank of India, Baghmara Branch, was proceeded departmentally for the five charges under head of gross misconduct of doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of Clause 5 (j) of the bipartite settlement, dated 10.04.2002, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. The said charges pertain to the forgery of the signature of the customers on the face and reverse of the withdrawal slip committing fraud to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- and the enquiry officer based on the enquiry proceedings as well as supporting documents from the Management and defence and on assumption and presumption of witnesses circumstantial and sequential incidents in the transaction involving the instruments, came to the conclusion that the Bank has been defrauded to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- and all the charges levelled against him (charge-sheeted employee), have been proved, therefore, in the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity. It is not a case that the findings in the inquiry is not based on any evidence and sufficiency or adequecy of evidence cannot be gone into under the powers of judicial review, neither can re-appreciation of the evidence be done as an appellate authority on the findings of the inquiry officer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the inquiry officer have been accepted without any conclusive proof and guilt have been pre-judged, do not appeal to the Court, as the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority as per the requirement of principles of natural justice, has given due opportunity to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion on the penalty to be imposed, based upon the findings recorded in the inquiry report. Therefore, the order of punishment inflicted on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be laconic, as it deals with each of the charges and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. Moreover, the disciplinary authority has found the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. (iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5457 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos. 21, which is quoted herein below:- "21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. 21, which is quoted herein below:- "21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently" (iv) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 612 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos. 21 and 22, which are quoted hereunder:- "21. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, this Court said in para 14 at SCC PP. 376-77 as under: "14. 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 protect 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, 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 organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. The very discipline of an organisation 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. 22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank's regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank's Regulations required that every officer of the Bank at all times takes 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. 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 mala fides, 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." 6. On the cumulative effect of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure-6), pertaining to dismissal from services being confirmed vide order dated 02.02.2007 (Annexure-8), passed by the appellate authority. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.