JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner inter-alia prayed for quashing the departmental order dated 19.06.2007 (Annexure-16) passed by the disciplinary authority pertaining to dismissal from services and the order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-17) passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of disciplinary authority and the petitioner further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post held by him. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner while continuing as scale 1 officer on the bank, an explanation was called for on 14.12.2004 regarding irregularities in disbursement of loan to 65 borrowers at Kanke Branch vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.12.2004. Thereafter, a preliminary investigation with the matter was carried out and report was submitted to the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. On 24.02.2006 and 08.05.2006, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and the departmental inquiry was initiated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charges thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.05.2006. On 02.06.2006 the petitioner was intimated by the respondent-authorities for institution of departmental enquiry for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner on 19.06.2006 sought permission of the respondent no.3 for engaging a lawyer to defend his case as he got no knowledge of departmental inquiry proceedings, the said request was not acceded to. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his request, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No.3563 of 2006 and the said writ petition as been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2006 by this Court. On 14.11.2006 the petitioner submitted his representation before the respondent no.3 stating therein that the CBI already seized some important documents from him as such he was not in a position to produce the same before the inquiry officer. The said representation was followed other reminder again on 05.12.2006. Again on 11.12.2006 the petitioner informed about the illness of being admitted to the hospital. On 21.05.2007 the respondent no.3 issued a letter stating therein that the petitioner could not be present at departmental enquiry on 21.12.2006, so the departmental proceeding is to be concluded ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the letter dated 21.05.2007 to the respondent no.3 on 09.06.2007. On 21.05.2007 the respondent no.3 issued a letter stating therein that the petitioner could not be present at departmental enquiry on 21.12.2006, so the departmental proceeding is to be concluded ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the letter dated 21.05.2007 to the respondent no.3 on 09.06.2007. Finally, on 19.06.2007 the respondent no.3 passed the order dismissing the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.2 which also been rejected thereby affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner, left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the impugned order of dismissal being affirmed by the Appellate Authority been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice that too ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officer and Employees) Service Regulation, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders of punishment of dismissal suffered from biasness of the chairman as the petitioner instituted a criminal case against him. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders are illegal as the right of appeal been given a go by because the order passed by the Chairman-cum-disciplinary authority been heard by the Director presided over by the Chairman himself as both the orders have passed by the same authority, therefore, the orders impugned are perverse and have been passed without application of mind being violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank vehemently submitted that the impugned order of dismissal been passed by the Chairman-cum-disciplinary authority of the bank whereas the appellate authority is Board of Bank. The Chairman was not involved in the process of arriving at the appellate order by the Board of the Bank and abstained from the deliberations of the Board on the appeal of the petitioner. The Chairman was not involved in the process of arriving at the appellate order by the Board of the Bank and abstained from the deliberations of the Board on the appeal of the petitioner. He was only authorised by the Board to convey the appellate order to the petitioner and this been made crystal clear while conveying the Board's decision to the petitioner, which is apparent from the communication dated 15.11.2007 conveying the Board's decision (Annexure-17 to the writ application) therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is baseless and false. It further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself prior to the conduct of the departmental inquiry ex-parte w.e.f. 09.01.2007, the petitioner absented or was granted adjournments on 14.06.2006, 17.06.2006, 27.06.2006, 05.07.2006, 12.07.2006, 15.07.2006, 14.11.2006, 05.12.2006, 11.12.2006, 21.12.2006 and 02.01.2007. Since, the petitioner decided not to participate in the departmental enquiry in spite of abundant opportunities given to him, the inquiring officer had no option other than to conduct the departmental enquiry ex-parte and arrive at a judicious finding, after examination of the Management's witnesses and documentary evidences, produced by the presenting officer. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the impugned penalty order of dismissal, duly confirmed by the appellate authority, is fully justified and been awarded after observing all norms of departmental enquiries, and following the principles of natural justice. There been no violation of any Article of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner so far as the charges against the petitioner are concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the explanation dated 21.12.2004 Annexure-2 to the writ application clearly reveals that the petitioner acknowledged that he had not carried out pre-sanction inspection of the borrowers before disbursing the loans and this was the reason that he could not locate a single borrower out of the list of 65 borrowers given by the Branch, notwithstanding his deputation to Kanke Branch from 28.10.2004 to 30.10.2004 for this purpose which proves the gross negligence committed by the petitioner, while discharging with the duties of the Manager of Kanke Branch. The proceeding dated 12.07.2006 as evident from Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit reveals that the petitioner himself acknowledged have received the list of documents and witnesses and signed the copy of the proceeding dated 12.07.2006. The proceeding dated 12.07.2006 as evident from Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit reveals that the petitioner himself acknowledged have received the list of documents and witnesses and signed the copy of the proceeding dated 12.07.2006. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that apart from giving time to reply to the show cause to the proposed punishment notice dated 21.05.2007, the petitioner was also granted personal hearing by the disciplinary authority, who did not avail and also given an opportunity to appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's appeal was heard and based on personal hearing given to him by the Board on 08.09.2007 and in the facts of the case, the Board confirmed the punishment of dismissal on 15.11.2007. As a matter of fact, during the course of personal hearing before the Directors of the Board, the petitioner admitted the guilt contained in the charge-sheet and pleaded for mercy on humanitarian grounds, all these have been minutized and bear his authentication as evident from Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on records, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of punishment as the order by the appellate authority due to the reasons herein below :- (i) In the case in hand, on perusal of the pleadings and the Annexures-I find the departmental proceeding, been conducted in a fair manner and there been no procedural irregularities nor the proceeding is based on no evidence. Therefore, on the scope of interference there been heardly any ground to interfere in the impugned order of dismissal of punishment and the order of the appellate authority in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of interference in the writ jurisdiction by the writ court in the disciplinary proceeding been ill uminatively outlined and postulated in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (1) JCR 252 (SC) : (2015) 2 SCC 610 in the case of Union of India And Others v. P. Gunasekaran at paragraph no.13, which is quoted herein below :- “13. 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 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in 2007 (3) JCR 72 (SC) : (2006) 10 SCC 572 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. 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. 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 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. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of punishment dated 19.06.2007 (Annexure-16) passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-17) passed by the Appellate Authority do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. Petition dismissed.