ORDER : Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. The petitioners are legal heirs of one Bhola Nath Namdeo, who was working as Assistant Manager/Branch Manager, Mohan Nagar Durg Branch of Dena Bank. Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the respondent Bank dismissing Shri Bhona Nath Namdeo from the service of the bank as also for grant of family pension and other terminal dues along with interest to the petitioners. 2. At the relevant time i.e. from 29.10.1993 to 2.8.1996 Shri Namdeo was working as Branch Manager, Mohan Nagar, Durg Branch. He was issued a charge sheet on 11.9.97 vide Annexure-R/1 alleging that: (i) he has sanctioned loans to various fictitious units/persons with intention to shower undue favour to one Ganesh Singh of M/s. Laxmi Trading Company, (ii) he has also sanctioned loan to M/s. Singh Trading Company belonging to the wife of Ganesh Singh Rajput, (iii) he has sanctioned 2 loans to Smt. Shakun Rajput and Shri Ganesh Singh, who are husband and wife for a different business, (iv) enhancing cc limits in both the loan accounts, (v) other accounts opened in the name of other persons is mentioned in detail in charge sheet (Annexure-R/1). 3. The bank thus alleged that (1) the petitioner is guilty of gross negligence in discharging his duties exposing or likely to expose the Bank to serious financial loss, (2) wilfully violating the Bank's guidelines/norms/procedure, (3) lack of honesty, integrity and devotion in discharge of duties, (4) committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving the Bank or likely to involve the Bank in serious financial loss, and (5) acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer. 4. It is the stand of the petitioners that Shri Namdeo went missing from 14.11.1996, therefore, charge sheet issued against him on 11.9.97 was never served on him. The petitioners being legal heirs were also not informed about enquiry proceeding nor they were allowed to participate in the same. The legal heirs thereafter preferred a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajnandgaon for declaration that Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo has met with civil death. The suit was decreed in the year 2008 declaring Shri Namdeo to have met civil death from 2003 i.e. after completion of 7 years from the date he went missing. 5. The legal heirs thereafter preferred a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajnandgaon for declaration that Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo has met with civil death. The suit was decreed in the year 2008 declaring Shri Namdeo to have met civil death from 2003 i.e. after completion of 7 years from the date he went missing. 5. Accordingly, it is argued that the petitioners have been denied benefit of pension and other terminal benefits permissible to Shri Namdeo without there being any fault on their part and in any case, the delinquent being dead, no order of termination could have been passed against him. 6. Per contra, Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that charges against the delinquent employee were serious in nature which put reputation of the Bank at stake. The enquiry officer found all the charges to be proved except charge No.(3) which was partially proved, therefore, there was ample proof against the delinquent for committing serious act of indiscipline, violating the Bank's guidelines, negligence in discharging duties and acts wholly unbecoming of a Bank Officer. 7. Perusal of the record would indicate that the charge sheet itself was in great detail running into 8 pages. In course of enquiry, the enquiry officer recorded statements of witnesses and perused the papers available with the Bank concerning fictitious loan transactions. Since all the loan transactions processed by the deceased employee had become NPA, the Bank suffered financial loss. 8. In General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and another v. R. Periyasamy, (2015) 3 SCC 101 ), it has been observed in para-9 thus :- "9. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 587, para 7) "7. 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. 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 test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. 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, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762 and High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 .)" It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this point. Suffice it to say that the law is well settled in this regard." 9. The issue concerning violation of principles of natural justice viz-a-viz the petitioners does not impress this Court because the petitioners were not delinquent. Therefore, there was no right conferred on them of pleading their defence with the management of the Bank. The petitioners never appeared before the enquiry officer on their own to inform the enquiry officer or the Bank that the delinquent is missing, therefore, they should be allowed opportunity to plead their case. Even if the Bank Manager had also informed the police about missing of the delinquent employee, the fact remains that the petitioners never appeared before the enquiry officer. In matters concerning disciplinary proceeding, right of hearing is afforded to the concerned employee and not to any other person. The charges on which the enquiry was initiated against late Shri Namdeo were concerning his working in the bank and dealing with the loan cases. Even otherwise, the petitioners were not in a position to place any material before the Bank to demolish the charges. It is not a case where the Bank proceeded to complete enquiry without recording any evidence or finding is based on no material. Even otherwise, the petitioners were not in a position to place any material before the Bank to demolish the charges. It is not a case where the Bank proceeded to complete enquiry without recording any evidence or finding is based on no material. 10. Be that as it may, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court in the form of Bank regulations or otherwise which confers any right on the petitioners to have a say in the matter concerning enquiry against late Shri Namdeo. 11. Since it is settled law that the dismissed employee is not entitled for pension or other terminal benefit, in the absence of any contrary provision, the petitioners have no legal right to receive pension or terminal benefits which might have been available to the deceased employee had he been not dismissed from the service. 12. The petitioners have also claimed compassionate appointment on the ground that termination of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo was illegal, therefore, on termination being set aside, the petitioners would be entitled to consideration of their case for grant of compassionate appointment. 13. In cases where the delinquent was proceeded for departmental enquiry and was visited with punishment, the issue concerning grant of compassionate appointment to one of the dependents has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, State Bank of India and Others v. Anju Jain ( (2008) 8 SCC 475 ) wherein the following has been held in paragraphs 32 to 34:- "32. In our opinion, therefore, if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee and the charges levelled against such employee are proved and he is punished, it is indeed a relevant consideration for not extending the benefit to a dependant of such employee on the ground that he was punished. To us, it cannot be said that it is a case of double jeopardy or a dual punishment. 33. Compassionate appointment is really a concession in favour of dependants of a deceased employee. If during his career, he had committed illegalities and the misconduct is proved and he is punished, obviously his dependants cannot claim right to the employment. With respect, the learned Single Judge was wholly wrong in observing that such an action would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 34. If during his career, he had committed illegalities and the misconduct is proved and he is punished, obviously his dependants cannot claim right to the employment. With respect, the learned Single Judge was wholly wrong in observing that such an action would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 34. To us, the observation of the learned Single Judge that "no past acts of misconduct of the employee who dies in harness can be taken into account while considering the case of a family member for employment on compassionate ground" is not in consonance with law. Past conduct of an employee is undoubtedly an important consideration. We are also of the view that State Bank was right in rejecting the prayer of the wife of the deceased employee vide its letter dated 29-1-2001 observing therein that "unblemished service record is implicit" 14. In view of the above settled legal position, since Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo was visited with the penalty of termination from service, the petitioners are not entitled for consideration of their case for compassionate appointment. 15. For the foregoing, the writ petition being without any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.