JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. It is a well settled principle of law that each case is an authority for what it actually decides. On this note, the following facts are noticed. 2. The petitioner while serving as the Branch Manager at Rangia Branch of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank was served with Articles of Charge and Statement of Allegations in respect of an enquiry proposed to be held against him under Regulation 30A.1(b) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2006. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner corresponding to his tenure of service at Rangia branch for the period from 02.09.2006 to 23.07.2008. As per the Articles of Charges, the first charge was that on 22.10.2007, he received an amount of Rs. 1685.00 which had been deposited by one Shri Basistha Rajbanshi towards mortgage charge for the creation of equitable mortgage of his land. Such amount was not deposited by the petitioner into the Bank's cash account either on the next working day or even thereafter. It was only on detection that the petitioner had deposited the misappropriated amount to the bank on 16.08.2008. The second charge was in respect of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 22,400/- which had been deposited by Sankardev Sishu Niketan in its general fund account on 12.01.2008. The said amount was also not deposited into the Bank's cash account and it was only on detection thereof, that the petitioner had deposited the same on 22.01.2009. 3. On the aforesaid charges, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated by allowing opportunity of participation to the petitioner. Enquiry was concluded with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Accordingly, by order dated 05.12.2012, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner in terms of Regulation 39.1(b) of the aforesaid Service Regulations of 2006. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 21.12.2012, wherein, a plea was taken that the alleged failure to deposit the money in time was due to excessive work-load and it was never the intention of the petitioner to cause misappropriation of the same. 4. At this stage, it would be essential to clarify one factual aspect. The petitioner contends that the appeal preferred on 21.12.2012 is yet to stand for consideration or be disposed of. 4. At this stage, it would be essential to clarify one factual aspect. The petitioner contends that the appeal preferred on 21.12.2012 is yet to stand for consideration or be disposed of. It is also submitted that if any order has been passed on the said appeal, such order of the Appellate Authority has not been communicated to the petitioner. In this respect, Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing the Bank submits from instruction received that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was placed by the Bank before the Board of Directors (Appellate Authority) in its 44th Meeting held on 28.02.2013. The said appeal was disposed of by affirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Also, the decision of the Appellate Authority was communicated to the petitioner vide Bank's letter dated 04.03.2013 by registered post in its recorded address, followed by another letter of the Bank dated 17.06.2013 sent under registered post in response to the petitioner's representation dated 03.04.2013. 5. Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been invidious discrimination meted out to the petitioner while awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement. Mr. Sarma submits that in cases, where there has been serious charges levelled against certain other officers of the same Bank, they were awarded lesser punishment. Reference is made to the case of one such officer who was charged with illegal disbursement of loan to more than one person. However, on the basis of the findings of the departmental enquiry and report thereof, such other person was given lesser punishment by way of reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect. Although the name of the other officer is indicated in the writ petition, however, such name is not recorded in the present order as he is not a party respondent in the present case. 6. From the submission of Mr. Sarma, it appears that the case of the petitioner is basically laid on the ground of discrimination. In this respect, reliance is placed in the case of Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury vs. United Bank of India and Others, of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (2) GLT 1. 6. From the submission of Mr. Sarma, it appears that the case of the petitioner is basically laid on the ground of discrimination. In this respect, reliance is placed in the case of Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury vs. United Bank of India and Others, of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (2) GLT 1. In the reported case a ground was taken that the appellant therein was penalised with removal from service, although another officer who was proceeded against charges which were largely similar, albeit more serious, was awarded a lesser punishment. Taking cue from the said reported judgment, Mr. Sarma submits that in the instant case also the element of discrimination is apparent, inasmuch as, whereas the petitioner has been awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement, the case of the other officer, who was proceeded against on more serious charges, was given a lesser punishment. Mr. Sarma submits that on this ground alone, the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner is required to be interfered with by this Court. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the case of Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury (supra) is clearly distinguishable. It is submitted that each case being an authority on its own facts, the petitioner cannot be allowed to draw comparison with any other case and allege discrimination. In other words, Mr. Dutta, submits that an order passed in respect of any other case pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding cannot constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. According to the senior counsel, the guarantee of equality before law as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or even the Court in a negative manner. It is submitted that the mere fact that the Bank had passed a particular order in the case of another person, even if a similarly situated, can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. To reinforce the stand of the Bank on the aforesaid aspect, Mr. It is submitted that the mere fact that the Bank had passed a particular order in the case of another person, even if a similarly situated, can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. To reinforce the stand of the Bank on the aforesaid aspect, Mr. Dutta relies upon the decisions in Chandigarh Administration and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745 ; Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 371 and Bondu Ramaswamy and Others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 . Mr. Dutta also refers to the charge memo dated 02.01.2010 to say that it is more than apparent that the amount mentioned therein, which was received by the petitioner were eventually deposited into the Bank's account only upon detection of the same and that too after a long period of time. Mr. Dutta also refers to the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 21.12.2012 to say that the petitioner have himself admitted to the acceptance of the money. The ground assigned by the petitioner as to why he could not deposit the money in due time i.e. excessive load of work, according to Mr. Dutta, do not hold any water because it is not expected of a responsible Bank Officer to conduct in a manner as done by the petitioner. 8. The above facts have been noticed and the judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by either parties have been considered. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner had received Rs. 1685.00 from one Shri Basistha Rajbanshi on 22.10.2007, which was eventually deposited into Bank's account on 16.08.2008. Similar is the case in respect of the other amount standing at Rs. 22,400.00,which he had received from Sankardev Sishu Niketan on 12.01.2008 and which had been deposited into the Bank's account on 22.01.2009. There are no allegations in the writ petition that the findings of the enquiry is either based on no evidence or rendered without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner have also admitted that he had received the money but failed to deposit the same on ground of excessive work load and the only ground urged is in respect of alleged discrimination meted out to the petitioner. The petitioner have also admitted that he had received the money but failed to deposit the same on ground of excessive work load and the only ground urged is in respect of alleged discrimination meted out to the petitioner. He takes shelter of the penalty imposed upon another bank officer who, despite serious charges, was awarded a lesser punishment. Reliance placed upon the case of Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury (supra) in my opinion, do not come to the aid of the petitioner. In the said reported case, this Court interfered with the punishment primarily on the ground that the appellant therein along with another person named, Shri Kalyan Chakraborty were holding charge of the same branch of the Bank and dealing with the same customers. It was also recorded that the charges levelled against the appellant therein and Shri Kalyan Chakraborty were largely similar. In the instant case, the petitioner hails from the Rangia Branch, whereas, the other officer referred to hails from the Tangla Branch. Also, the charges against both are not at all similar. Judgments relied upon by Mr. Dutta, as alluded to above, cuts at the root of the petitioner's case. The plea of discrimination on the ground that one person was let off with a minor penalty while the other was imposed with a major penalty has been duly answered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. Unambiguously, the Apex Court have held that a particular order passed in the case of another person, even though similarly situated, can never be a ground for issuing any writ on the plea of discrimination. It is also held that the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. This has its basis on the settled legal principle that every case is an authority for what it actually decides. 9. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court have also held in the case of Biren Bora vs. United Bank of India and Others, reported in 2006 (3) GLT 835 to say that it is the conduct of the delinquent which is material and not the loss to the Bank. 9. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court have also held in the case of Biren Bora vs. United Bank of India and Others, reported in 2006 (3) GLT 835 to say that it is the conduct of the delinquent which is material and not the loss to the Bank. The facts above clearly show that the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is not such a decision which would require interference of this Court. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.