JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.8.2010 issued by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Raha Branch (disciplinary authority), by which the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service without notice as per provision of Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure (for short, Memorandum of Settlement) for committing gross misconduct in terms of paragraph 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement. Prayer is also made for issuance of a writ of mandamus for a fresh departmental enquiry as well as to direct the respondents to re-consider the quantum of punishment. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk by an order dated 5.4.1993 and was posted at the State Bank of India, Barpeta Branch. He was subsequently transferred to State Bank of India, Raha Branch and while he was so posted there, by an order dated 6.4.2009, he was suspended on the allegation of committing serious irregularities in deposit account of some customers of the Bank by violating Bank’s laid down norms and procedures. 4. On 9.9.2009, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of a show cause notice. The allegations against the petitioner read as follows: “It is alleged that while you were posted as a Single Window Operator at Raha Branch, you have committed the following irregularities: Allegation 1: That you unauthorizedly paid the under noted withdrawal slips of account No. 11689553585 of Shri Biren Deka at Raha Branch in you ID, while the drawer’s signature of these withdrawal slips were not tallied with the specimen signatures of the depositors recorded with the Bank. Withdrawal slip dated Amount 09.09.08 50,000/- 08.09.08 50,000/- 12.09.08 50,000/- 18.09.08 50,000/- 27.09.08 50,000/- 29.09.08 44,000/- 20.10.08 15,000/- Total 3,09,000/- Allegation 2: That you used the proceeds of the aforesaid withdrawals as mentioned in allegation-1) for your personal gain. Allegation 3: That you, violating the Bank’s extant instructions, paid the aforesaid withdrawal slips as mentioned in the allegation-1) produced for payment without pass book. Allegation 4: That you used your ID in paying these withdrawals for malafide intention. Allegation 3: That you, violating the Bank’s extant instructions, paid the aforesaid withdrawal slips as mentioned in the allegation-1) produced for payment without pass book. Allegation 4: That you used your ID in paying these withdrawals for malafide intention. Allegation 5: That you paid these withdrawals (as mentioned in the allegation-1) with malafide intention to defraud the bank.” 5. The petitioner responded to the said notice vide his reply which was received on 26.9.2009 by the authorities of the Bank (Annexure-P/6). The same reads as follows: “Allegation No.1: I paid the amount through withdrawal slips as mentioned in the above memo as per my eligibility. I have not crossed my eligibility level of payment and hence it is not unauthorized payment. Allegation No. 2 : I have not used the proceeds of withdrawal payment for my personal gain. I made the payment to the beneficiary. Allegation No. 3 : I did not make the payment without pass-book. Pass-book was accompanied with each withdrawal but could not be printed as the pass-book printing machine was not functioning at that time. Allegation No. 4 : I did not use my ID with malafide intention. Attention No. 5 : I did not make the payment of the withdrawal with malafide intention to defraud the Bank.” 6. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted a report dated 6.10.2010 holding all the allegations to be proved. The disciplinary authority also concurred that all the allegations had been proved and by the memorandum dated 14.6.2010, furnished a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner along with the comments of the disciplinary authority. By the said memorandum, it was indicated that the petitioner may submit his representation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted a representation on 29.6.2010 stating that he made payment to Biswajit Bardhan, a colleague of his, who had submitted withdrawal forms on behalf of the account holder on good faith. By the said memorandum, it was indicated that the petitioner may submit his representation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted a representation on 29.6.2010 stating that he made payment to Biswajit Bardhan, a colleague of his, who had submitted withdrawal forms on behalf of the account holder on good faith. Subsequently, the memorandum dated 2.8.2010 was issued by the Assistant General Manager to the petitioner proposing to inflict upon him the punishment of “to be dismissed without notice” as per the provision under Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement and indicated that if the petitioner so desired, he may submit in writing or appear before the disciplinary authority for personal hearing to show cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon him, within seven days from the date of receipt of the memorandum. The petitioner by his letter dated 12.8.2010 contended that the proposed punishment is disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, by order dated 8.8.2010, as noticed earlier, the petitioner was dismissed from service without notice. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 28.9.2010 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 4.12.2010. 7. Mr. Borthakur has assiduously urged that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner did not have any malafide intention and had not misappropriated any amount and that he had merely acceded to the request of a colleague working with him in the same Branch by the name of Biswajit Bardhan who had presented the withdrawal slips on behalf of the account holder and had paid the money to Bardhan. While admitting that there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner in not following the norms of the Bank while entertaining the forms submitted for withdrawal of money, Mr. Borthakur submits that in the background of the case, the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate and therefore, the petitioner may be imposed with any other punishment by allowing the petitioner to continue in service of the Bank. Mr. Borthakur submits that in the background of the case, the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate and therefore, the petitioner may be imposed with any other punishment by allowing the petitioner to continue in service of the Bank. Mr. Borthakur has further submitted that the disciplinary authority had not recorded as to why the penalty of dismissal from service is to be imposed and that shows that there was no application of mind by the disciplinary authority with regard to punishment that ought to be imposed having regard to the gravity of the misconduct and mitigating circumstances. 8. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the petitioner had taken a stand in the written statement asserting that he had made payment to the beneficiary and thus had not even remotely indicated that he had made the payment to his colleague and this shows that the subsequent plea taken in the reply dated 29.6.2010 is an after-thought, the irregularities having been exposed and proved in the enquiry. It is submitted by him that it was established beyond doubt during the enquiry that the petitioner had fraudulently violated the norms laid down for disbursement of money when a withdrawal form is presented and that it is a good ground for dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner, being in the employment of the Bank, has to be vigilant and has to strictly adhere to the norms for disbursement of money of the account holder, he contends. He has relied on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Poply vs. Canara Bank, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 . 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. At the very outset, it will be apposite to put on record that there is no assailment of the departmental proceeding on account of any procedural infirmity and the sole ground of challenge to the order dated 8.8.2010 imposing punishment of dismissal from service is on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges and therefore, the punishment is required to be suitably altered. 11. Biren Deka, the account holder, was examined both by the prosecution and the defence. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the account holder had categorically stated that he had not signed even one single withdrawal form. 11. Biren Deka, the account holder, was examined both by the prosecution and the defence. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the account holder had categorically stated that he had not signed even one single withdrawal form. The signatures in the withdrawal form PX-1 to PX-7 drawn on Account No. 1168955355 did not tally with the specimen signature of the account holder recorded with the Bank vide Ext. PX-14. It is also recorded that the account holder had received back the money through a person representing Biswajit Bardhan after seven months. 12. In the order dated 3.8.2010, by which the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service without notice, it has been reflected that the disciplinary authority had perused the details of the enquiry proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer and other relevant records while deciding on the punishment to be imposed. Merely because the details of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are not indicated, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority had mechanically imposed the order of punishment. 13. The appellate authority had observed that the withdrawals were, prima facie, forged as neither the signatures had tallied with the specimen signatures on record nor the depositor had come to the Bank to receive the payment. It is opined that the fact that the payment had been received by another staff member cannot absolve or mitigate the misconduct of the petitioner. 14. In the written statement a categorical stand was taken by the petitioner that he had made the payment to the beneficiary (account holder) and accordingly, he had professed his innocence. It transpires, later on, in the enquiry that the account holder did not receive any money from the petitioner in the bank and the money was paid to another staff member of the Bank. Thus, the petitioner had, at the first instance, taken a false plea. Fact that the account holder was subsequently paid the amount after seven months is hardly of any consequence. 15. In Lalit Popli (supra), basic facts were that one customer of the Bank had lodged a complaint with the police stating that there had been unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 1.07 lakhs from his account. Fact that the account holder was subsequently paid the amount after seven months is hardly of any consequence. 15. In Lalit Popli (supra), basic facts were that one customer of the Bank had lodged a complaint with the police stating that there had been unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 1.07 lakhs from his account. After an internal investigation, charge sheet was laid on the allegation that he, by misusing his official position, in collusion with someone else, got the cheque book issued for the A/C in question, utilized the cheque-leaves in question by forging the signature of the account-holder and got the same presented to encash the cheques fraudulently. The employee had accepted that there was some lapse on his part but pleaded that there was lack of criminal intention. The Supreme Court had observed that the Bank employees deal with public money and the nature of the work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to work carefully. Such a plea put forward for interference with the order of dismissal was not accepted. 16. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and its jurisdiction is limited and circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had based their conclusions on materials available on record after considering the defence put forth by the petitioner and in the considered opinion of the Court, the disciplinary authority had taken a decision to impose the punishment of dismissal from service in a reasonable manner. 17. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No cost.