JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - This writ petition is against the order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the Chairman & Competent Authority, Utkal Gramya Bank, Bolangir whereby and whereunder the punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner under Annexure-7 as also the order dated 27.09.2007 under Annexure-9 by which the Chairman, being the Appellate Authority, has affirmed the order of punishment passed by the Chairman & Competent Authority under Annexure-7. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made by the parties is that the petitioner, while working as the Branch Manager with the Utkal Gramya Bank at Mahadevpali Branch, was proceeded departmentally for an allegation of misutilizing the official position by withdrawing Rs. 41,000/- on 23.05.2006 from his Savings Bank Account No. 3691 against balance of Rs. 11,535.05 in the account. He had posted the debit item as Rs. 1,000/- in the ledger sheet and struck off a balance of Rs. 10,535.05 in the ledger account under his authentication. On a later date, he had changed the amount to Rs. 41,000/- by writing the digit ‘4’ to the left of the digit ‘1’ in the debit column of the ledger sheet in his own handwriting and the correct balance in the account was struck only after 31.0.2006 after credit of Rs. 17,332.37 on 25.05.2006, Rs. 39,000/- on 29.05.2006 and debit of Rs. 16,000/- on 31.05.2006. The S.B. withdrawal dated 23.05.2006 written as 23.4.2006, was at first written as Rs. 1,000/- but it was subsequently changed to read as Rs. 41,000/- and again struck off and written as Rs. 41,000/-. The second allegation is that on 08.08.2006, he had withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- against S.B. withdrawal dated 08.08.2006 for Rs. 50,000/- from his S.B. A/c. No. 3691 though the balance in the account was only Rs. 15,803.69 He had posted the withdrawal as Rs. 15,000/- in the ledger sheet and a credit balance of Rs. 803.69 was struck accordingly. Subsequently, on 12.08.2006, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the account and a balance of Rs. 50,803.69/- was struck. The withdrawal amount of Rs. 15,000/- was altered /changed to Rs. 50,000/- by overwriting the digit ‘15’ to ‘50’ and a credit balance of Rs. 15,803.69 was written in the ledger sheet as correct balance. Likewise, on 20.11.2006, he had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from his S.B. Account No. 3691 against a balance of Rs. 50,803.69/- was struck. The withdrawal amount of Rs. 15,000/- was altered /changed to Rs. 50,000/- by overwriting the digit ‘15’ to ‘50’ and a credit balance of Rs. 15,803.69 was written in the ledger sheet as correct balance. Likewise, on 20.11.2006, he had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from his S.B. Account No. 3691 against a balance of Rs. 2,610.69 through a by date entry and was accordingly paid Rs. 20,000/- by Shri D. Suna, C.C.T. on 20.11.2006. Shri Suna had posted the item as an entry on the next working say in the Day Book dated 21.11.2006, Chashier’s Receipt and Payment Register dated 21.11.2006 and the Branch Cash Balance Book dated 20.11.2006. But the entry in the Day Book dated 21.11.2006 had been struck off without authentication by any official, the summery total in the debit column was changed from 23200 to 03200 by overwriting, an entry of Rs. 20,000/- was inserted in the debit column of the Day Book dated 21.11.2006 as an entry against S.B. Account No. 1601. 3. The petitioner has been asked to response in the defence and he has admitted his guilt by saying the reason that due to extreme urgency of the money, he has done this and although thereafter deposited the said amount. The Inquiry Officer, after taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and also the admission on his part, has found the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on its acceptance, has been pleased to issue second show cause notice to inflict the following punishments:- “(i) To reduce Shri Rout to a lower grade i.e. clerical grade with minimum scale of pay for rest of his service with immediate effect. However, the official will earn future increments as applicable to clerical grade scale of pay when due. (ii) The penalty will affect the seniority of the official concerned i.e. the present service seniority of Shri Rout will not be counted for any purpose except for terminal benefits. (iii) The official will not be eligible for promotion during the operation of penalty. (iv) To treat the period of suspension as such i.e. not spent on duty. However, Shri Rout is given an opportunity to be heard in person for which he will have to appear before the competent authority at Bank’s Head Office to make oral submission, if any, in this connection on 20.4.07.” 4. (iv) To treat the period of suspension as such i.e. not spent on duty. However, Shri Rout is given an opportunity to be heard in person for which he will have to appear before the competent authority at Bank’s Head Office to make oral submission, if any, in this connection on 20.4.07.” 4. The petitioner has been asked to give reply within 15 days, which he has responded to and thereafter order dated 10.05.2007 under Annexure-7 has been passed by the Chairman & Competent Authority inflicting the punishments in exercising of power conferred under Regulation No. 38(1) of Utkal Gramya Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2006. 5. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Board of Director, Utkal Gramaya Bank, Bolangir, who on considering the plea taken by the petitioner, has passed the order on 27.09.2006 rejecting the appeal. 6. The petitioner, assailing the order dated 10.5.2007 under Annexure-7 as also the order dated 27.9.2007 under Annexure-9, is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has admitted his guilt and the amount has already been deposited in the Savings Bank Account and as such, there is no being loss to the bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is without reason and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. While, opposite the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel representing the opposite Party-Bank has argued the case. It has been submitted by him that the allegation, leveled against the petitioner, is very serious. Petitioner holding the post of Branch Manager in the officer cadre has misutilized his official position and withdrew public money for his personal use knowing the fact very well that in his Savings Bank Account there are no required balance. He submits that the authorities have taken very lenient view and although the proposed punishment was to bring him to the clerical cadre, but the competent authority has taken decision to bring him in the officer cadre and as such, the competent authority since shown leniency, hence the same required no interference by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits by refuting the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner made to the effect that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is without any reason and as such, the same is not sustainable, he submits that since there is admission on the part of the petitioner and as such, it is not in requirement to give any reason. He further submits that in a case of admission even in the inquiry, there is no requirement to prove the allegation. He further submits that the duty of the Inquiry Officer is to go and conduct inquiry in a case where charges are being disputed by the delinquent employee, but where the charges have been admitted, the same is not required to be enquired into. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the document available on record. 9. It is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner was holding the post of Branch Manager with the Utkal Gramay Bank at Mahadevpali Branch. The post in which the petitioner was holding in the cadre of OS-I, an officer cadre. The allegation, as has been reflected under the imputation of charge is quoted above, is serious in nature that pertains to withdrawal of money from his account even in absence of the proper balance, not only that he has manipulated in the ledger sheet but also struck off by manipulating the script therein. Hence, the allegation leveled against the petitioner is very serious in nature and not accepted from an officer working in the bank. There is no dispute about the fact that all officer of the bank is empowered to deal with the public money in other words they are the custodian of the public money and if such type of misconduct would be conducted by the bank officers, the same cannot be said to be simple in nature, rather it is very serious. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that due to the urgency of money, the same has been done. It cannot be the ground to condone the guilt committed by the petitioner. Urgency cannot be said to be the reason to commit misdeed. The petitioner has admitted his guilt, as would be evident from the defence reply. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that due to the urgency of money, the same has been done. It cannot be the ground to condone the guilt committed by the petitioner. Urgency cannot be said to be the reason to commit misdeed. The petitioner has admitted his guilt, as would be evident from the defence reply. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has given its finding before the Disciplinary Officer and upon its receipt, the proposed punishment has been communicated to the petitioner asking him to give reply within 15 days wherein the punishment proposed was to reduce him to a lower scale in officer’s grade with minimum scale of pay for rest of his service with immediate effect, the penalty will affect the seniority of the official concerned i.e. the present service seniority, the official will not be eligible for promotion during operation of penalty and to treat the period of suspension as such i.e. not spent on duty. 11. The petitioner has submitted his reply and on its appreciation, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the following punishment:- (i) To reduce Shri Rout to a lower scale in officer’s grade with minimum scale of pay for rest of his service with immediate effect. However, the official will earn future increments as applicable to officer grade scale. (ii) The penalty will affect the seniority of the official concerned i.e. the present service seniority of Shri Rout will not be counted for any purpose except for terminal benefits. (iii) The official will not be eligible for promotion during operation of penalty. (iv) To treat the period of suspension as such i.e. not spent on duty. Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has also to decline to interfere with the same. 12. Petitioner has taken the following two grounds:- (i) The punishment is excessive and such, the same needs interference; and (ii) The order passed by the Appellate Authority is without any reason. Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has also to decline to interfere with the same. 12. Petitioner has taken the following two grounds:- (i) The punishment is excessive and such, the same needs interference; and (ii) The order passed by the Appellate Authority is without any reason. So far as the first contention is concerned, according to the considered view of this Court, the punishment is not excessive, rather it will be said to be commensurate to the offence committed reason being that the petitioner not only have misutilized official positions but also involved himself taking the public money for his personal use from his account even though there was lack of balance amount in his account, not only that, he has also manipulated in the ledger sheet for his gain. However, subsequently, he has debited the amount to maintain balance, but that cannot be ground to excuse him. For the bank people quantum of amount is not material, rather the conduct of the bankers is material and even if the amount is related to a very meager quantum that cannot be given any relief to the bank for the reason that the bank people are dealing with the public money and they are the custodian of the public money. They cannot be allowed to deserve like this otherwise the faith of the entire system will be scattered. In this respect, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) through Lrs. V. Union of India and others, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 wherein their lordships have held at paragraph-56 which is being quoted herein below:- “56. It must be emphasized that bank officials act as trustees of funds deposited by the public with the bank. They have an obligation to earn the trust and confidence of not only the account-holders but also the general public. The standard of integrity required of the bank officials, particularly the cashiers, accountants, auditors and the management at all levels, is like the Caesar’s wife, they must be above suspicion. Mr. Bhosale failed to maintain such high standards of integrity. He therefore, acted in violation of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mr. Bhosale failed to maintain such high standards of integrity. He therefore, acted in violation of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Jain.” So far as the second ground is concerned that relates to non-speaking order passed by the Appellate Authority, there is no doubt in the settled proposition of law that the order passed by the administrative authority or the quasi-judicial authority is to be based on some reasons and the reason must be reflected on the fact of it. But this principle is not applicable here in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the petitioner has admitted his fault by filing his defence reply and it is settled that in a case of admission by the delinquent employee, there is no requirement even go for the enquiry reason being that the inquiry is only to be made to search out the thing, if the thing is being disputed by the delinquent employee, but in a case of admission even enquiry is not required, since here the entire allegation has been admitted by the petitioner, hence no reason is required to be given by the Appellate Authority. 13. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason given therein, according to the considered view of this Court, the writ petition requires no interference. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.