JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 11.12.2010, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as communicated to him vide Letter No. COR: HRD: MR: C, dated 18.12.2010, whereby and whereunder major penalty of reduction to two lower stages in time scale of pay, as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.1.2010, has been imposed upon him in garb of provision enshrined in Regulation 4(f) of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1977, Petitioner has further prayed to quash part of the order dated 9.7.2011, passed by appellate authority whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has refused to set aside entire order of punishment as imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed to quash charge-sheet issued to him as contained in letter No.HRDD: DAC: 15235, dated 23.1.2010 and enquiry report, as contained in Letter No. HRDD: DSE: 15235, dated 12.8.2010, whereby and whereunder it is said that the charges against the petitioner were proved to the extent discussed in the enquiry report. 3. The facts of the case in short as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Officer on 19.6.1978 and was promoted from one post to another. He was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager on 1.6.2008. While holding post of Deputy General Manager (FI) at Circle Office, Ranchi, a letter dated 22.9.2009 was served upon him advising him to give remarks on a tabular form received from the office of Inspector and Audit Department, Circle Office, Patna and in compliance thereof petitioner submitted his remarks on 1.10.2009. Thereafter, petitioner was served with charge-sheet as contained in Letter No. HRDD: DSE: 15235, dated 23.1.2010. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 25.1.2010 denying the allegations and prayed for his exoneration of the charges. Though the petitioner was to retire on 31.1.2010 but by letter dated 30.1.2010 he was intimated that the departmental proceeding would continued against him even after his retirement. After appointment of Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. Though the petitioner was to retire on 31.1.2010 but by letter dated 30.1.2010 he was intimated that the departmental proceeding would continued against him even after his retirement. After appointment of Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. MW-2-S.K. Sharma, who was holding the post of Senior Manager in the Circle Office and Functional Manager of Government Business Department at the relevant time as also Malvendra Singh, Chief Manager and Shailendra Kishore Sharma deposed that there was no shortage of cash at all in the currency chest. Petitioner also examined defence witness. In spite of representations made by the petitioner, the respondents did not provide relevant documents to him. Petitioner submitted his reply/defence before the Enquiry Officer on 23.7.2010. Thereafter, the. Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Letter No. HRDD: DSE: 15235, dated 12.8.2010 holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his reply dated 23.8.2010 before the Disciplinary Authority praying therein for his exoneration of the charges leveled against him. Without considering 32 years of unblemished service career as well as deposition of witnesses and grounds mentioned by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 11.12.2010 imposing him major penalty by reduction of two lower stages in the time scale of pay as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.1.2010. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank on 31.1.2011. After considering appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority modified the punishment imposed upon him to the extent of reduction of one lower stage in the time scale of pay as on the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Thus, the appeal was allowed to the extent that reduction to one lower stage in time scale of pay was set aside but reduction of one lower stage in the time scale of pay, as imposed by disciplinary authority, was affirmed by the appellate authority. The said order dated 9.7.2011 was communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. COR:HRD: MR: C, dated 22.7.2011. 4. Mr. The said order dated 9.7.2011 was communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. COR:HRD: MR: C, dated 22.7.2011. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the order of punishment impugned, as imposed upon the petitioner, is neither sustainable in law nor on facts and as such fit to be quashed and as such, the appellate order passed by the appellate authority to the extent it has refused to interfere with the entire order of punishment is also fit to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the memo of charge/chargesheet framed against the petitioner is non est in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that it is matter of record of the respondents-Bank itself that there was no shortage of even a single penny of cash at the Branch and, therefore, the memo of charge is not sustainable in law nor on facts. Learned counsel further submitted that MW-2-S.K. Sharma, then Senior Manager had clearly deposed that there was no cash shortage in the currency chest and, therefore, he did not find fit to report further, and as such, finding of the enquiry report is totally perverse and contrary to materials on record. Learned counsel further submitted that as per guidelines, only those officer would be held responsible who were actually allotted the work of a particular department and as such, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged misconduct, if any. Learned counsel further submitted that the responsibility of rotational transfer is that of Chief Manager and petitioner was not at all responsible for any alleged irregularities. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards Clause 53 of the Guidelines with respect to Currency Chest and submitted that no such procedure was ever followed by the respondents and petitioner has been made escape goat. Clause 53 of the Guidelines with respect to Currency Chest reads as under: "53. Any deficiency detected during the course of inspection/verification of balances should be made good immediately by the bank from its own cash balances. Under advice of Circle Officer, Transaction Banking Division, HO and Inspection and Audit Division pending thorough investigation and follow up action. Clause 53 of the Guidelines with respect to Currency Chest reads as under: "53. Any deficiency detected during the course of inspection/verification of balances should be made good immediately by the bank from its own cash balances. Under advice of Circle Officer, Transaction Banking Division, HO and Inspection and Audit Division pending thorough investigation and follow up action. The amount of cash found short should be immediately recovered from the person(s) concerned and that in case of non-payment of the same, the staff concerned shall also pay interest at the rate applicable to clean overdraft accounts." Learned counsel further submitted that the memo of charge/charge-sheet framed against the petitioner and the imputation alleged against him is non est in the eye of law and as such, impugned orders are fit to be quashed. The respondents have acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner even in a situation where there was no shortage of even a single penny. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Krishna Narayan Tewari wherein the High Court had come to the conclusion that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had applied their mind or recorded reasons in support of their conclusion. In the said case, relying upon the decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [ (2009)2 SCC 570 ], Kuldeep Singh vs. Commr. of Police [ (1999)2 SCC 10 ], Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar [ (1978)3 SCC 366 ], Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Allahabad Bank [ (2003)9 SCC 480 ], State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [ (2011)4 SCC 584 ] and Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P. [ (2010) 10 SCC 539 ], held that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable in law. High Court further found that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority were perverse and were based on no evidence and held that the appellate authority had not applied its mind independently. The said Judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017)2 SCC 308 [: 2017(1) JLJR (SC)319] [Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari] wherein it has been clearly held that the writ courts must be slow in interfering with findings of fact recorded by departmental authority on basis of evidence. The said Judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017)2 SCC 308 [: 2017(1) JLJR (SC)319] [Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari] wherein it has been clearly held that the writ courts must be slow in interfering with findings of fact recorded by departmental authority on basis of evidence. However, if findings are unsupported by evidence or are such as no reasonable person would arrive at, then writ court justified if not duty-bound to examine matter. If enquiry itself vitiated for violation of principles of natural-justice then writ court can interfere with disciplinary enquiry or resultant orders. Further where authority (i) has not applied its mind; or (ii) has not assigned reasons for its conclusions then writ courts can interfere with orders of punishment. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that order passed by the appellate authority has been passed with retrospective effect and as such, it is not tenable as no punishment with retrospective effect could have been passed. Reliance has been placed in the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari reported in (2017)2 SCC 308 [: 2017(1) JLJR (SC)319]. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse and based on no evidence and as such, the same are fit to be quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority has not applied its mind independently and simply rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that substance of the charge leveled against the petitioner is that he, while holding office of the Circle Head, Patna, willfully did not report to the higher authority at Head Office the alleged incident of shortage of cash occurred during 21.10.2008 in the currency chest at BO, Exhibition Road, Patna. Learned counsel submitted that the settled Rules and Guidelines of the Banking transactions are necessary to be followed in the Banking service and the petitioner apparently failed to do so and for which instead of dismissal, a lenient view was taken by the Bank, which was later on reduced by the appellate authority. Learned counsel submitted that the settled Rules and Guidelines of the Banking transactions are necessary to be followed in the Banking service and the petitioner apparently failed to do so and for which instead of dismissal, a lenient view was taken by the Bank, which was later on reduced by the appellate authority. Learned counsel submitted that the entire proceeding has been held in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the decision. Learned counsel further submitted that charge-sheet had been served on 14 other officials and one workman and punishments commensurate to the gravity of the charges proved against them were subsequently imposed and as such, allegations of the petitioner that he has been made scapegoat, is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that it has already been settled by Hon'ble Courts in catena of Judgments that the High Court normally should not interfere with the finding of the departmental proceeding until and unless the findings are passed on no evidence or delay perverse and/or legally untenable, learned counsel submitted that on this score the writ petition is fit to be rejected. Learned counsel has also relied in the Judgment in the case of Bank of India & Ors. vs. Degala Suryanarayana reported in (1999)5 SCC 762 [: 1999(3) PLJR (SC) 83] and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority which has been passed after taking into consideration the evidence, finding and reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer and such finding of the Disciplinary Authority held by the said Judgment that are not open to judicial review and thus, in view of this ration the instant writ petition is fit to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a Judgment reported in (2002)7 SCC 168 , has clearly held that the High Court cannot interfere with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority until and unless the penalty imposed is impermissible in law and in that view of the matter, instant writ petition is devoid of merits. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a Judgment reported in (2002)7 SCC 168 , has clearly held that the High Court cannot interfere with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority until and unless the penalty imposed is impermissible in law and in that view of the matter, instant writ petition is devoid of merits. Learned counsel submitted that Bank being a financial institution, integrity, honesty and dedication are important character of its employee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Judgment reported in (2006)10 SCC 572 , has held that a Bank Officer has to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, honesty and dedication and if he fails to do so, the punishment as awarded to him is proper and on this ground the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel has also referred the Judgment passed in the case of Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 . Para-18 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted hereunder: "18. It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads: "3(1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer." The regulation ensures that every officer at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interests 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. Such regulations are made to instil the public confidence in the bank so that the interests of customers/depositors are well safeguarded. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer." Learned counsel submitted that proved misconduct and dereliction in duty should be dealt with adequate punishment so as to streamline the banking system. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer." Learned counsel submitted that proved misconduct and dereliction in duty should be dealt with adequate punishment so as to streamline the banking system. When a person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable and it is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. The punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be called shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and as such, instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in this writ petition. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the order passed by the respondents-Bank i.e. the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The appellate authority has taken very lenient view modifying the order of disciplinary authority. Moreover, this Court is not sitting in appeal to re-evaluate the evidence which has already been evaluated by the enquiry officer. From perusal of documents on record, it is crystal clear that the charges have been proved against the delinquent employee which speaks of grave misconduct which are against interest of the Bank. Interference is required in the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the finding of the enquiry officer only if there are procedural illegalities committed by the officers. There is no procedural flaw or any error in the enquiry report or in the order of the disciplinary authority. Nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner not it has been brought on record that what are the procedural illegalities or any flaw in the enquiry report so that it can be termed as perverse. Before imposing punishment, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the delinquent employee-petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner not it has been brought on record that what are the procedural illegalities or any flaw in the enquiry report so that it can be termed as perverse. Before imposing punishment, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the delinquent employee-petitioner. Thereafter, appeal was preferred and the appellate authority, taking a lenient view, vide order dated 9.7.2001 whereby the appellate authority refused to set aside the entire order of punishment but modified the order to the extent "reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay as on date of superannuation". Dereliction of duty was the finding of the appellate authority. Enquiry has been conducted in terms of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and finding of the enquiry officer are based only on the evidence adduced during enquiry. The delinquent has been held guilty and the charges proved on the basis of evidence adduced. Taking into consideration nature of misconduct, though major punishment has been awarded by the disciplinary authority but a lenient view has been taken by the appellate authority modifying major punishment into reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay as on date of superannuation, is fully justified. 7. It has been held in catena of decisions that misconduct should not be dealt with leniently and it has to be dealt with iron hands. The main contention of the petitioner that finding of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority based on such finding is perverse as it is based on no evidence, is not acceptable to this Court. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to him as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court normally should not interfere with the findings of the departmental proceeding until and unless findings are based on no evidence or perverse. In the instant case, charges have been proved and based on evidences. No interference is required in the order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. It cannot be said that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is impermissible in law. In the instant case, charges have been proved and based on evidences. No interference is required in the order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. It cannot be said that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is impermissible in law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others vs. Hoti Lal and Another reported in (2003)3 SCC 605 has held that where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or act in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must. In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corn. vs. B.S. Hullikatti reported in (2001) 2 SCC 574 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that- "... ...... This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation". 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court is not inclined to interfere with in the writ petition and as such the writ petition stands dismissed.