JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. This appeal is by the Bank and its officials against the part of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No.21375 of 2015. The respondent, who was the writ petitioner, has appeared through counsel. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. The respondent was a Special Assistant in the State Bank of India, Karuvalloor Branch, Kollam district. It is alleged that she, in the course of her work, was entrusted with cash of about 25,000/- for crediting it to a constituent's account. On the next bank date, when the constituent came to know that his account has not been credited, made enquiries. Upon enquiries from the respondent, she suddenly remembered that she has forgotten to deposit the cash which was left in her office drawer itself. She retrieved the cash and then deposited it in the constituent's account. On the face of it, it may seem to be something simple, but the fact is that the deposit was made by the constituent on a Saturday. He had made two deposits in cash; one of Rs. 25,000/- and the other of Rs. 5,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- was credited, but Rs. 25,000/- was not. On Monday, when he checked the fact, this explanation was given. The Bank did not find the explanation satisfactory for a number of reasons. On that day, i.e. Monday, there were other shortages of substantial amount of cash found on her desk as well. Considering these facts, she was removed from service, not dismissed. The past conduct of the respondent is also on record, where serious charges have been found against her for forging salary certificates and signatures of other employees, to avail financial benefits for which, she has already been found guilty earlier itself. 4. The learned single Judge did not interfere with the findings of fact, but when it came to punishment, he was of the view that the punishment was disproportionate. Therefore, the learned single Judge quashed the punishment order and directed the management to re-consider the quantum of punishment. It is this part of the judgment by which, the Bank and its officials are aggrieved and have come in appeal. 5. Therefore, the learned single Judge quashed the punishment order and directed the management to re-consider the quantum of punishment. It is this part of the judgment by which, the Bank and its officials are aggrieved and have come in appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this appeal has to be allowed. We have noted the facts above. We must also note that banking service is a service based on faith and confidence. The conduct that is past and present of the respondent does not justify that it was a bona fide mistake. In any view of the matter, it is not open for this Court to take another view as if sitting in appeal, for, while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, the court does not act as an appellate court. It only reviews the procedure under which action has been taken. 6. There is absolutely no procedural impropriety and the facts aforesaid not only justify the punishment, but could justify even a harsher punishment also. We simply cannot agree with the view of the learned single Judge for taking a compassionate view in the matter. It would be a misplaced compassion. 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent indicated above and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge under appeal, by which the court had quashed the order of punishment and had remanded the matter for re-consideration.