ORDER D.N. Patel, A.C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.1 in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.798 of 1998 (R), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the punishment of dismissal, and the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the charge nos.7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, was upheld and 50% back wages have also been allowed, and therefore, respondent - bank has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Factual Matrix :- Respondent No.1 (original petitioner) was serving with the Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a Manager. Charge-sheet was issued on 18.08.1992 upon the respondent no.1 (original petitioner). There are several charges levelled against the respondent no.1. So far as charge no.1 is concerned, which was pertaining to the payment of cash against the withdrawal slip, despite the fact that the signature of the withdrawal slip was entirely different, from that of specimen signature. So far as charge no.2 is concerned, loan was sanctioned by the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) for a furniture shop, despite the fact that no furniture shop was ever existed or established. No quotation, copy of bill etc., was produced. No margin money was stipulated in the loan account. Signature of the borrower of the loan differs from the signature on the saving bank account of the borrower. There was no pre-sanction inspection report. Post-sanction inspection was not carried out to ensure the end use of the loan amount. Ultimately, practically recovery was nil, for the aforesaid loan. No follow up was made for the recovery of the loan. So far as charge no.3 is concerned, the respondent No.1 purchased a cheque No.488792 dated 21.01.1991 and the amount was deposited in his own personal bank account. Normally, such type of cheques cannot be purchased by the Manager of the bank, unless permission is obtained from the Head Office. So far as charge no.4 is concerned, loan amount was sanctioned to one of the customers who was an illiterate. Whenever, any illiterate customer is given a loan, photograph of the said customer was to be obtained while opening the bank account. No such photograph was attested when saving account of such customer was opened and loan was sanctioned. So far as charge no.4 is concerned, loan amount was sanctioned to one of the customers who was an illiterate. Whenever, any illiterate customer is given a loan, photograph of the said customer was to be obtained while opening the bank account. No such photograph was attested when saving account of such customer was opened and loan was sanctioned. Later on, photograph of one Radhiya Devi, wife of Shri Bhodhua Turi was obtained, whereas the loan was sanctioned in the name of Smt. Radhiya Devi, wife of Shri Bhigua Turi. Thus, loan was sanctioned in the name of ''A'' whereas photograph of ''B'' was taken on record that too later on, after the loan was sanctioned. Thus, photograph of different woman was taken. In the loan papers, age of lonee was mentioned as 35 years whereas photograph of a lady aged about 25 years, was taken on record. Thus, there was wrong disbursement of the loan. Lonee has not honoured repayment obligation and thereby there was a financial loss to the bank. Bank was not in a position to proceed with the recovery. So far as charge no.5 is concerned, loan and subsidy was sanctioned in favour of one customer for purchase of one pump set without any quotation, bill, stamped receipt obtained from the dealer. Delivery order was undated. The delivery was given by M/S J. K. Enterprises, Simaria, but, there was no unit of dealer at Simaria at all. The amount of loan and subsidy was credited in the name of different dealer than the dealer whose name was mentioned on the delivery order, i.e., the delivery order was by M/S J. K. Enterprises, Simaria whereas the actual payment was made to M/s. Jyoti Electronics. There are several other irregularities mentioned in the charge-sheet. Charge-sheet is at Anexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Similarly, there are 18 charges which are pertaining to grave misconduct committed by this respondent No.1 (original petitioner). Enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted at length after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.1- delinquent. Enquiry officer has held that charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 12, is not proved. Charge no.13 is partly proved and charge no.14 seems to have been proved. Enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted at length after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.1- delinquent. Enquiry officer has held that charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 12, is not proved. Charge no.13 is partly proved and charge no.14 seems to have been proved. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer, and hence, detail notice was given dated 27.06.1994 (Annexure - 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Reply was given by the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) and the disciplinary authority has arrived at a conclusion that charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18, are proved. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.09.1994 imposed the punishment of dismissal for the charges which are proved and they are charge nos.7, 11, 12, 13, and 15. The disciplinary authority has further imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the charges proved which are charge nos.2, 3 and 5. One more punishment was inflicted by the disciplinary authority, i.e., degradation of increment by ten scales. This order was also challenged by the respondent No.1- delinquent before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Departmental Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.07.10995. The said order is at Annexure - A to the counter affidavit filed by this Respondent No.1 (original petitioner) has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 27.09.1994, but, not appellate order. The learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C No.798 of 1998 (R) has allowed the petition partly mainly on the ground that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent No.1 - delinquent was shockingly disproportionate, and hence, the order of punishment of dismissal and degradation of 10 scales, was quashed and set aside and punishment of stoppage of one increment was upheld mainly on the ground that even though the aforesaid charges have been held as proved, there is no financial loss to the bank. The golden thread running throughout in the judgment is that no financial loss is caused to the bank, despite the punishments are proved, and hence, the respondent bank has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The golden thread running throughout in the judgment is that no financial loss is caused to the bank, despite the punishments are proved, and hence, the respondent bank has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants : I. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original respondents in the writ petition) has submitted that there are serious charges against this respondent no.1 and they have been held as proved even by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that every time financial loss to the bank need not to be seen at all. Whenever a bank employee is dealing with the customer of the bank, higher degree of honesty, integrity and devotion is required even though there is no pecuniary loss to the bank. If the signatures are not tallying properly and the amount is paid to the customer, this tentamounts to a grave misconduct. Loans have been sanctioned and several irregularities have been committed by this respondent No.1 - delinquent. Everything cannot be measured in terms of loss of money. The prestige of the bank ought to have been kept in mind. Sometimes loss of prestige is costlier than the financial loss. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 - delinquent. II. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that time and again Hon''ble the Supreme Court has delivered judgment that whenever the bank employee is dealing with the customer the honesty, integrity and devotion to the duty has to be maintained by the bank employee even though, there is no pecuniary loss to the bank. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:- (a) (1996) 9 SCC 69 ; (b) (1998) 7 SCC 84 ; (c) (2001) 9 SCC 609 ; (d) (2003) 4 SCC 364 ; (e) (2005) 6 SCC 321 ; (f) (2007) 9 SCC 15 ; and (g) 2010 (4) JLJR (SC) 81. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even though no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank, the punishment cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. III. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even though no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank, the punishment cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. III. Looking to the proved misconduct, punishment inflicted by this appellant upon the respondent no.1- delinquent cannot be levelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be levelled as unreasonably excessive punishment. Too much leniency cannot be shown by this Court hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside. IV. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the aforesaid decisions even though, there is no pecuniary loss for the proved misconduct of the respondent No.1, punishment inflicted by this appellant of dismissal was absolutely in consonance with the nature of the misconduct. Even looking to the several charges, there is pecuniary loss to the bank, as stated in detail at Annexure-1 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.798 of 1998(R) dated 28.09.2012, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Argument canvassed by the counsel for the respondent no.1(original petitioner). I. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(original petitioner) has submitted that no irregularity was committed by respondent no.1 nor there is any financial loss nor there is any embezzlement of money nor there is any miss-appropriation of any amount by respondent no.1, and hence, punishment of dismissal has been rightly quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. Likewise, punishment of degradation of ten scales has also been rightly quashed and set aside. II. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has further submitted that as decided by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , this Court has all power, jurisdiction and authority either to modify the punishment or to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority. In the facts of the present case, out of three punishments, two have been quashed and one has been upheld. Looking to the nature of misconduct, 50% back wages was allowed instead of 100% back wages. In the facts of the present case, out of three punishments, two have been quashed and one has been upheld. Looking to the nature of misconduct, 50% back wages was allowed instead of 100% back wages. Thus, respondent no.1 has been adequately punished looking to the nature of misconduct, and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court in this Letters Patent Appeal. III. It is repeatedly submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 has not caused any financial loss to the bank despite several misconducts pointed out in the charge-sheet. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition, and hence, also this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. IV. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.1 that whenever the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the report given by the enquiry officer, either the matter should have been remitted by the disciplinary authority to the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority should have conducted a fresh enquiry. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. V. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that alleged misconduct is of the year 1992 and the order was passed in the year 2012, thus, for two long decades, the respondent No.1 - delinquent has suffered a lot, hence, also order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be entertained by this Court. VI. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that this Court should take a compassionate view. Reasons : 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the decisions rendered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C No.798 of 1998 (R) dated 28.09.2012, mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements :- 1. The respondent No.1 is the original petitioner, who was working as a Manager of this appellant/ bank. More than a dozen misconducts have been committed by this respondent No.1, for which charge-sheet dated 18.08.1992 has been submitted, which is at Annexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent No.1 is the original petitioner, who was working as a Manager of this appellant/ bank. More than a dozen misconducts have been committed by this respondent No.1, for which charge-sheet dated 18.08.1992 has been submitted, which is at Annexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. II. Looking to the nature of charges, it appears that respondent No.1 is either thoroughly lethargic Manager or he is too much lenient in granting loans etc., to the customers without proper verification of the facts. Whenever, a manager is giving bank''s money, he should follow the bank''s rules and not his personal sympathy to the customers. Thus, it tentamounts to misconduct. The Manager cannot be more charitable than law, once there is rules, law, regulations and restrictions for giving money to the customers either by way of withdrawal or by way of sanctioning loan amounts. III. For the 18 charges, as stated at Annexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, an enquiry was conducted, enquiry officer has given a report with which the disciplinary authority was not in agreement, and hence, detail show cause notice dated 27.06.1994 (Annexure - 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) was given to the respondent No.1. Reply was given by this respondent No.1 - delinquent of the aforesaid notice, issued by the disciplinary authority, and ultimately, the disciplinary authority has arrived at a conclusion that charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18, are proved. IV. We have perused the charges which are held as proved one by the disciplinary authority, which are serious in nature. The learned Single Judge has constantly observed that there is no pecuniary loss to the bank, and hence, punishment of dismissal was quashed and set aside. Likewise, punishment of degradation of ten scales has also been quashed and set aside. It ought to be kept in mind that even if there is no pecuniary loss, and if money is paid to the customers without tallying their signature, it is a grave misconduct. "Prestige of the bank is costlier than the financial loss caused to the bank". The bank is more concerned with the credibility of the relationship between the bank and the customer. The bank is more concerned with the rules and regulations, for grant of loans. "Prestige of the bank is costlier than the financial loss caused to the bank". The bank is more concerned with the credibility of the relationship between the bank and the customer. The bank is more concerned with the rules and regulations, for grant of loans. The bank is more concerned with consistent approach of the employees of the bank to the effect that if the signature is not tallying, the bank money cannot be paid to the customers. There are as many as more than one dozen misconducts committed by this respondent No.1. V. It is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 321 , in paragraph nos.21, 23 and 29, which read as under : "21. Coming to the question whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate, it is to be noted that the various allegations as laid in the departmental proceedings reveal that several acts of misconduct unbecoming of a bank official were committed by the respondent. 23. The scope of interference with the quantum of punishment has been the subject-matter of various decisions of this Court. Such interference cannot be a routine matter. 29. Aforesaid being the position, the decisions of the learned Single Judge on the quantum of punishment and of the Division Bench regarding alleged violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be maintained and are, therefore, set aside. The inevitable conclusion is that the order of dismissal as passed by the appellant Bank does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal is accordingly allowed, but with no order as to costs. (emphasis supplied) VI. It is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 15 , in paragraph no.31, which reads as under : "31. The High Court itself has noticed a large number of decisions and formed the opinion that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were of grave nature. A major punishment may be inflicted even where no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank by reason of the act of the delinquent officer. In support of the aforementioned proposition of law, the High Court opined: "The charges levelled against the petitioner, which were found proved upon enquiry, are quite serious in nature. A major punishment may be inflicted even where no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank by reason of the act of the delinquent officer. In support of the aforementioned proposition of law, the High Court opined: "The charges levelled against the petitioner, which were found proved upon enquiry, are quite serious in nature. The petitioner had engaged himself in reckless lending causing huge financial loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs 1,14,87,164.76. It also shows that the petitioner had disbursed loan through middlemen and demanded and received illegal gratification from a borrower. We are of the considered opinion that in such cases, the officers of the Bank should not be permitted to continue in service at all. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be ''an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity''. [Vide Air India Corpn. v. V.A. Rebellow ; Binny Ltd. v. Workmen Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways; Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy.] In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved." Reliance in this regard has also been placed by the High Court on the decision of State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi. (emphasis supplied) VII. In view of the aforesaid decisions, even though, there is no pecuniary loss to the bank, the bank employee can be punished for the proved misconduct. VIII. Thus, "loss of confidence" is most important aspect of the matter rather than the "pecuniary loss" to the bank. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of while deciding the writ petition, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.798 of 1998 (R) dated 28.09.2012, deserves to be quashed and set aside. IX. It is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , in paragraph no.14, which reads as under : "14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court." (emphasis supplied) X. Thus, what is required to be appreciated is higher degree of honesty, integrity and devotion of the employee of the bank rather than pecuniary loss to the bank. Thus, test applied by the learned Single Judge for diluting the punishment is running counter to the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. XI. In view of the aforesaid decisions even though there is no financial loss caused to the bank, if the loans are sanctioned without proper verification of the facts stated in the application, grave misconduct is committed by the employee of the bank. In the facts of the present case, the amount has been paid to the customers, by respondent No.1 without appreciating the fact that signatures are grossly different. Similarly, respondent No.1 has sanctioned the loan amount without there being existence of the shop, at all. Likewise, respondent No.1 has sanctioned the loan amount to ''A'' whereas photograph of ''B'' was there on the application. Likewise, there are several misconducts which affect honesty, integrity and devotion of respondent No.1. All these must be led to a conclusion that there is loss of confidence of this appellant - bank in respondent No.1, and hence, punishment of dismissal cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate nor it can be said as unreasonably excessive punishment. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition. XII. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 , in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, which read as under : "7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. 7 and 8, which read as under : "7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. Regulation 3 requires every officer/employee of the bank to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. It requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him. Breach of Regulation 3 is ''misconduct'' within the meaning of Regulation 24. The findings of the Inquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in a number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organisation - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit - huge profit, as the High Court characterises it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterise them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class I Officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that in spite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that in spite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that in spite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterised as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24. 8. We must mention that Shri V.A. Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondent, stated fairly before us that it is not possible for him to sustain the reasoning and approach of the High Court in this case. His only submission was that having regard to the age of the respondent (37 years) and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may substitute the punishment awarded to the respondent by a lesser punishment. The learned counsel suggested that any punishment other than dismissal may be imposed by this Court. We considered this request with the care it deserves, but we regret that we are unable to accede to it. The learned counsel for the Bank, Shri V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, also stated, on instructions of the Bank, that it is not possible for the Bank to accommodate the respondent in its service in view of his conduct." (emphasis supplied) XIII. In view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal for the charges which are at Sl. Nos.7, 11, 12, 13 and 15, cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. XIV. Counsel for respondent No.1 - delinquent has repeatedly stated that there is no financial loss to the bank. Financial loss to the bank is not any test to be applied while evaluating the quantum of punishment in a bank in such type of cases. If the employee has committed misconduct which affects honesty, integrity and devotion of the employee, and whereby there is loss of confidence irrespective of the loss to the bank, he deserves to be dismissed. Financial loss to the bank is not any test to be applied while evaluating the quantum of punishment in a bank in such type of cases. If the employee has committed misconduct which affects honesty, integrity and devotion of the employee, and whereby there is loss of confidence irrespective of the loss to the bank, he deserves to be dismissed. If loans are sanctioned and the amount is paid despite the signatures are not tallying f the loan is paid without proper verification, as stated in the charge-sheet, which is at Annexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, he deserves to be dismissed. If such type of behaviour is allowed then there will be a chaos in the bank transactions. If such type of behaviour of respondent No.1 is viewed with leniency, there will be inconsistent approach of the bank. In few cases of loans, there will be strict verification of the facts of the applicant-loanee and in rest of the cases, just upon asking the loan will be sanctioned to the loanee, by the manager, like respondent No.1. Different yardstick for granting loans cannot be permitted by the bank. Every manager cannot have its own rule for withdrawal of cash and for sanctioning the loan. Employees are bound by the rules of the Bank. Rules of the Bank are usually drafted by the experienced persons. The argument that since no pecuniary loss was caused to the bank and no misappropriation or embezzlement was committed, leniency should be shown to respondent No.1, is not accepted by this Court, especially, looking to the decisions, rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme, Court as stated here-in-above. XV. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that whenever the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the report given by the enquiry officer, he has to remand the matter to the enquiry officer or he has to conduct a fresh enquiry. This is perhaps not the service jurisprudence. The disciplinary authority has all power, jurisdiction and authority to arrive at a conclusion, based upon the same enquiry that the charges which are held as not proved by the enquiry officer are, in fact, proved. This is perhaps not the service jurisprudence. The disciplinary authority has all power, jurisdiction and authority to arrive at a conclusion, based upon the same enquiry that the charges which are held as not proved by the enquiry officer are, in fact, proved. In the facts of the present case, a detail show cause notice dated 27.06.1994 has been given to the delinquent by the disciplinary authority, which is at Annexure - 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, and this show cause notice has also been replied by respondent No.1, which is sufficient for the decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority, based upon the same enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. XVI. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Behan Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , in paragraph nos.17, 18 & 18, as under :- "17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. 18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer''s report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar case. 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar case. 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." (emphasis supplied) 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C No.798 of 1998 (R) dated 28.09.2012. The punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority is absolutely in consonance with the nature of misconduct committed by respondent No.1 - delinquent. 7. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal, is allowed. 8. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No.3425 of 2012 stands disposed of.