JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Punjab National Bank, has filed the instant petition challenging the penalty order dated 16.01.1998 whereby major penalty of "dismissal from Bank's service" has been imposed on him. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.12.1998 and the same is also impugned in the instant petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a chargesheet dated 05.10.1996 (Annex.4) along with statement of article of charge and statement of imputation of charge, in support thereof. It was alleged in the statement of article of charge that the petitioner while working as an officer at Branch Office MI Road, Jaipur had accommodated M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited in an unauthorized manner and he acted in collusion with other agents in a manner detrimental to the small investors and accepted the applications for shares after the closure of the issue in violation of SEBI/Bank guidelines and he concealed the facts from his higher authorities which was unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The said acts of the petitioner were found to be misconduct, in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. The statement of article of charge against the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:- PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ZONAL OFFICE: JAIPUR ANNEXURE-I STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE AGAINST SHRI B.M.JHANWAR, OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), BO: M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. ARTICLE : I While working as an officer at BO: M.I. Road, Jaipur Shri Jhanwar has accommodated M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited in an unauthorized manner inasmuch as he acted in collusion with other agents in a manner detrimental to the small investors and accepted the applications for shares after the closure of the issue in violation of SEBI/Bank guidelines. He concealed the facts from his higher authorities which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The above acts of Shri Jhanwar constitute misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. Sd/- ZONAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY 3. He concealed the facts from his higher authorities which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The above acts of Shri Jhanwar constitute misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. Sd/- ZONAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY 3. The statement of imputation of charge in support of article of charge, against the petitioner was supplied to him as Annexure-II and the details of application which was received after closure of public issue were supplied as Annexure-III along with the chargesheet to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner after receipt of chargesheet submitted his reply/written statement of defence dated 04.11.1996. The petitioner denied the charge leveled against him. The petitioner had pleaded in his reply that he was the junior most officer working in the Merchant Banking Cell of the Branch Office. The Cell was controlled by the Chief Manager, Senior Manager and Functional Manager of the Branch. He further stated in his reply that looking to the volume of work in the Branch, a system of concurrent audit was evolved in the Branch and day-to-day irregularities, if any observed by the auditor, the same were reported to the higher authorities. 5. The petitioner submitted that he had not acted in collusion with any other agent to accept the applications after closure of the issue and if the applications had been accepted after closure of the issue, the issue itself had been cancelled/devolved by SEBI to protect the interest of the small investors & the petitioner had no role in such development and on the contrary the controlling Branch should not have accepted the final certificate, said to be issued by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner also pointed out that the senior Officers/higher authorities were also responsible at the same time for checking of the work done by the subordinate Officers in the Branch and as such the petitioner had requested that chargesheet had been issued on frivolous grounds and the petitioner also requested for revocation of his suspension order. 7. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply, appointed the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 16.11.1996 (Annex-6). The Enquiry Officer after affording opportunity to both the sides, conducted the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry, considered the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced by the Bank as well as by the delinquent-petitioner. 7. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply, appointed the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 16.11.1996 (Annex-6). The Enquiry Officer after affording opportunity to both the sides, conducted the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry, considered the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced by the Bank as well as by the delinquent-petitioner. The Bank-Management in its support filed as many as 20 documents marked as M.Ex-1 to M.Ex-20. The petitioner in support of his case produced 18 documents marked as D.Ex-1 to D.Ex-18. The Bank produced on their behalf three witnesses namely MW-1 K.S. Kanwal, MW-2 S.P. Mathur and MW-3 S.N. Bhatia. The petitioner did not produce witness in support of his case. Both the parties submitted their written submissions before the Enquiry Officer before conclusion of enquiry. 8. The Enquiry Officer after considering all the record produced before him, came to the conclusion that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and asked for his representation/comments. The petitioner after receipt of enquiry report filed his representation/objections dated 01.10.1997. The petitioner submitted in his representation that charges leveled against him were not proved at all and the Enquiry Officer had based his findings only on circumstantial evidence and he had not given any clear finding holding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner further submitted that merely the findings recorded on circumstantial evidence could not become the basis for holding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner submitted that very important document i.e. M.Ex-17 was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and after one person namely P.N. Awasthi, who was the General Manager of the Branch was summoned as a witness and his statement was recorded in examination-in-chief but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. 9. The petitioner submitted that denial of opportunity to cross examine such an important witness had resulted into entire proceedings to be unfair. The petitioner submitted that the Bank/Presenting Officer had failed to prove two documents in original i.e. M.Ex-10 and M.Ex-11 and as such the charge could not be established against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that the issue was not devolved but on the contrary, the shares were allotted to the applicants and even shares were listed in the stock exchange. The petitioner submitted that the Bank/Presenting Officer had failed to prove two documents in original i.e. M.Ex-10 and M.Ex-11 and as such the charge could not be established against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that the issue was not devolved but on the contrary, the shares were allotted to the applicants and even shares were listed in the stock exchange. The petitioner submitted that wrong information was furnished to the Bank and accordingly wrong presumption was drawn holding the petitioner guilty. 10. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply to the show cause notice passed an order on 16.01.1998. The Disciplinary Authority found that all the work relating to the issue of shares of a company, there was a clear finding by the Enquiry Officer of acceptance of applications for a huge amount of more than Rupees Six Crores after closure of issue and further the petitioner issued an undated revised final certificate under his own signatures and he kept the higher authorities totally in dark in this regard. The Disciplinary Authority further recorded that the petitioner had acted in collusion with the other agents in a manner detrimental to the small investors by violating Bank/SEBI guidelines. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are reproduced hereunder:- "Therefore, it is proved that Shri Jhanwar, while dealing with the issue of M/s.Asean Structures Ltd., concealed the above facts from his higher authorities and acted in collusion with other agents in a manner detrimental to the small investor violating Bank/SEBI guidelines. Had he not accepted applications after the closure of the issue, the said issue could have been devolved. Due to above act of Shri Jhanwar BO: MI Road, Jaipur has been debarred from handling Merchant Banking Business for a period of one year by the SEBI. This appeared as News item in the Financial Express of 23.10.97, which has tarnished the image/reputation of the bank as a whole. Shri Jhanwar by his deliberate acts has misused and abused his official position and has acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the bank. The misconducts committed by Shri Jhanwar are grave and sensitive in nature. Banking industry is running in the trust of its officers and such persons do not deserve to be in the employment of the Bank, as the Bank has to largely depend upon the integrity, credibility and devotion of its officers. The misconducts committed by Shri Jhanwar are grave and sensitive in nature. Banking industry is running in the trust of its officers and such persons do not deserve to be in the employment of the Bank, as the Bank has to largely depend upon the integrity, credibility and devotion of its officers. Shri Jhanwar had betrayed the confidence of the Bank. Keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved, I hereby award Shri BM Jhanwar the major penalty of "Dismissal from the Bank's service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for his future employment." I further order that Shri Jhanwar during the period he remained under suspension, shall not be entitled to any monetary and/or non-monetary benefits whatsoever, but for the subsistence allowance as permissible under Reg.14 of Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. I order accordingly." 11. The petitioner after penalty order being passed had filed an appeal under Regulation 17 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 before the General Manager (Personnel), Punjab National Bank, Head Office, New Delhi. The petitioner highlighted the following submissions in his memo of appeal:- (i) The originals of documents in departmental enquiry i.e. M.Ex-10 and M.Ex-11 were not made available to him for inspection. (ii) The document M.Ex-17 was wrongly relied upon as the original copy thereof was in the custody of the authorities and the same was tempered with. (iii) The Chief Manager, P.N. Awasthi produced himself in the witness box on 18.03.1997 but when the petitioner demanded his cross examination, the same was disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. (iv) The petitioner submitted that the document M.Ex-17 was materially altered by the Chief Manager. The petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 12. The petitioner also submitted in his memo of appeal that a document was asked by him relating to final certificate of M/s. Reliance industries Ltd., which could establish that notion of sending revised final certificate was a routine matter, but the same was disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. 12. The petitioner also submitted in his memo of appeal that a document was asked by him relating to final certificate of M/s. Reliance industries Ltd., which could establish that notion of sending revised final certificate was a routine matter, but the same was disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner in his memo of appeal submitted that there was a procedural irregularity committed by the Enquiry Officer while conducting enquiry inasmuch as there were persons who were to depose in support of the case of the petitioner but they were prevented to attend the disciplinary proceedings by one way or the other and as such the three important witnesses which the petitioner wanted to produce in defence, could not be produced. The petitioner had given names of three witnesses viz., 1) N.S. Toshniwal, 2) Ramkaran Meena & 3) Lal Singh Rajawat, however, none of these persons were allowed due to influence of the Chief Manager and as such the petitioner was deprived to defend himself in a proper manner. 13. The Appellate Authority after receipt of memo of appeal from the petitioner, decided the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.1998. The Appellate Authority noted down the contentions raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and thereafter he examined the issues/points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. The Appellate Authority found that the appeal was liable to be rejected as the same was devoid of merits and as such the penalty of dismissal from Bank's service was approved by the Appellate Authority. The operative portion of the order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereunder:- "I have examined the various points raised by Shri Jhanwar in his appeal along with the records of the case. His plea that job of accepting the share application was assigned to Computer Agencies and he only arranged the compiled record, is not tenable as the Computer Agencies only submitted the compiled data and Shri Jhanwar prepared and signed the final certificate. It is apparent from the Management Exhibit (M.Ex.17) that applications were accepted by him after the closure date of issue as admitted in his noting. The records reveal that Shri Jhanwar was assigned the work of Merchant Banking and he cannot take the plea that guidelines/instructions pertaining to the Deptt. were not made available to him. It is apparent from the Management Exhibit (M.Ex.17) that applications were accepted by him after the closure date of issue as admitted in his noting. The records reveal that Shri Jhanwar was assigned the work of Merchant Banking and he cannot take the plea that guidelines/instructions pertaining to the Deptt. were not made available to him. His submission that he had to drop all the three witnesses as they were under undue influence of the Chief Manager, is not in consonance with the record. He sought to drop the witnesses during enquiry proceedings on 9.6.97 while concluding the defence case. The observation of the Disciplinary Authority in its order about debarring BO MI Road, Jaipur from handling Merchant Banking Business is consequential to the proven misconduct of Shri Jhanwar and the same has not caused any prejudice. The charges for which Shri Jhanwar has been held guilty are within the purview of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of PNB Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. In view of the foregoing, the points raised by Shri Jhanwar in his appeal are devoid of merit. His appeal is, therefore, rejected and major penalty of 'Dismissal from Bank's service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for his future employment' imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority is confirmed hereby. I order accordingly and Shri Jhanwar be informed." 14. Both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 15. After notices of the petition being served, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded in the reply that charges leveled against the petitioner were all serious in nature as he accepted the applications for allotment of shares after the date of closure of issue in violation of SEBI/Government guidelines. It has been submitted in the reply that on account of acts and omissions of the petitioner, the Bank's Branch Office at MI Road, Jaipur was debarred by SEBI from undertaking Merchant Banking Business for a year and as such it tarnished the image of the Bank. The respondents have pleaded in the reply that in past also, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner wherein he was punished with the penalty of stoppage of grade increment without cumulative effect but the petitioner has been subsequently exonerated of the charges as 'warning' was given to him. The respondents have pleaded in the reply that in past also, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner wherein he was punished with the penalty of stoppage of grade increment without cumulative effect but the petitioner has been subsequently exonerated of the charges as 'warning' was given to him. The respondents have pleaded that the Bank had produced and proved 18 documents and examined 3 witnesses and the petitioner's representative had cross-examined these witnesses. The respondents pleaded that as far as M.Ex-10 was concerned, the Enquiry Officer found the same to be original document bearing signatures in original and the document M.Ex-11 was a general circular issued by the Registrar to issue to all the collecting Branches and as such it was also original document. The respondents have further pleaded in para-13 that allegation with regard to document (M.Ex-17) is totally baseless and imaginary and the said document was not tampered with. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner was given opportunity to examine P.N. Awasthi as his witness but he did not produce him to substantiate his allegation. It has been denied by the respondents that P.N. Awasthi was called by the Enquiry Officer. He was not examined as a witness of the Bank and there was no question of allowing his cross-examination by the petitioner. 16. The respondents have pleaded that even if the document (M.Ex-17) is ignored and note of Shri P.N. Awasthi put on such document is also ignored, still there was ample evidence against the petitioner including his own admission to the extent that there were only three applications for 1500 shares and stock invest worth was total Rs. 7,500/- only upto the date of closure of the issue i.e. 29.01.1996 but 24 more applications for 99,62,000 shares/stock invest worth Rs. 4,98,50,000/- were received by the petitioner after 65 days of the closure of the issue, unauthorizedly and in collusion with other agents. 17. The respondents have further submitted that certificates which were prepared by the petitioner subsequently were admitted to be signed by him and as such the charge against the petitioner of not only accepting the application forms and money after closure of issue was proved but also he misused and abused his official position & acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Khaspuria has made following submissions to assail the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority:- 1. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Officer have failed to consider that the petitioner was not directly involved in receiving the share applications and there were two authorized agents who were responsible for receiving the applications and if the applications were received after the closure date, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such irregularity. 2. The petitioner was not having any experience in dealing with the assignment of share applications and he was given assignment in ignorance of SEBI guidelines. Counsel submitted that SEBI had issued guidelines to all the Banks to post an experienced person to deal with the acceptance of share applications and the petitioner had no choice except to discharge his duty. 3. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have failed to consider that charge with regard to collusion of the petitioner with any other person has not been proved and yet the petitioner has been punished with major penalty. 4. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have not given any findings as how interest was affected of small investors. There was no complaint by any investor with regard to his deprivation from participating in the allotment of shares and without any factual foundation, the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of affecting the interest of small investors. 5. Counsel has submitted that for a similar irregularity/misconduct, one person namely V.R. John who was also working in the same Bank was leveled with the allegation of accepting the share applications after closure date and yet the said person has been visited with minor penalty of censure and the petitioner has been visited with major penalty of dismissal from Bank's service. 6. The entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated on account of non-compliance of principles of natural justice as one witness P.N. Awasthi, Chief Manager of the Bank was examined by the Departmental Representative and right to cross examine the said witness was denied to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has been put to prejudice in the departmental enquiry to defend himself due to such illegal act. 7. 7. Counsel submitted that witness P.N. Awasthi though was not produced as a witness but he was called by the Enquiry Officer to exhibit a document and by relying on the said document, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to punish the petitioner. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Ajit Maloo has submitted that as far as parity of punishment is concerned, the case of Mr. John is absolutely on a different footing. Counsel submitted that the other delinquent had no knowledge of closure date of issue and as such he was issued chargesheet for committing a minor misconduct and accordingly after considering the fact that such person had no knowledge of closure of share application, the authorities imposed appropriate punishment on him. Mr. Maloo submitted that in the instant case, not only the application forms were accepted by the petitioner after closure of the issue but money was accepted after 65 days of closure of issue and further the petitioner had prepared three certificates by receiving the amount and as such the petitioner has committed serious misconduct and it cannot compared or no analogy can be drawn with the other delinquent against whom the charge was of a different nature. 20. Mr. Maloo has submitted that there were instructions issued to all the Banks and all its Officers wherein the application form for allotment of share was not to be accepted after closure of the issue i.e. the last date and if such application was submitted by any of the person, the Bank officials were to return the same by putting a rubber stamp as 'shares not being accepted'. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was well aware about all the instructions which were given from time to time and yet in gross violation of SEBI Regulations, the petitioner committed misconduct. Mr. Maloo submitted that the certificates which have been prepared, have been sent to the Bombay Office and as such the authorities were mislead and finally the Branch Office at MI Road, Jaipur has been black listed for not doing the Merchant Banking Business. Mr. Maloo has further submitted that the petitioner was very well aware that one Shri Vinod Kumar was appointed as authorized representative on behalf of the M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited, however, the said revised certificates were issued to a different person by making signatures of Vinod Kumar. Mr. Maloo has further submitted that the petitioner was very well aware that one Shri Vinod Kumar was appointed as authorized representative on behalf of the M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited, however, the said revised certificates were issued to a different person by making signatures of Vinod Kumar. Counsel submitted that the revised certificates which were issued by the petitioner were in collusion of other agents and as such the petitioner was liable for such misconduct and he has been properly punished. 21. Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has cited the case of S.C. Girotra Vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) & Ors., (1995) Supp3 SCC 212 wherein the Apex Court has held that denial of right to cross examine is denial of reasonable opportunity of defence and as such the departmental enquiry is vitiated. The counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10 to support his submissions that a finding of guilt has to be based on evidence and the same is the nature by which the ordinary prudent man can reach to same conclusion. Counsel submitted that if there is no evidence to support the finding or the findings recorded were such, as could not be reached by an ordinary prudent man, the findings are required to be treated perverse or made at the dictates of a superior authority. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. UOI & Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 142 and has submitted that charges in the departmental enquiry are required to be proved and there has to be evidence which establishes nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, who is linked with such evidence. 22. Counsel has further relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Sengara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 225 and Om Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 and submitted that the delinquent has to satisfy the Wednesbury principle and the courts are required to consider the punishment as not being passed in arbitrary manner and the same should not be shockingly disproportionate. 23. Per contra, Mr. Vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 and submitted that the delinquent has to satisfy the Wednesbury principle and the courts are required to consider the punishment as not being passed in arbitrary manner and the same should not be shockingly disproportionate. 23. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Maloo, counsel for the respondents submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhary Vs. LIC & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 404 has laid down the principle that if there is an allegation of fiscal misconduct or fraud committed by a delinquent, the punishment of dismissal is required to be imposed and the same cannot be disproportionate to misconduct and it does not warrant any leniency. Counsel has further relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Tara Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 565 wherein it has been held that if there is corruption in public offices and Banks, the disciplinary measures should aim at eradication of corruption. Counsel submits that if there is an allegation of dereliction in duty in respect of financial implication, the Departmental Authority is required to consider the adverse effects on the Banking system and adequate punishment is required to be given. 24. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 25. This court will consider the question of parity of punishment at the first instance. It is alleged that the other delinquent Mr. V.R. John had accepted the applications in public issue of one Company after the prescribed date of closure. The details of earliest date of closure of issue and the last date of closure of issue were given and it was alleged that amounts were collected after the closure of issue. The charge leveled against V.R. John is quoted at page-4 of the order dated 02.12.2003 and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority are reproduced hereunder:- "Charge I Sh. John has contended in his written statement that neither the Company nor the Lead Manager/Registrars to the issue informed the Bank of the closure of the issue on 24.11.1995, the earliest date of closure of the issue. Further, the notification in this regard was not published in any of the leading newspapers and the "Western times, the newspaper in which it was published was not a widely read newspaper in Ahmedabad. Further, the notification in this regard was not published in any of the leading newspapers and the "Western times, the newspaper in which it was published was not a widely read newspaper in Ahmedabad. Hence, he was not aware of the same. There is merit in his argument. Shri John also contended that BO Relief Road was not computerized and all the cheques received in the Public issue were sent to the computer Agency for sorting & listing as per the prevalent practice. The time taken by the Computer Agency for sorting & listing varied depending on the size of the public issue. In the instant case, as there was sizeable collection by BO Relief Road, Ahmedabad, the computer Agency had taken around 10 days to complete the formalities. There was no delay on the party of the branch in sending the cheques under clearing. As the instruction of the Bank in this regard is specific. Sh. John was bound to comply with the same and the contention advanced by him for noncompliance is not acceptable. Since it is not denied that applications were accepted after the last date of closure of the issue and the evidence establishes that the cheques were lodged for collection with much delay, in violation of the instruction that the cheques should be lodged the same/next day, I hold the charge of violation of instructions of the Bank in this regard as proved. XXX XXX XXX 4. I therefore, hold Sh. V.R. John responsible for the lapses discussed hereinabove. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of lapses, I decide to impose upon him the Minor penalty of "CENSURE" in terms of Regulation 4(a) of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. I order accordingly." 26. The bare perusal of the said order shows that the allegation against V.R. John was in respect of applications being received after the last date of closure of issue and the Disciplinary Authority found the same was in violation of the instructions. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the facts came to the conclusion that penalty of censure was required to be imposed against such delinquent Officer. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the facts came to the conclusion that penalty of censure was required to be imposed against such delinquent Officer. This court finds that the charges against the petitioner, which have been quoted in earlier part of the judgment, not only confine him to accepting the applications after the closure of issue but the charge further shows that the petitioner had prepared three certificates and same were sent from the Branch Office to Bombay Office. The allegation against the petitioner is further in respect of working with other agents to support the financial strength of M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited. This court finds that the allegation with regard to concealment of fact from higher authorities is also leveled against the petitioner. 27. This court finds that if the charges against the other delinquent V.R. John and the petitioner are distinct and different, the same analogy in respect of imposing the same punishment cannot be accepted. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. V.R. John also accepted the share applications after closure of issue and petitioner also did the same thing is concerned, this court finds that the statement of article of charge and statement of imputation of charge against the petitioner is quite distinct. The allegation against the petitioner is not only of accepting the share money after last date of closure of issue but also preparing the final certificates which were received in violation of guidelines of the Bank and SEBI. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Officer have found that the petitioner while dealing with the issue of M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited had acted in collusion with other agents in a manner that was detrimental to the small investors. This court finds that parity of punishment, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted in the instant case as there has been allegation that the petitioner while dealing with the issue of M/s. Asean Industrial Structures Limited had acted in collusion with other agents in a manner that was detrimental to the small investors. It has further been alleged that had he not accepted the application after the closure of issue, in violation of guidelines, the said issue could have been devolved and further he concealed these facts from the higher authorities. 28. The contention of Mr. It has further been alleged that had he not accepted the application after the closure of issue, in violation of guidelines, the said issue could have been devolved and further he concealed these facts from the higher authorities. 28. The contention of Mr. Khaspuria that if the allegations are same, two different punishments cannot be imposed, this court fully agrees with the settled proposition of law, as submitted by Mr. Khaspuria, however, if the charges are different and allegations are proved in respect of different charges than the same analogy will not be applicable and the Disciplinary Authority will be free to consider the allegations and impose appropriate penalty. 29. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied a fair trial during enquiry, as statement of one P.N. Awasthi, Chief Manager was recorded in his absence. This court finds that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of three witnesses produced on behalf of the Bank, names whereof have already been given in the earlier part of the judgment, and these witnesses have been allowed to be cross examined by the representative of the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that P.N. Awasthi has been taken as a witness, this court finds that the Enquiry Officer has put a remark with regard to one document being exhibited as M.Ex-17 by him. It is difficult to accept that such person's evidence has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The allegation of the petitioner that he has been denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. It is difficult to accept that such person's evidence has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The allegation of the petitioner that he has been denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The relevant portion of enquiry report is quoted as under:- ^^tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds fu;ekuqlkj izcU/kd i{k ds xokg dks cpko i{k ^^Øksl** djrk gS Jh voLFkh dks izac/k i{k ds }kjk xokg ds :i esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ,oa cpko i{k ds bl vuqjks/k ls dqN le; iwoZ gh izcU/ku i{k dh xokgh iw.kZ gks pqdh FkhA tk¡p dk;Zokgh i`"B la0 45 A bl ckr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s fd cpko i{k dks Jh voLFkh dks ^^Øksl** djus dh iwoZ esa dksbZ vuqefr ugha nh x;h Fkh mUgsa xokg ds #i esa cqykdj fLFkfr Li"V djus ckcr gh dgk x;k Fkk ,oa cpko i{k voLFkh dks xokg ds #i esa is'k ugha dj jgk Fkk blfy;s cpko i{k ds Jh voLFkh dks Økl djus ds vuqjks/k dks Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k ysfdu ^^uspqjy tLVhl** dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s ,oa lgh rF;ksa dks tkuus ds mn~ns'; ls U;k; ds fgr esa ,ebZ,Dl&17 ds Åij fy[ks x;s uksV ds laca/k esa Jh voLFkh dks tk¡p dk;Zokgh esa cqykdj tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk iwNrkN dh x;hA tk¡p dk;Zokgh i`"B la0 47A ftlesa Jh voLFkh us crk;k fd Jh >¡oj }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj gekjh igys nh x;h uksfVax dk gh mRrj gS uksfVax esjs }kjk igys fy[kh x;h mlds ckn Jh >¡oj us bldk mRrj fy[kkA vr% cpko i{k }kjk ,eb,Dl&17 ds laca/k esa dh x;h vkifRr lgh ugha ikbZ x;hA^^ 30. This court further finds that in case the petitioner was to support his claim and evidence of P.N. Awasthi was required, he ought to have produced the said witness in his support and as such the plea taken by the employer-Bank that petitioner failed to produce evidence in his support, finds place in the discussion of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer as well. 31. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted in violation of SEBI guidelines and he was not to be assigned this job, this court finds little substance in the submission of the learned counsel. 31. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted in violation of SEBI guidelines and he was not to be assigned this job, this court finds little substance in the submission of the learned counsel. However, if the petitioner was posted at the relevant time to work on a particular assignment, the petitioner cannot blame the higher authorities by leveling allegations against them. The allegation against the petitioner is of accepting share applications after the date of closure of issue and the charge which is leveled against him is of issuing three certificates under his own handwriting and signatures and he concealed these facts from his higher authorities and sent the certificates to the Bombay Office. The act of the petitioner has been treated to be a serious misconduct by the respondent-employer and the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a plea that since he was not having experience, as such he cannot be made responsible, the said plea is not liable to be accepted. 32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been nowhere proved that how interest of small investors was affected and how the issue was devolved eventually because of the act of the petitioner, this court finds that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority both have considered this aspect of the matter and this fact is proved from the action which has finally been taken by the SEBI as the Branch Office at MI Road, Jaipur was black listed for one year. The plea of the petitioner that in absence of any complaint by small investor, no action could have been taken, this court finds that in a financial matter, the expert bodies have their own procedure to judge the impact of irregularity/illegality being committed by the officials and this Court is not an expert body to comment upon the implications which may follow on account of not following the guidelines issued from time to time by the expert bodies like SEBI. 33. 33. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not directly involved in receiving the share applications and as such he cannot be made responsible, suffice it to say that the petitioner at no point of time had taken this plea either before the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority that he was not responsible in any manner in accepting the share applications. This court further finds that the certificates which were admittedly issued by the petitioner marked as M.Ex-15 to 17, reflect his own functioning as the person who was in the process of accepting the application forms and further had given these certificates. 34. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that public issue which was only to devolve and the same was not doing of the petitioner, this court finds that the issue with regard to devolving of share is the prerogative or in the arena of SEBI or other controlling bodies and as far as final fate of any share is concerned, the employee/Bank has no role whatsoever to play but they are only required to act as per the guidelines issued by the SEBI. 35. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Khaspuria that the petitioner has been visited with a major penalty and he rendered unblemished service, this court finds that in the matter of fiscal transactions, the Banks/Disciplinary Authorities have to consider the overall impact on the functioning of the Bank and the authority after keeping in mind the impact or misconduct committed by the petitioner came to the conclusion to impose penalty against the petitioner. 36. This court finds that the in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the scope of substitution of finding by giving finding as an appellate authority, is not available in the writ jurisdiction. This court finds that the Enquiry Officer has given the findings after considering all the evidence and the same cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner. This court further finds that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the other authorities have not taken into irrelevant material into consideration while coming to the conclusion to punish the petitioner. This court further finds that plea of quantum of punishment, which has now been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as disproportionate, cannot be treated arbitrary & discriminatory. This court further finds that plea of quantum of punishment, which has now been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as disproportionate, cannot be treated arbitrary & discriminatory. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority thought that in the fitness of things & the Bank's interest would be best served, if such a punishment is imposed upon the petitioner. This court finds that neither there are any procedural irregularity committed by the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has acted in arbitrary manner in imposing penalty against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has also passed a reasoned order after considering all pleas, raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. 37. Consequently, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.