Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1741 (HP)

D. s. Verma v. Uco Bank

2018-09-27

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:- 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under. Petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Bank in the month of September, 1979 as Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier. Vide Annexure P-1, dated 25.03.2018, a show cause notice was issued to him on the grounds that it stood observed that during the course of his tenure as Manager of Anti Branch of the respondent-Bank, w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to 15.03.2008, he had committed gross irregularities as mentioned in the show cause notice. 10 days time was granted to him to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him. This show cause was replied to by the petitioner vide reply Annexure P-2, dated 05.04.2008, wherein he denied the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice. 3. As the authority was not satisfied with the explanation so given by the petitioner, accordingly, vide Annexure P-3, dated 12.08.2008, the petitioner was informed that the Bank intended to hold an inquiry against him under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Statement of Allegations as also Articles of Charge stood appended with the said communication. Articles of Charge are reproduced herein below:- "ARTICLES OF CHARGE" Mr D S Verma, (PFM No. 25046) Manager, presently posted at Sambhalpur Main Branch while his posting as Manager of Anti Branch w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to .03.2008 unauthorisedly issued signed fake bank Guarantees and has thus not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but has exposed the Bank to possible litigation, revenue losses and potential losses in the even of invocation of these Bank guarantees. 1. Mr D S Verma exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank Guarantees. Mr D.S. Verma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interests of the bank which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 2. Mr. Mr D.S. Verma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interests of the bank which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 2. Mr. D.S. Verma acted in a non-judicious manner, detrimental to Bank''s interests while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees without charging appropriate and applicable commission and other charges at the time of issue of these guarantees and when the matter came to light he recovered guarantee fee after the expiry of about one year, thus cause revenue loss to the bank. Mr. D S Verma has thus failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, devotion & honesty which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 3. Mr D S Verma while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but also exposed the bank to huge financial liabilities besides possible litigations by the respective beneficiaries. Mr D S Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended." 4. Defence statement in respect of the Articles of Charge was duly submitted by the petitioner, which is on record as Annexure P-4. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted in the matter and upon completion of the same, Inquiry Officer so appointed by the respondent-Bank submitted his report dated 31.01.2009, vide Annexure P-6. Before the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, Proof of Defence was submitted by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. In his inquiry report, it was mentioned by the Inquiry Officer that the allegations levelled against the delinquent Officer stood proved. 5. The findings and conclusions as contained in the inquiry report are quoted herein below:- "FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On perusal of the enquiry proceedings, submission of documentary evidence, oral submissions during the enquiry proceedings, written briefs of P.O. and Defence Assistant, my findings on charges are enumerated below:- CHARGES: 1. Mr. D.S. Verma, exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out, in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank guarantees. Mr. Mr. D.S. Verma, exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out, in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank guarantees. Mr. D.S. Vrma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interest of the bank which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 2. Mr. D.S. Verma acted in a non-judicious manner, detrimental to bank''s interests while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees without charging appropriate and applicable commission and other charges at the time of issue of these guarantees and when the matter came to light he recovered guarantee fee after the expiry of about one year thus cause revenue loss to the bank. Mr. D.S. Verma has thus failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, devotion & honesty which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 3. Mr. D.S. Verma while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees not only tarnished the image and reputation of th bank but also exposed the bank to huge financial liabilities besides possible litigations by the respective beneficiaries. Mr. D.S. Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. After having gone through all the records and applying my independent mind and in the best interest of justice and fairness, I feel that if a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, acts beyond his authority and beyond delegated powers, which constitutes integral part of a bank officer''s duty to be fully known to him before he takes the responsibility of such position constitute misconduct and malafide. Further Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and does nothing unbecoming of a bank officer. Further Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and does nothing unbecoming of a bank officer. In such situation, the CSO statement that Bank has not suffered any financial loss and there is no possibility of bank suffering any pecuniary loss in future as well due to issuance of above bank guarantees would make no ground for not proving the charges. CSO has acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank''s regulation. Therefore after finding the allegations as proved, all the charges against CSO stand proved and established." 6. A copy of the said inquiry report was provided to the petitioner and he submitted his response to the same. 7. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P-9), disciplinary authority imposed the following penalties upon the petitioner:- "It is evident from the record of the enquiry that the CSOE has issued bank guarantees unauthorisedly, beyond the powers vested with him and by misusing the powers, which are serious misconducts on his part. There is no application or request letter from the party for issuance of these guarantees. The margin / securities were also not obtained at the time of issuance of these guarantees. The processing charges / commission have also not been recovered at the time of issuance. No record was created at branch level. The CSOE''s contention that the guarantees were issued by him and margin /securities /commission recovered by him, have no base or standing as these were subsequently obtained after more than a year''s period when it came to the knowledge of the Controlling Office. Therefore, the allegations / charges leveled against the CSOE stand proved beyond doubt. The Bank has prescribed guidelines to deal with all sorts of matter in a fair and judicious manner through its various Manual of Instructions / Loan Policy Documents / Circulars and everyone is required to follow these guidelines scrupulously otherwise the Bank & also to some extant employees got exposed to various kinds of risks. The Bank has prescribed guidelines to deal with all sorts of matter in a fair and judicious manner through its various Manual of Instructions / Loan Policy Documents / Circulars and everyone is required to follow these guidelines scrupulously otherwise the Bank & also to some extant employees got exposed to various kinds of risks. But , if one willfully violates or ignores these instructions of the Bank, then it is a matter of serious concern and has to deal with firmly and appropriate in accordance with the gravity it deserves, so that there is no recurrence of such violation by him, as well as, by others in future. Considering the above aspects, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me vide Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees'' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I hereby award the following penalties to Sh D S Verma : Charge No. 1 (Proved) Be brought down from MMG Scale-II to JMG Scale-I. Charge No. 2 (Proved) Compulsory Retirement Charge No. 3 (Proved)- Be brought down from MMG to Scale-II to JMG Scale-I. The above punishments are to take concurrent effect immediately." 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure P-10, which stood dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-11) by the appellate authority. 9. A review petition was thereafter preferred by the petitioner, which was also rejected vide order dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-13). 10. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 12. There are in force UCO Bank Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 and Acceptance of Jobs in Private Sector Concerns After Retirement Regulations, 1979 of Officer Employees. Disciplinary proceedings stood initiated and culminated against the petitioner under the provisions of above mentioned Regulations. Regulation 6 of the same deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties, which is reproduced herein below: "6. Procedure for imposing major penalties : 1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of regulation 4 shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this regulation. Regulation 6 of the same deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties, which is reproduced herein below: "6. Procedure for imposing major penalties : 1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of regulation 4 shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this regulation. 2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against an officer employee, it may itself enquire into, or appoint any other Public servant (herein after referred to as the inquiring authority) to enquire into the truth thereof. Explanation : When the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry any reference in sub regulation (8) to sub regulation (21) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to Disciplinary Authority. 3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defense. 4) On receipt of the written statement of the officer employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary so to do appoint under Sub-regulation (2) an inquiring Authority for the purpose. Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its finding on each such charge. Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its finding on each such charge. 5) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority; (i) a copy of the article of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior; (ii) a copy of the written statement of defense if any, submitted by the officer employee; (iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (iv) a copy of statement of the witnesses, if any; (v) evidence proving the delivery of the articles of change under sub- regulation (3); (vi) a copy of the order appointing the ''presenting officer'' in terms of sub-regulation (6). 6) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself enquires or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry, it may by an order, appoint a public servant to be known as the ''Presenting Officer'' to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. 7) The officer employee may take the assistance of any other office employee but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the presenting officer, appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances. Note : The officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other officer employee who has pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. 8) a) The Inquiring Authority shall by notice in writing specify the day on which the officer employee shall appear in person before the inquiring authority. b) On the date fixed by the Inquiring Authority, the officer employee shall appear before the inquiring Authority at the time place and date specified in the notice. c) The Inquiring authority shall ask the officer employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defense to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the officer employee concerned thereon. d) The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charges to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty. d) The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charges to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty. 9) If the officer employee does not plead guilty, the inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding 30 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the inquiring Authority. 10) The Inquiring Authority while adjourning the case as in sub-regulation (9), shall also record an order that the officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence (i)complete inspection of the documents as in the list furnished to him immediately and in any case not exceeding 5 days from the date of such order if he had not done so earlier as provided for in the proviso to sub-regulation (3); (ii) Submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the inquiry; (iii) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of the documents referred to in item (ii). NOTE : The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in item (ii) shall be given by the officer employee concerned. 11) The inquiring Authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of the documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept with a requisition for the production of the documents, on such date as may be specified. 12) On receipt of the requisition under subregulation (11), the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents, shall arrange to produce the same before the inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition; Provided that custody or possession of the inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition; 13) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of 148charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf or the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses produced by the presenting officer shall be examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer employee. The witnesses produced by the presenting officer shall be examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross examined, but not on a new matter, without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put Such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. 14) Before the close of the case, in support of the charges, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the charge sheet or may itself call for officer employee shall be given opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence before it is taken on record, or to crossexamine a witness, who has been so summoned. The Inquiring Authority may also allow the officer employee to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence, is necessary in the interests of justice. 15) When the case in support of the charges is closed, the officer employee may be required to state his defense, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defense is made orally it shall be recorded and the officer employee shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defense shall be given to the Presenting Officer, If any, appointed. 16) The evidence on behalf of the officer employee shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be crossexamined by the Presenting officer. The officer employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have been crossexamined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. 17) The Inquiring Authority may, after the officer employee closed his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 17) The Inquiring Authority may, after the officer employee closed his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any appointed, and the officer employee, or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence, if they so desire. 19) if the officer employee dose not submit the written statement of defence referred to in subregulation (3) on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person, or through the assisting office or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry expiate. 20) Whenever any Inquiring Authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another Inquiring Authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the Inquiring Authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by itself; Provided that if the succeeding Inquiring Authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses as herein before provided. 21) (i) On the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiring Authority shall prepare a report which shall contain the following: a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior b) a gist of the defence of the officer employee in respect of each article of charge ; c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge ; d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefore. Explanation If, in the opinion of the Inquiring Authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish any articles of charge different from the original article of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charges; Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the officer employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. ii. The inquiring Authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include a. The report of the inquiry prepared by it under clause (i) ; b. The written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee referred to in sub-regulation (15); c. The oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry ; d. Written briefs referred to in sub-regulation (18), if any ; and e. The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry. 13. Regulation 7 deals with action on the inquiry report and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- "7. Action of the inquiry report : 1. The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority, may, for reasons to be record by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as far as may be. 2. The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 3. If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. 4. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on al or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned. 4. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on al or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned. 14. Regulation 8 contemplates the procedure for imposing minor penalties, which reads as under: "8. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: 1. Where it is proposed to impose any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (a) to (e) of 150Regulation 4, the officer employee concerned shall be informed in writing of the imputations of lapses against him and given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defense within a specified period not exceeding 15 days or such extended period as may be granted by the Disciplinary Authority and the defenses statement, if any, submitted by the officer employee shall be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority before passing orders. 2. Where, however, the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that an enquiry is necessary, it shall follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in regulation 6. 3. The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include - (i) a copy of the statement of imputation of lapses furnished to the officer employee; (ii) the defense statement, if any, of the officer employee; and (iii) the orders of the Disciplinary Authority together with the reasons therefore. 15. Regulation 9 deals with Communication of orders, which is quoted herein below:- "9. COMMUNICATION OF ORDERS. Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 shall be communicated to the officer employee concerned, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry, if any." 16. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not establish any procedural infirmity in the inquiry proceedings which stood initiated and concluded against him as per Regulation 9 . There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that during the course of inquiry, any grievance was raised by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer that either complete list of documents or complete list of witnesses, at the time of commencement of the inquiry, was not provided to him. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that during the course of inquiry, any grievance was raised by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer that either complete list of documents or complete list of witnesses, at the time of commencement of the inquiry, was not provided to him. There is nothing on record to suggest that at the stage of recording of the statement of the witnesses, any objection was raised by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer that adequate opportunity was not granted to him in this regard. These grievances for the first time find mention in the Proof of Defence so submitted by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer, but the contents of the said Proof of Defence appended with the petition as Annexure P-5 are not substantiated by any contemporaneous material from which it could be inferred that any such objection, as mentioned in Proof of Defence, were actually raised by the petitioner during the holding of the inquiry. 17. It is apparent from the perusal of the records also, which were made available to the Court by the respondentBank, that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted strictly in consonance with 1976 Regulations. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed therein. Ample and adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forth his case and the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration the entire material which was placed before him during the course of the enquiry. 18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner during of the course of arguments that inquiry stood vitiated as presenting officer was one of the witnesses, is not borne out from the records of the case. 19. I have perused the inquiry proceedings from the record file, which demonstrate that on 9th January, 2009, the original documents were brought by one Mr. Ramesh Dadwal, Senior Manager, branch office Anti, which were produced and shown to the present petitioner. Not only this, on the said date, with the consent of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer had also permitted the defence to put relevant points to Mr. Dadwal as a witness. It is nowhere recorded in the proceedings that at any stage, any grievance was raised by the petitioner about non-supply of list of witnesses or list of documents. Not only this, on the said date, with the consent of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer had also permitted the defence to put relevant points to Mr. Dadwal as a witness. It is nowhere recorded in the proceedings that at any stage, any grievance was raised by the petitioner about non-supply of list of witnesses or list of documents. Incidentally, it is not the case of the petitioner that inquiry proceedings were not correctly recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 20. A perusal of the inquiry report also demonstrates that the same is both a reasoned as well as a speaking inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration the respective contentions of all the parties and after referring to the evidence on record has returned findings as are contained in the inquiry report. 21. Records further demonstrate that the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned Regulations for imposition of major penalty has been duly followed by the authorities concerned. After the inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, he made the same available to the petitioner and called upon him to submit his response to the same. It is only thereafter that the disciplinary authority passed the order of imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is neither cryptic nor the same can be said to be un-reasonable or non-speaking. The disciplinary authority has mentioned the reasons as to why it has come to the conclusion that major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. 22. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising its power of judicial review has to satisfy its conscience as to whether the procedure which has been followed by the authorities while imposing the penalty on the delinquent officer/official, is sustainable in law or not. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the procedure which has been followed either by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, neither the report of the inquiry officer is bad in law nor the order passed by the disciplinary authority can be said to be arbitrary, unjust, non-speaking or unreasonable. The appellate authority has also passed a reasoned order while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. While passing the order, the appellate authority has applied its mind and has passed a speaking order taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate authority has also passed a reasoned order while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. While passing the order, the appellate authority has applied its mind and has passed a speaking order taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court does not find any infirmity with the order which has been passed by the appellate authority. Same is true with regard to the order passed in review petition. Therefore, in my considered view, the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in consonance with the provisions of the concerned regulations of the respondent-Bank and I do not find any infirmity either with the procedure followed by the inquiry officer or with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate/reviewing authority, respectively. 23. Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is otherwise harsh. In my considered view, it is not for this Court to decide as to what penalty has to be imposed upon an officer/official and the Court ordinarily does not interfere with the punishment which has been imposed until and unless the order of punishment seems to be passed on extraneous reasons. In the present case, no such circumstance exists, which may warrant any interference in the penalty which has been imposed by the authorities concerned. 24. It is settled law that the Courts will not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. 25. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya , (2011) 4 SCC 584 has held that the test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. 25. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya , (2011) 4 SCC 584 has held that the test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations. 26. In the present case, it is amply clear that principles of natural justice were adhered to. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that statutory regulations were violated or that the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate/reviewing authority is either arbitrary or capricious or is the result of malafide or is based on extraneous considerations. The conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority and the appellate/ reviewing authority are borne out from the material on record and, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings arrived at by the said authorities. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.