JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and the order dated 10th March, 2011 issued by the Branch Manager, Ratanpura, Distt. Mau as also the order dated 21st May, 2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Lanka, Varanasi. 2. Briefly recapitulating the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in Central Bank of India on 11.9.1989 at Revati Branch, Distt. Ballia. He earned promotions from time to time and was awarded for extraordinary performance in the year 1997-98 and again in 1998-99. He was also awarded Akhil Bhartiya First Runner Up Award by the Chairman of the Bank on 18.8.1998 and on 26.11.1999. 3. It is stated that by November, 2002, the petitioner was promoted as head cashier and, in March, 2004, the petitioner appeared in All India Promotional Examination and succeeded whereafter he was posted as Assistant Manager in Regional Office, Deoria. 4. It is further stated that while in service, the petitioner was mostly posted at leading branches or Regional Offices as such he did not gain experience of accounts and house keeping work. He, however, could obtain only three weeks training for general banking. 5. The petitioner has stated that on 24.1.2008, a charge-sheet was issued by the Disciplinary Authority to him containing 16 charges. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and also the written arguments on 8.1.2009. It is stated by the petitioner that all the 16 charges are not based upon facts but on assumptions and presumptions. 6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report with findings on 30.1.2009. The petitioner also filed his response to the findings on 16.2.2009 raising objection to the manner and procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. 7. Vide order dated 21st May, 2009, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner with observation that it shall not be disqualification for future employment as per Regulation 4 (i) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 2009 before the Appellate Authority. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 2009 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.10.2010, which is assailed in the present petition. 9. We have heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiva Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither misappropriation nor fraud was proved in the disciplinary proceeding, therefore, the penalty of removal from service is illegal and not justified. Though, there were lapses on the part of the petitioner, but the same did not amount to serious misconduct warranting removal from service. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer have failed to take into consideration the circumstances and material brought on record by the petitioner which have either been ignored or dealt with in cursory manner. 12. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to represent his case by the Enquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority and the charges were proved by twisting the material placed on record. 13. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the charges were not based upon facts but on assumptions and presumptions without properly verifying the position whether the loan was duly utilized and the borrowers had running business. The respondents have questioned only the mode and manner of distribution of loan through the charge-sheet but no dishonest intention or malice on the part of the petitioner has been alleged or found. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that all the charges were with regard to loan schemes sponsored by the Government, such as Mukhyamantri Gramodyog Rojgar Yojna (MGRY). The allegations were to the effect that the loan disbursed was beyond service area of the branch. It was contended that it is the Selection Committee who selected the eligible candidates for distribution of loan under the MGRY Scheme and it had misguided the scope and the manner of implementation of scheme as a result thereof some of the loan had been disbursed beyond the service area. 15. It was contended that it is the Selection Committee who selected the eligible candidates for distribution of loan under the MGRY Scheme and it had misguided the scope and the manner of implementation of scheme as a result thereof some of the loan had been disbursed beyond the service area. 15. It was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the tenure of the petitioner as Branch Manager, the business of the bank at the branch increased by 100% within a spell of 10 months. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the 16 charges framed against the petitioner and it was vehemently contended that the charge regarding disbursement of loan by the petitioner to 44 accounts on 9th August, 2007, despite restriction imposed on his lending power on 30th July, 2007, is false. It is stated that the letter dated 30th July, 2007 was received by the petitioner on 3rd August, 2007 and no loan was approved or sanctioned after 3rd August, 2007 and no approval/sanction of loan was made on 9th August, 2007. It was also argued that it was not directed by the letter dated 30th July, 2007 that loan sanctioned earlier or partly disbursed before the aforesaid letter will not be further disbursed to the loanee. It was stated that the Enquiry Officer did not make any discussion on this issue and arbitrarily held the charge proved. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no violation of accounting procedure while issuing demand drafts to different parties. It is stated that the bank drafts were cancelled because they were prepared for distribution of MGRY loan and since there was no supply made to the concerned parties, the demand drafts were entered into issue register/DPIO, hence they were cancelled through payment register. Thus, there was no loss caused to the bank. The cancelled demand drafts were lying in the branch. 18. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority was duty bound to look into each and every charge carefully, but they ignored the material placed on record and the submissions made by the petitioner thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. 19. 18. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority was duty bound to look into each and every charge carefully, but they ignored the material placed on record and the submissions made by the petitioner thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as regards the charge No. 16, the enquiry officer arbitrarily sub-divided the same to charge 16(a) to 16(k). 20. It was also contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the proven charges and is in gross violation of law and procedure prescribed under the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 21. The petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents have denied the averments made in the writ petition challenging the correctness and fairness of the enquiry and disciplinary action. It is stated that the impugned orders passed by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were fully justified, legal and correct. The petition is misconceived on facts as well as in law and as such deserves dismissal. 22. It was further stated that the impugned order of punishment has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner. 23. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the serious irregularities committed by the petitioner with mala fide intention, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and accordingly the charge-sheet was issued to him. 24. It was further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were distinct, specific and were based on the evidence available on record and not based on presumptions and assumptions. 24. It was further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were distinct, specific and were based on the evidence available on record and not based on presumptions and assumptions. The lapses/irregularities committed by the petitioner related to him acting beyond his lending power in contravention of the guidelines provided by Bank and of not following the accounting procedure of the bank which constituted serious misconduct for which the petitioner was rightly awarded the punishment imposed. 25. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be absolved from his responsibility of ascertaining whether the disbursement of loan would fall within his jurisdiction by asserting that the Selection Committee selects the candidates and it was due to its misguidance/misrepresentation that loan was disbursed outside the service area, inasmuch as, the bank’s guidelines clearly reserves power to the sanctioning authority and confers jurisdiction either to sanction or to reject the application with logical reasoning to uphold the financial interest of the bank. The petitioner being head of the branch was responsible to ensure that loans are not disbursed outside the service area and if the same was done, then proper procedure of obtaining NOC must be adopted which the petitioner failed to do and thereby committed serious lapses. 26. The respondents countered the allegation of the petitioner of his not having gained enough experience by contending that what prompted the petitioner to make advance of Rs. 458.87 lakhs within his short tenure of ten months at Branch Gopalnagar from which it could easily be inferred that either it was his vested interest of some mala fide intention. The contention that he was not equipped with the knowledge is only to cover up the wrong doings. 27. It was stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner, despite receiving the letter dated 30th July, 2007 on 3rd August, 2007 by which he was informed about restrictions imposed on his lending power, continued to disburse loan in different MGRY scheme accounts. The petitioner even disbursed loan in various MGRY accounts on 9.8.2007, the date when he was relieved from Gopalnagar Branch. 28. The petitioner even disbursed loan in various MGRY accounts on 9.8.2007, the date when he was relieved from Gopalnagar Branch. 28. It was further stated by the respondents that during the enquiry it was proved that the drafts in question were issued and later on cancelled without reflecting the same in the cash book and GLB and wrong information was sent to the DPIO cell and voucher relating to these entries were also not prepared thereby the petitioner committed serious violation of prescribed accounting procedure of the bank. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the proof of loss is not necessary to constitute the misconduct. In fact, acting beyond one’s authority itself is a serious misconduct. 29. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner disbursed the loan under the MGRY scheme to borrowers belonging to places situated 70 to 80 kilometres away from the branch i.e., beyond the service area of the branch thereby defeating the basic principle of banking discipline. That apart, disbursement of loan, outside the service area of the branch, was without obtaining NOCs from the branches situated in the field areas. Such disbursement was not in accordance with loan policy of the bank, as such, the petitioner failed to observe and, in fact, flouted due diligence norms of the bank and thereby failed to protect the interest of the bank while sanctioning and disbursing loan outside the service area. 30. It was also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order after having carefully gone through the entire proceedings of inquiry, exhibits of management and defence sides, written brief of presenting officer and assisting officer as well as findings of the inquiring authority and also submissions made by the petitioner. The order was passed after full application of mind and the same is correct, legal and justified and needs no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. We have given anxious thought to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 32. The following charges were framed against the petitioner : 1. Mr. Santosh Singh despite restriction on his lending power on 30.7.2007, disbursed loan from 44 loan accounts on 9.8.2007. 2. Mr. 31. We have given anxious thought to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 32. The following charges were framed against the petitioner : 1. Mr. Santosh Singh despite restriction on his lending power on 30.7.2007, disbursed loan from 44 loan accounts on 9.8.2007. 2. Mr. Santosh Singh issued demand drafts favouring different parties on 28.12.2006 & 29.12.2006 and later on cancelled the same without preparing vouchers for them and without following the accounting procedure of our bank. 3. Mr. Santosh Singh opened a fictitious account CD - 15 and used this account to pass some fictitious entries and to accommodate some of the borrowers for making cash payment. 4. Mr. Santosh Singh sanctioned and disbursed 64 loans under Mukhyamantri Gramodyog Rozgar Yojna (MGRY) beyond the service area of Gopalnagar Branch without obtaining NOC or No dues certificate from branches situated in those areas and to those borrowers who reside far away from the branch where branches of our bank or other bank are also working. 5. Process note in some of the loan accounts has either not been prepared or where it is prepared has severe irregularities & has been prepared by outside agencies. 6. Mr. Santosh Singh sanctioned and disbursed loans wherein either documents have not been taken or documents are left blank. 7. Mr. Santosh Singh sanctioned and disbursed loans wherein no quotation have been taken, no bills held on record and no CGTSI cover taken. 8. Three loans (A/C No. 19/24, 19/38 & 19/46) have been sanctioned and disbursed in the name of Santosh Kumar Singh under MGRY in which disbursement has been made through HSS A/C 2703, manipulation has been done in the account opening form of HSS A/C 2703 & no asset has been created out of bank finance. 9. Mr. Santosh Singh has disbursed loans in 11 SHG a/cs after II nd grading wherein no record of subsidy amount of Rs. 13.40 lacs is available. In the 3 SHG loans, more than one member of the family is the member of SHG. 10. Mr. Santosh Singh has obtained guarantee in the MGRY loan accounts as group guarantee i.e. guarantee of one borrower has been taken in another loan account. 11. On 30.3.2007 Mr. Santosh Singh made 13 payments of Rs. 1 lac each through Cent Bachat Khata and 1 of Rs. 10. Mr. Santosh Singh has obtained guarantee in the MGRY loan accounts as group guarantee i.e. guarantee of one borrower has been taken in another loan account. 11. On 30.3.2007 Mr. Santosh Singh made 13 payments of Rs. 1 lac each through Cent Bachat Khata and 1 of Rs. 1 lac from HSS a/c but there is no withdrawal slip held on record. All the payments were entered and authorized in cash payment book in the computer in the fictitious name ‘CHARU’ by Mr. Santosh Singh. The account number has been mentioned in the computer. 12. Mr. Santosh Singh has sanctioned Rs. 4.50 lacs to father of Mr. Gopal Singh, PTSK, B/O-Khtanga (formerly PTSK, B/O-Gopalnagar) beyond his delegated lending power, out of service area of Gopal Nagar Branch and without obtaining sanction from the higher authority. 13. Mr. Santosh Singh sanctioned and disbursed loan to the 2 borrowers who are already defaulters of our Nagpura and Ratsar Branch without verification of their antecedent and without obtaining NOC from the previous bankers. 14. Withdrawal of more than Rs. 50000/- has been allowed by Mr. Santosh Singh in the Cent Bachat Khata (No Frill Deposit A/c) and transactions were allowed in contravention to the extant guidelines. 15. Mr. Santosh Singh sanctioned and disbursed loans under MGRY scheme wherein assets have not been created as either the asset is not available on the recorded address or unit is closed. Bank’s huge fund has been misappropriated with mala fide intention. 16. Mr. Santosh Singh disbursed loan in cash from loan accounts to the borrowers directly by debiting the concerned loan accounts through HSS withdrawal slip or by transferring the loan amount in deposit account and later on allowed payment from them without verifying the end use of the fund with mala fide intention which resulted into diversion of fund.” 33. Charge Nos. 1 and 4 stipulated that despite restriction on lending power imposed by the Regional Office, the petitioner disbursed loan in various accounts and that the petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed 64 loan accounts under MGRY scheme beyond the service area of Gopalnagar Branch and without obtaining NOC or No Dues Certificate from the branches of the Bank or other Bank situated in those areas. The charges No. 1 and 4 were proved against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer by holding that the lending power of the petitioner was restricted vide letter dated 30th July, 2007, which was, admittedly, received by the petitioner on 3rd August, 2007, yet, the petitioner continued to disburse loan to various MGRY loan accounts thereafter. Even on 9th August, 2007, which is relieving date of the petitioner, he disbursed the loan. In respect of the said charge Nos. 1 and 4, the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of removal from service without being a disqualification for future employment. 34. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 related to violation of accounting procedure while issuing and cancelling demand drafts to different parties and payment to MGRY 18/30 accounts through withdrawal in CD-15. They were also proved against the petitioner and penalty of reduction to eight lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay was awarded. 35. Charge Nos. 5 and 11 were not proved against the petitioner. Charge Nos. 6, 8 and 12 which were found proved stipulated that though documents have been obtained in all accounts, but in several accounts, documents were partially filled up/undated; out of three loans, mentioned in charge No. 8, irregular payment in two loan accounts was there through SB a/c No. 2703; and that loan sanctioned to Sri Kedar Nath Singh father of Sri Gopal Singh, PTSK, Branch Office, Khatanga formerly PTSK, B/O Gopalnagar of Rs. 4.50 lakhs was beyond his delegated lending power. For these charges, the petitioner was awarded penalty of reduction to four lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 36. Charge Nos. 36. Charge Nos. 7 and 10 regarding procuring Bills and quotations in the disbursed amount and group guarantee were also proved against the petitioner and he was awarded penalty of reduction to three lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 37. The first part of charge No. 9 was not proved and the second part was proved against the petitioner and he was awarded penalty of reduction to two lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 38. Charge No. 13 regarding financing to two defaulters viz. Pradeep Kumar Singh and Ram Barai Prasad of Nagpura and Rastar branch respectively, without ascertaining the previous loan facilities granted to them, was proved against the petitioner and he was awarded penalty of reduction to six lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 39. Charge No. 14 regarding allowing of withdrawal of more than Rs. of 50,000/- by the petitioner he was awarded penalty of reduction to two lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect and further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 40. 40. Charge No. 15 regarding non creation of assets in the loan accounts or unit is closed has been proved against the petitioner and he was awarded penalty of reduction to ten lower stages in time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect with further direction that the officer will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 41. Charge No. 16 (a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (i) and (k) were also proved against the petitioner and he was awarded penalty of reduction of different lower stages in pay scale. However, Charge No. 16 (c) and (f) were partially proved and Charge No. 16 (h) was not proved against the petitioner. 42. Thus, in all 11 charges have been found proved by the Disciplinary Authority; and four charges were found partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority after taking a conspectus of the charges found proved awarded a consolidated punishment of “Removal from service” which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” as per Regulation 4 (i) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 upon the petitioner. 43. The Appellate Authority after scrutinising the documents and exhibits presented in the inquiry proceedings, found that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was commensurate to the charges found proved and, accordingly, affirmed the punishment order. 44. While arriving at the findings on the charges proved against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has considered the exhibited documents and has also considered the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on evidence and the Disciplinary Authority had agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 45. We do not find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the letter dated 30th July, 2007 did not direct that the loan sanctioned in earlier months or partly disbursed before the said letter will not be further disbursed to the loanee. Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek any clarification from the respondent bank in this regard. The lending powers of the petitioner were restricted with immediate effect by the aforesaid letter but he chose to continue to disburse the loan in MGRY scheme accounts. Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek any clarification from the respondent bank in this regard. The lending powers of the petitioner were restricted with immediate effect by the aforesaid letter but he chose to continue to disburse the loan in MGRY scheme accounts. Even on the date when he was relieved from Gopalnagar Branch, the petitioner disbursed loan to various MGRY accounts. 46. The lapses/irregularities committed by the petitioner are serious and indicates total negligence on his part by not following the direction thereby amounting to serious misconduct. We find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no loss was caused to the Bank. A conduct which jeopardises the interest of the bank or its reputation or an act which the employee was not authorized to perform or had performed it without due diligence and caution, would expose the employee to a charge of misconduct. The proof of loss to the bank is not necessary to be established to prove an act constituting misconduct. Acting beyond one’s authority itself constitutes misconduct. Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 defines the acts of misconduct in the following manner; “24. Acts of misconduct: A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’(Conduct) Regulations, 1976.” 47. Regulation 3 of the said Regulations may also be noticed: “3(1). Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is uncoming of a bank officer. (2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show Courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations. (3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.” (4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority.” 48. A perusal of the Regulation 3 clearly reveals that every officer/employee of the Bank has to take all possible steps to protect the interest 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. Breach of Regulation 3 is “misconduct” within the meaning of Regulation 24. 49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik”, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , in almost similar circumstances as in the case in hand examined the ‘misconduct’ in the light of Regulation 24 read with Regulation 3 and held 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 Enquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in 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 organization - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. 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 organization - 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 organization, 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 organization 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 over-drawals 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 characterizes it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterize them as errors of judgment. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit - huge profit, as the High Court characterizes it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterize 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 No. 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Enquiry 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 No. 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit “Control Returns” to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterized 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.” 50. In another case “State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi”, AIR 2005 SC 3272 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra) observed that even if by the misconduct of the employee, the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence. 51. In the case of “Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan”, AIR 2007 SC 548, while dealing with the similar issue, the Supreme Court held that ‘loss of confidence’ cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be alleged and proved. 52. We have carefully perused the record as well as the report of the inquiring authority and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and find that the inquiry was conducted fairly and properly; and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order after considering the material and evidence placed on record. 52. We have carefully perused the record as well as the report of the inquiring authority and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and find that the inquiry was conducted fairly and properly; and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order after considering the material and evidence placed on record. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled 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 material on record. This is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya” (2011) 4 SCC 584 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under; “7. It is now well-settled 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 material on record. If the enquiry 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. Therefore, 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. 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. 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, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463 , and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762 , High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1) SCC 416.” 53. (vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463 , and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762 , High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1) SCC 416.” 53. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and another”, (2011) 10 SCC 249 , while considering the scope of power of judicial review of the High Court, held as under; “13. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the respondent No. 1 was not guilty of any misconduct.” 54. In the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another”, (2009) 8 SCC 310 , it has been held that it is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a Court of appeal and reach its own conclusions and, by restoring the petition and sending the matter back to the High Court, it was observed that High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a Court of appeal. 55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. v. R. Periyasami”, (2015) 3 SCC 101 , also observed that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the findings of fact may be set aside by the High Court Under Article 226. 56. 55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. v. R. Periyasami”, (2015) 3 SCC 101 , also observed that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the findings of fact may be set aside by the High Court Under Article 226. 56. Further, in the case of “State Bank of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh”, AIR 1977 SC 1512 , the Apex Court held that sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. 57. In the light of the law noticed above and upon perusal of the record, we find that the charge of acting beyond one’s authority in disbursing loan even after restrictions were imposed upon the loan disbursement power of the petitioner, and also disbursing loans on the date of his relieving the charge despite stoppage of his loan disbursement power, was an act of serious misconduct warranting punishment of removal, particularly, as we have found, when the petitioner had not sought any clarification as regards his power to disburse loans sanctioned prior to the restriction order. The defence of the petitioner that restriction order did not relate to previously sanctioned loans does not appeal to us. Therefore, having taken a conspectus of the facts of the case as also that nothing could be shown that there had been any violation of the enquiry procedure or the principles of natural justice, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.