JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 14.3.18 passed by learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service, has been partly allowed and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been substituted with that of compulsory retirement. It is further directed that the respondent shall be entitled for all retiral and other consequential benefits, as he shall be treated to be compulsorily retired w.e.f. 3.9.13. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent entered the services of the appellant-State Bank of India on 8.4.80 on being appointed as Electronic Automatic Machine Operator and Senior Assistant and was promoted to the post of Senior Special Assistant on 16.8.10. The respondent was served with a memorandum dated 8.8.12 advising him to furnish the explanation in respect of the lapses on his part while working at Shastri Nagar Jodhpur Branch. He was served with memorandum of charges dated 11.10.12 for various acts of misconduct committed by him while working as Senior Special Assistant at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Branch. The allegations against the respondent inter alia were that he opened back dated STDR/MOD Account unauthorisedly in the names of his family members/relatives and extended undue benefit of interest to them. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the respondent wherein charges of misconduct levelled against him were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the relevant records and submissions of the respondent, imposed upon him the penalty of 'Dismissal from service without notice' in terms of Para 6 (a) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workman dated 10th April, 2002 entered into between the Bank Management and Workmen Association. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.1.14. The legality of the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was questioned by the respondent by way of writ petition before this court. 3. A perusal of the order under appeal reveals that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent had given up his challenge to the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and questioned the legality of the order only on quantum of punishment. 3. A perusal of the order under appeal reveals that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent had given up his challenge to the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and questioned the legality of the order only on quantum of punishment. 4. Precisely, the contention of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that he had rendered unblemished service for 30 years to the appellant bank and since no loss was caused to the bank on account of his lapses, a lenient view deserves to be taken regarding quantum of punishment. The learned Single Judge while referring the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court cited at the bar, disposed of the writ petition with the observations and directions as under : "11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, at length, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has in fact rendered unblemished services of thirty three years with the Bank from 08.04.1980 to 03.09.2013. 12. This Court also finds that though the charges have been proved and are not contested by the petitioner, but the allegations even after being proved, did not cause any loss to the respondent and the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. 31.07.2016 has already gone. 13. On perusing the aforementioned precedent law, this Court, considering the limited prayer of the petitioner regarding the quantum of punishment, while upholding the impugned orders, deems it appropriate to substitute the punishment of dismissal from service with that of compulsory retirement. The petitioner shall be accordingly given all retiral benefits and consequential benefits, as he shall be treated to be compulsorily retired with effect from 03.09.2013. However, it is made clear that the period of suspension of the petitioner shall be notionally counted for the purpose of such benefits. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the charges found proved against the respondent were of serious nature inasmuch as he opened the back dated accounts in the names of his family members and relatives including his own wife so as to extend undue benefits to them. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the charges found proved against the respondent were of serious nature inasmuch as he opened the back dated accounts in the names of his family members and relatives including his own wife so as to extend undue benefits to them. Learned counsel submitted that the bank is custodian of public fund and therefore, the respondent who by manipulation extended undue benefits to his family members and relatives was rightly dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee on the charges of misconduct being proved. It is submitted that once it is proved that the respondent failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the bank, there was no scope for taking a lenient view in the matter. Learned counsel would submit that as a matter of fact, the act of the respondent in extending undue benefits to his family members including his own wife by manipulative actions amounts to embezzlement and thus, no other penalty other than dismissal could have been imposed upon him. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in 'Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. Krishnan Behari and Others., (1996) 2 SCC 714 ', and 'Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (Earlier known as UPSRTC) and Others. vs. Sukhveer Singh, (2018) 1 SCC 231 ',. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the punishment imposed upon the respondent, a delinquent employee, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent had approximately 33 years of unblemished service and there was no loss caused to the bank on account of the act of misdemeanor and therefore, the punishment of dismissal imposed being shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in substituting the punishment of dismissal by that of compulsory retirement from service. Learned counsel submitted that it is true that Disciplinary Authority has discretion to impose appropriate punishment for the misconduct proved but any penalty imposed disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved would be per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Others., (1987) 4 SCC 611 '. Learned counsel submitted that judicious application of mind is required while selecting a penalty to be inflicted upon an employee which is totally absent in the present case and thus, the interference by the learned Single Judge with the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted with. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Single Judge decision of this court in the matter of 'Chel Singh vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank, Pali and Others., (2009) 3 WLC(Raj) 685'. Learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority having failed to record the reasons for imposing extreme penalty of dismissal from service, the order was liable to be set aside on this count alone. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the act of misdemeanor on the part of the respondent in opening various backdated STDR/MOD accounts unauthorisedly in the names of his family members/relatives and thereby extending undue benefit of interest to the tune of Rs. 2,04,721/- to them, was found proved by the Disciplinary Authority. The challenge to the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid was given up by the respondent before the learned Single Judge and the challenge to the order impugned was restricted only to the extent of quantum of punishment. 9. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and if the punishment imposed is found vindictive, unduly harsh and lacks rationality, the same could be corrected by this court by exercising the power of judicial review in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In Ranjit Thakur's case, the Supreme Court held : "Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision-making process". 10. In Ranjit Thakur's case, the Supreme Court held : "Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision-making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised ground of judicial review." 11. In Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Others., (2016) AIR SC 101, the Supreme Court observed: "24. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. 25. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment. 26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. 26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority. " 12. In Krishan Behari's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving corruption, there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and oppose to the public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. 13. In 'Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S.Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 ', the Supreme Court held that where the bus conductor carry passengers without tickets or issued tickets at less than proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to retain in service because such an action or inaction on their part results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. The aforesaid view was reiterated in the matter of 'Regional Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 310'. 14. In 'APSRTC vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222 ', the delinquent employee was removed from service on the charge of theft being proved against him. On dispute being raised, the learned Labour Court upheld the punishment of removal imposed by the employer. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the workman preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Single Judge of the High court came to the conclusion that the charges of theft were correctly proved against the respondent, however, the punishment of removal was held to be not in consonance with the gravity of charges proved against the respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High court came to the conclusion that the charges of theft were correctly proved against the respondent, however, the punishment of removal was held to be not in consonance with the gravity of charges proved against the respondent. The learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act looking to 12 years unblemished service of the workman. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of removal directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service without back wages. The corporation preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which also failed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and confirming the award passed by the learned Labour Court, observed as under:- "21. In our view, the theft committed by the respondents amounts to misconduct and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench and restore the order of removal of the respondent from service. When the Labour Court has proved the charges, no interference by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court was called for. In the instant case, the jurisdiction vested with the Labour Court has been exercised judiciously and fairly. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in ordering reinstatement, continuity of service was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges already proved which is in the nature of theft. 22. It is also not open to the tribunal and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at the domestic tribunal. In the instant case, the opinion arrived at by the Corporation was rightly accepted by the Tribunal but not by the Court. We, therefore, hold that the order of reinstatement passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the law on the basis of a catena of decisions of this Court. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal which cannot be justified. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal which cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court can modify the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. 23. Interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment of the respondent herein, is not called for. In our opinion, the respondent has no legal right to continue in the Corporation. As held by this Court, in a catena of judgments that the loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and that sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor which is permissible in law in such matters. When the employee is found guilty of theft, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of punishment." 15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the respondent, a bank official, entrusted with the duty of trust and confidence, was required to maintain highest degree of integrity at all times. From bare perusal of the charges levelled against the respondent, which are found proved by the Disciplinary Authority, it is apparent that the respondent tried to defraud the bank inasmuch as, he opened the STDR/MOD accounts unauthorisedly in the names of his family members/relatives including his own wife and thus, extended undue benefit of interest to them. The very act of opening the backdated STDR/MOD accounts in the names of family members indicates that the said accounts were opened by the respondent with mala fide intention to extend undue benefits to them and therefore, it is immaterial whether the bank has actually suffered any loss or not. The respondent having indulged in the act of misdemeanor involving lack of integrity and dishonesty was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of imposition of punishment. The respondent having indulged in the act of misdemeanor involving lack of integrity and dishonesty was not entitled to any leniency or sympathy in the matter of imposition of punishment. Looking at the gravity of the misconduct proved, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent, in no manner, could be said to be vindictive, excessive, unjust, arbitrary or shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not agreeable to the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The order impugned therefore, deserves to be set aside. 17. In the result, the appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge of this court is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.