JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. - This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2013, whereby, the order of dismissal passed by the respondents, for the misappropriation of the sizable amount by this appellant being a Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank, was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Factual Matrix : (I) This appellant is the original petitioner. He was working as a Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Kadrasal Branch at Deoghar. (II) Because of gross misconducts committed by this appellant (original petitioner) - delinquent for the period running from 14.06.1999 to 31.10.2002, which are about withdrawal of the money of the customers'' bank account, and also to the effect that giving fictitious credit entries in the bank account of the customers, charge-sheet was issued on 25.06.2003 (Annexure - 1). The charges levelled against this appellant (original petitioner) were pertaining to the financial irregularities. (III) The enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The enquiry officer has given its report dated 16.04.2004 [Annxure - B to the counter affidavit, filed in the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2005], wherein it has been held that charge Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, have been fully proved whereas, charge Nos.5 & 6, have been partly proved. (IV) On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry officer''s report, and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 14.06.2004 of dismissal of this appellant from the service of Allahabad Bank (Annexure - 4 to the memo of the writ petition). (V) The departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant. After giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, the departmental authority dismissed the appellant vide order dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure - 5 to the memo of the writ petition). (VI) This appellant challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 14.06.2004 as well as the order passed by the departmental appellate authority dated 23.08.2004 in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2005. (VI) This appellant challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 14.06.2004 as well as the order passed by the departmental appellate authority dated 23.08.2004 in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2005. (VII) The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2013, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. Reasons :- 3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that following charges were levelled against this appellant (original petitioner) - delinquent : "ARTICLE - I Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at the Bank''s Kedrasal Branch during the period 14-6-1999 till 31-10-2002 acted with malafide intention of pecuniary gain for self in so far as he pocketed himself by forging signature of party and also passed withdrawl from bearing his own S/B A/c No. without debiting the respective accounts and making direct posting in long book and General Ledger. ARTICLE - II The said Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at the Bank''s Kedrasal Branch during the aforesaid period made fictitious credit entries without any supporting voucher in various account in collusion with the account holders which were later withdrawn thereby siphoning banks money without consideration. ARTICLE - III Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period acted with malafide intention of pecuniary gain for self in so far he availed leave encashment without any sanction from Regional Office. ARTICLE - IV Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period acted with malafide intention in so far he raised a loan in his name without sanction from Regional Office and pocketed the entire amount without opening any loan account. Further Singh also sold his maruti car purchased out of loan from the bank under conveyance loan scheme but the proceed was not credited in the said loan account. ARTICLE - V Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period adjusted the Suspense entries lying in his name by directly debiting SB - I in General Ledger. ARTICLE - V Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period adjusted the Suspense entries lying in his name by directly debiting SB - I in General Ledger. ARTICLE -VI: Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period failed to discharge his duties with integrity and in his best judgment in so far he allowed mis-utilisation of Government Fund by liquidating loan accounts by debiting the said fund account without any authority and also concealed sanction of such loans from Regional Office. The aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri Hari Kishore Singh are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, and are in violation of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations'' 1976 amounting to misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of the said Regulations." Supporting details were also supplied which are at page No.45 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that the enquiry officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, enquiry officer has given its report on 16.04.2004, and on the basis of the evidence on record, it has been stated by the enquiry officer that charge Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, have been fully proved. So far as charge Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, they are partly proved. 5. It further appears from the facts of the case that the disciplinary authority after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, and looking to the enquiry officer''s report, passed order on 14.06.2004 of dismissal of this appellant from the services of the Allahabad Bank. Even, the departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant was also dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 23.08.2004. 6. Thus, there is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental enquiry nor there is any violation of the principles of natural justice. The charge Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 levelled against this appellant, have been held as proved. Inquiry Officer''s report is based upon evidences on record. We are not sitting in appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer. 7. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. The charge Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 levelled against this appellant, have been held as proved. Inquiry Officer''s report is based upon evidences on record. We are not sitting in appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer. 7. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh, reported in, 2005 10 SCC 471 , in paragraph no.6, which reads as under : - "6. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the High Court would be correct in law to appreciate the evidence and the manner in which the evidence was examined and to record a finding in that behalf. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In this case, no such errors were pointed out nor any finding in that behalf was recorded by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court examined the evidence as if it is a court of first appeal and reversed the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by disciplinary authority. Under these circumstances, the question of examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a first appellate court, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained." 8. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, reported in , (2006) 2 SCC 373 , in paragraph nos.10 & 11, which read as under :- "10. From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that the High Court reappreciated the evidence as an appellate authority. Apart from reappreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High Court also fell in grave error by directing the Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent herein to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the inquiry officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the inquiry as part of additional evidence. Apart from reappreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High Court also fell in grave error by directing the Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent herein to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the inquiry officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the inquiry as part of additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the inquiry officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 during the inquiry. 11. By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an appellate authority." 9. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, reported in , (2006) 7 SCC 212 , in paragraph nos.10 & 11, which read as under :- "10. It is Impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence the evidence which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court, on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record. 11. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court has erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority by acting as a court of appeal and reappreciating the evidence" 10. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, reported in , (2013) 2 SCC 740 , in paragraph no.25, which reads as under :- "25. The High Court, in our view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. The High Court, in our view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. It is a well-accepted principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Of course, its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. In SBI v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde this Court held that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence acting as a court of appeal. We have, on facts, found that no procedural irregularity has been committed either by the Bank, presenting officer or the inquiring authority. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Service Rules." 11. In view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to the fact that there is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceedings neither there is any violation of natural justice, the departmental enquiry is legal and valid and it has been fairly conducted. Now the only question left out for this Court to decide the quantum of punishment. 12. Looking to the facts of this case, it appears that this appellant was working as Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Kadrasal Branch at Deoghar. He has committed gross misconducts, as stated in the charge-sheet (Annexure - 1). The customers'' money have been withdrawn unauthorizedly. Similarly, to few customers credit of sizable amount has been given unauthorizedly. Thus, the appellant was in fiduciary possession with the bank and he has committed breach of trust of the management of the bank. There is violation of the rules of the bare minimum discipline. This appellant is not befitting to hold the post of Branch Manager. 13. Whenever there is financial irregularities committed, and that too by the Branch Manager type of employee, punishment of dismissal cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be labelled as unreasonably excessive punishment. 14. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan, reported in , (1998) 4 SCC 310 , in paragraph No.12, which reads as under : "12. 14. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan, reported in , (1998) 4 SCC 310 , in paragraph No.12, which reads as under : "12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the firm view that all the four charge-sheets which were enquired into relate to serious misconduct. The respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the enquiry authority''s report/findings in the present case. It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed an error while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report/findings to him.." 15. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain, reported in , (2005) 10 SCC 84 , in paragraph No.17, which reads as under : "17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.." 16. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., reported in , (2008) 14 SCC 445 , in paragraph Nos.36 & 37, which read as under : "36. So far as the prayer by the appellant that he has sufficiently suffered and should be reinstated in service without back wages also cannot be accepted. The appellant was holding position of trust and was Manager of a bank. The charges levelled against him were serious in nature concerning misappropriation of money. It is true that the amount was not big and it was also repaid and the Bank has not suffered. But even then the Manager of a cooperative bank was involved in financial irregularities. The Bank was satisfied that he should not be retained in service and passed an order of removal. 37. In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that such punishment is grossly disproportionate or excessively high. Normally in exercise of power of "judicial review", a writ court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of a disciplinary authority unless it comes to the conclusion that it has shocked the conscience of the court or the punishment is such that no "reasonable man" would impose such punishment or in the words of Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secy. of State for the Environment that the decision is so absurd that one is satisfied that the decision-maker at the time of making decision "must have taken leave of his senses." 17. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Singh Vs. LIC, reported in , (2015) 2 SCC 341 , in paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, which read as under : "8. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Singh Vs. LIC, reported in , (2015) 2 SCC 341 , in paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, which read as under : "8. As far as argument relating to quantum of punishment, as modified by the High Court, which results in consequential forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Rule 23, quoted above, is concerned, we do not find the punishment to be harsh or disproportionate to the guilt, in view of the nature of the charge of which the appellant is found guilty in the present case. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that in such matters no sympathy should be shown by the courts. 9. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh, this Court, in para 18 of the judgment has expressed the views on this point as under: (SCC p. 193) "18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment." 10. In Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane in which unaccounted amount was only Rs 93 this Court expressed its opinion in para 12 as under: (SCC p. 259) "12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal." 11. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has made following observations in para 25 of the judgment: (SCC p. 654) "25. In the present day scenario, corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows of the economy. There are cases where the amount is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenets of democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in the system. It creates an incurable concavity in the rule of law." 12. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, this Court, following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, has opined that in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It has been further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent employee was awarded punishment of removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that on an earlier occasion, the appellant was awarded a minor punishment for his misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time.." 18. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.06.2004, which has not been interfered with by the appellate authority dated 23.08.2004, is absolutely in consonance with the aforesaid decisions. And now he is found guilty for the second time.." 18. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.06.2004, which has not been interfered with by the appellate authority dated 23.08.2004, is absolutely in consonance with the aforesaid decisions. The punishment imposed upon this appellant cannot be said to be unreasonably excessive punishment nor it can be said to be shockingly disproportionate punishment. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2005 vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2013. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 19. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.