JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the orders at Annexure-1, 2 and 4 i.e. the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority as well in the matter of a disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being selected in a duly constituted selection process held by the Andhra Bank authority; was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Andhra Bank on 4.4.1987. While continuing as such, the petitioner was promoted as a Branch Manager on 14.5.1992 and during his continuance as Branch Manager, in the year 1997, the petitioner was transferred to Odisha. While the petitioner was continuing in the Hirakud branch of the Andhra Bank in the State of Odisha, he faced a departmental proceeding on framing charges on 13 heads. It is submitted that pursuant to notice by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner participated in the proceeding and on conclusion of the evidence and submissions of both the sides, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.10.1999 indicating therein that the petitioner has been exonerated from charge no. 1, charge no. 2, charge no. 4, charge no. 5, charge no. 7 and the charge no. 3 was partly proved whereas the rest of the charges such as the charge nos. 8 to 13 have all been proved. Consequent upon submission of the report, the Disciplinary Authority considering the observations of Enquiry Officer gave notice to show cause involving the punishment to be awarded, and upon consideration of the response of the petitioner observed that the petitioner is found guilty on several serious charges and as such, in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order under Annexure-1 imposed major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from the Bank service with immediate effect following the Regulation of ABOE (D&A) Regulation but however, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal, if he is so advised. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal. It appears, the appellate authority on consideration of the grounds raised and after observing that the lapses on the part of the delinquent so far as the matter of accounting is concerned, appearing to be bona-fide, further finding that the amount involved was adjusted subsequently, only reduced the major penalty of dismissal from Bank service to that of compulsory retirement from Bank service following the provision contained in Regulation of ABOE (D&A) Regulation. Being further aggrieved by the order at Annexure-2, the petitioner preferred review to the competent authority and from Annexure-4 it appears, the reviewing authority in agreement with the order of the appellate authority dismissed the review. 4. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds for interfering in the impugned order by this Court. Such as:-firstly, the petitioner having not been provided with an opportunity of show cause as against the enquiry report, resulting the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the consequential orders vitiates, secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that looking to the nature of the offences, the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Taking this Court to the grounds taken in the writ petition and the observations of the Enquiry Officer on the charges involving the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to substantiate the grounds submitting that since the petitioner has already suffered a lot, this Court should take a lenient view by directing the employer to at least reduce the punishment. 5. To the contrary, Shri C.A. Rao, learned Senior Advocate taking this Court to the inquiry report, the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant submitted that so far as the ground no. 5. To the contrary, Shri C.A. Rao, learned Senior Advocate taking this Court to the inquiry report, the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant submitted that so far as the ground no. 1 is concerned, while refuting the allegation on no opportunity of show cause as against the inquiry report submitted that even assuming that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity of filing his objection to the inquiry report, for the service of the inquiry report on him for his getting a chance to raise his objection during his appearance before the Disciplinary Authority on the hearing on the proposed punishment and further, getting a scope to revisit the allegations involving the inquiry report in the memorandum of appeal, it appears, the petitioner has not made any endeavour in this regard at any subsequent stages leaving any scope for interference of this Court in such matters. Coming to the other ground, Shri Rao the learned Senior Advocate taking this Court to the observation and findings in the inquiry report, the observation of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority contended that all the authorities having taken into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in serious offences including misappropriation and maladministration of the public fund, under no stretch of imagination the punishment involving petitioner can be held to be disproportionate to the quantum of the offence involved. It is under the circumstance, Shri Rao requested this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties and on consideration of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court finds the petitioner was charged as follows:- “1. You have received an amount of Rs. 3,450/- from Mr. B. Shankar on 10.4.1996 to the credit of his term loan account 93/EM/24 and you have credited only Rs. 1,850/- to the loan account. You have misutilized the customer’s funds to the tune of Rs. 1,600/- for your personal gain. 2. You have received an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from Mr. Ch. Venkatesham on 25.05.1996 to the credit of his term loan account 94/RT/41. But you have not credited the same to his loan account. You have misutilized the customer’s funds for your personal gain. 3. You have received an amount of Rs. 500/- from Mr. 2. You have received an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from Mr. Ch. Venkatesham on 25.05.1996 to the credit of his term loan account 94/RT/41. But you have not credited the same to his loan account. You have misutilized the customer’s funds for your personal gain. 3. You have received an amount of Rs. 500/- from Mr. V. Hanmandlu on 18.03.1997 to the credit of his term loan 96/P&SE/06 and you have not credited the same to his loan account. You have misutilized the customer’s funds for your personal gain. 4. You have received an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. 500 + Rs. 500) from Mr. S. Narayan on 5.03.1996 to the credit of his term loan 95/RT/67A and you have not credited the same to his loan account. You have misutilized the customer’s funds for your personal gain. 5. You have received an amount of Rs. 1,800/- towards commission on Bank Guarantee No. 91/BG/02 on 29.11.1996 and you have credited the same to the profit and loss account on 9.12.1996, thus temporarily misutilizing the Bank’s funds for your personal gain. 6. You have on 3.07.1995 received an amount of Rs. 5,160/- from Mr. Ch. Komaraiah to the credit of his term loan account 88/EM/18 and you have credited the same on 22.11.1995 after a gap of more than four months by temporarily misappropriating the borrower’s funds. 7. In the case of the following loan accounts you have received the amounts from the borrowers to the credit of their respective loan accounts but credited at a later dates by misappropriating the borrower’s funds for temporary periods. Loan No. Borrower name Amount Date of actual receipt Credited on 96/BE/49 T. Laxmi 1500-00 31.03.1997 07.04.1997 93/SERI/20 T. Sitharam 600-00 07.04.1997 15.04.1997 94/DRI/RT/2 B. Bhagya Laxmi 300-00 07.04.1997 15.04.1997 95/CL/1006 U. Rajaiah 1070-00 31.03.1997 07.04.1997 95/CL/980 J. Narender 900-00 29.03.1997 07.04.1997 8. You have on 20.08.1997 purchased your own cheque on Sircilla Branch for Rs. 22,000/- and adjusted the following loan accounts by taking the remaining in cash. Loan No. Borrower name Date of actual receipt Amount 96/CL/942 Ch. You have on 20.08.1997 purchased your own cheque on Sircilla Branch for Rs. 22,000/- and adjusted the following loan accounts by taking the remaining in cash. Loan No. Borrower name Date of actual receipt Amount 96/CL/942 Ch. Bhoomaiah 16.08.1997 680-00 96/CL/480 B. Vittal 20.08.1997 330-00 96/CL/995 N. Srinivas 18.07.1997 5000-00 96/CL/206 L. Laxman 20.08.1997 220-00 96/CL/747 G. Lingaiah 16.08.1997 1300-00 95/RT/47 A. Maliaiah 20.08.1997 900-00 95/RT/59 M.N. Rao 20.08.1997 2500-00 In some of the above transactions you have prepared the vouchers by yourself without the signature of the borrowers and credited the same as stated earlier. It reflects that you have received the amounts from the borrowers on a much earlier date but credited it at a later date after temporarily misutilizing the borrower’s funds. 9. Your have disbursed a term loan 97/BE/03 for Rs. 10,000/- on 17.01.1997 to Mr. Challa Siva Reddy and adjusted the following loan accounts of other borrowers by way of transfer entry, in respect of which you have received amounts on a much earlier date. Loan No. Borrower name Date of actual receipt Amount 95/CL/1094 R. Laxmi 28.12.1996 1060-00 96/CL/864 A. Ramaswamy 15.01.1997 4640-00 96/CL/686 B. Padmaiah 15.01.1997 4300-00 In the disbursal of the above term loan you have not followed the laid down procedures and guidelines and you have not ensued the endues of Bank’s funds. It is also evident from the above transaction that you have received the amounts to the credit of respective loan accounts from the above borrowers on a much earlier date and to cover-up you have disbursed a fictitious terms loan exposing the bank to financial loss. 10. You have on 25.06.1996 disbursed a term loan 96/BE/52 for Rs. 10,000/- to Mr. K. Rajaiah and adjusted the following loan accounts of other borrowers by way of a transfer entry under the signature of K. Rajaiah. Loan No. Borrower name Date of actual receipt Amount 96/CL/276 B. Vittal 25.06.1996 4700-00 96/CL/349 B. Dhansingh 25.06.1996 5300-00 In the disbursal of the above term loan you have not followed the laid down procedures and guidelines and you have not ensured the endues of Bank’s funds. It is also evident from the above transaction that you have received the amounts to the credit of respective loan accounts from the above borrowers on a much earlier date and to cover-up you have disbursed a fictitious term loan exposing the bank to financial loss. 11. It is also evident from the above transaction that you have received the amounts to the credit of respective loan accounts from the above borrowers on a much earlier date and to cover-up you have disbursed a fictitious term loan exposing the bank to financial loss. 11. You have allowed advances to the staff members to the debit of Sundry Debtors TA&DA as per the particulars given hereunder and the same were adjusted by way of cash/ transfer at later dates: Date of advance Name of staff Purpose Amount Adjusted on 6.11.1995 B. Bopi Singh Dep. Modi 150-00 10.06.1997 2.01.1996 -do- Cig. Chs to KNR 150-00 08.10.1996 -do- Dep. Mobi. 370-00 15.07.1995 -do- Cig. Chs to KNR 140-00 05.02.1996 -do- -do- 150-00 10.06.1997 09.04.1996 -do- -do- 249-00 30.04.1996 -do- Dep. Mobi 180-00 07.06.1996 -do- -do- 180-00 06.11.1996 -do- -do- 500-00 02.12.1996 -do- -do- 500-00 30.06.1997 01.01.1997 -do- -do- 150-00 01.01.1997 -do- -do- 500-00 05.03.1997 -do- -do- 500-00 25.06.1997 22.11.1996 G. Suresh -do- 500-00 13.12.1996 G. Suresh -do- 500-00 30.06.1997 In all the above transactions, you have temporarily accommodated the staff members out of bank funds and you have not ensured the recovery of advance with interest thereby exposing the bank to financial loss. 12. You have drawn the following amounts to the debit of Sundry Debtors TA&DA and adjusted the same by way of cash at later dates under the signature of Mr. G. Gopi Singh, Shroff of the branch. 29.03.1997 Rs. 3900-00 Adjusted on 30.08.1997 11.06.1997 Rs. 5000-00 Adjusted on 13.06.1997 In the above transactions you have misutilised the bank funds for temporary periods and exposed the bank to financial loss. 13. You have on 31.01.1997 debited SB a/c No. 24 fvg. Mr. Devaiah vide Ch. No. 091794, dated 24.01.1997 and SOD a/c No. 3 fvg Mr. B. Bhoomalingam vide Ch. No. 116251, dated 29.01.1997 with Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and adjusted the following loan accounts of other borrowers by way of transfer entry in respect of which you have received the amounts to the credit of their loan accounts and adjusted the same at a later date. Loan No. Name of the Borrower Amount in Rs. 96/CL/1095 N. Pochaiah 8751-00 96/CL/203 Ch. 2,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and adjusted the following loan accounts of other borrowers by way of transfer entry in respect of which you have received the amounts to the credit of their loan accounts and adjusted the same at a later date. Loan No. Name of the Borrower Amount in Rs. 96/CL/1095 N. Pochaiah 8751-00 96/CL/203 Ch. Rajeswar Rao 1035-00 95/CL/1022 O. Deva Raju 4600-00 96/CL/566 L. Rajaiah 7614-00 Total 22000-00 It is evident that you have received the amounts on a much earlier date and credited at a later date misutilizing the amounts for temporary periods.” 7. Perusal of the inquiry report, this Court finds, the petitioner has not only been given scope for objection but also given the scope for evidence and the petitioner even has given his submissions before the enquiry authority. The fact further reveals that the Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration the objection, evidence oral as well as documentary and the submissions of the respective parties involved therein, the substance in the charges involving the petitioner and on serious attendance of the materials available on record, the pleadings thereon, has given his clear findings on each of the charges involving the petitioner. This Court finds absolutely no infirmity in the inquiry report. Now coming to consider the allegation of the petitioner regarding no opportunity for submitting his objection to the inquiry report, this Court on production of a copy of the memorandum of appeal by the petitioner himself, perused the same and from the narrations made therein, this Court nowhere finds any averments/allegations at least bringing his objections to the inquiry report at any further stage. This apart, since the petitioner had the scope of his objection to the proposed punishment, this Court also observes the petitioner has failed to raise any such objection here also. 8. Petitioner in spite of his getting a scope for raising his objection to the observations and/or findings in the Enquiry report in filing Appeal as well as a Review, no material is forthcoming indicating the objection of the petitioner to the enquiry report at either stage of the matter. 8. Petitioner in spite of his getting a scope for raising his objection to the observations and/or findings in the Enquiry report in filing Appeal as well as a Review, no material is forthcoming indicating the objection of the petitioner to the enquiry report at either stage of the matter. Further, reading of the Enquiry report forming part of the Counter affidavit and find place at Annexure-B, this Court finds, the Enquiry Officer has not only taken all aspects involved into consideration, but it has in a well consideration of matter consciously took his view on each of the charges and even exonerated the petitioner from many of the charges and as such no fault is traced from the Enquiry report. From the detail counter affidavit, it is also observed that all necessary formalities have been observed by the Enquiry Officer in the process of enquiry. On close scrutiny of the entire aspect, this Court finds, even though the petitioner was supplied with the copy of Report, but however he has chosen not to submit any explanation to the same. Thus, this Court here finds, the allegation of the petitioner in this regard remains contrary to the materials on record. 9. Now coming to consider the second ground urged by the petitioner, i.e., the punishment awarded becomes disproportionate to the quantum of offence, this Court on close scrutiny of the charges as well as the observation and findings of the Enquiry Officer finds for the details available therein there is right appreciation of the case by the Enquiry Officer. Looking to the nature of charges, it is also observed that each charge involving the petitioner constitute a serious charge. Series of major charges having been established, it appears, petitioner is not right in his approach and for the finding therein there is no scope to interfere or directing reconsidering the punishment aspect. It is at this stage, considering a decision involving The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1997) 83 CLT 533 : 1996 (9) SCC 69 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considering a case of similar nature, particularly involving an Officer acting beyond Authority has categorically observed that “the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly a bank is dependant upon each of its employee 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 the Regulation itself and it constitutes misconduct.” Similarly, from another decision in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another vs. Munna Lal Jain, AIR 2005 SC 584 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-17 held as follows:- “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 vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996 (9) SCC 69 , it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization 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.” 10. This Court perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Niroj Kumar Das vs. United Bank of India and Others, 2016 (1) OLR 602 and in the case of A.K. Saxena vs. State Bank of Patiala and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 289 . This Court for the observations and findings herein, finds no application of the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case at hand. 11. For the observations of this Court hereinabove, the proven misconduct by the petitioner being confirmed by both the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing authority, for the settled law that High Court cannot sit over such matters as Appellate authority and for the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court taken note hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.