JUDGMENT & ORDER : A.M.BUJORBARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.S Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent bank. 2. The appellant who served as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the Raha Branch of the respondent State Bank of India was served a memorandum of charge dated 09.09.2009 pertaining to the allegation that without comparing the specimen signature of the depositor Sri Biren Deka of Raha Branch in respect of Account No.11689553585, an amount of Rs.3,09,000/- spread over seven different dates were withdrawn by him in an unauthorized manner by using his ID. Further allegations were that the said amount withdrawn was used by the appellant for his personal gain and that it was withdrawn by violating the extant instructions of the bank to the extent that the withdrawals were made by using withdrawal slips without production of pass book and that such conduct constituted a mala-fide intention to defraud the bank. 3. The appellant submitted his reply that the withdrawals were allowed by him within his own eligible limit of payment and that the withdrawals were not made for his personal gain and the actual beneficiary was given the payments. Further stand had been taken that the withdrawals were accompanied by the relevant pass book and the appellant did not use his ID with a mala-fide intention and nor there was any intention to defraud the bank. 4. In the resultant enquiry, the allegations made against the appellant were found to be proved. In the enquiry, a further aspect was revealed, which in fact was also the stand of the appellant in the enquiry that he had handed over the withdrawn amounts to one Biswajit Bardhan. The enquiry report was provided to the appellant by the communication dated 14.06.2010. 5. In his reply to the enquiry report made by the representation dated 29.06.2010, the appellant stated that he does not deny that he had made the payment of the withdrawals referred in the charge-sheet, but adds that the payments were made to Biswajit Bardhan, who in fact had tendered the withdrawal forms on behalf of the account holder. The appellant takes a stand that the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer had admitted in the enquiry that the money was taken by Biswajit Bardhan, who had later refunded the amount to the account holder. The appellant takes a stand that the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer had admitted in the enquiry that the money was taken by Biswajit Bardhan, who had later refunded the amount to the account holder. Accordingly, the appellant took the stand that such intervening circumstance proved that he had no mala-fide intention nor he had utilized the money for any personal gain. 6. By the order contained in the memorandum dated 03.08.2010, the appellant was imposed the punishment of being dismissed without notice for having unauthorisedly withdrawn the amount of Rs.3,09,000/- from the account of Sri Biren Deka of the Raha Branch. 7. The order of dismissal was assailed in the writ petition WP(C) No.1450/2011. By the judgment and order dated 01.08.2017, the said writ petition was dismissed by arriving at a conclusion that the departmental proceeding conducted against the appellant was not assailed on the ground of any procedural infirmity and that the sole ground of challenge was that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges. The learned Single Judge took note of the circumstance that the appellant had sought for an interference of the order of dismissal on the premises that the withdrawals were made at the instance of one Biswajit Bardhan and in fact, the withdrawn amounts were also handed over to him and therefore, the punishment of dismissal requires a reconsideration. But having regard to the nature of the charges that were proved against the petitioner, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere on that count. 8. In the writ appeal also the sole ground urged upon by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant is that the withdrawal of the amount having been done at the instance of the aforesaid Biswajit Bardhan and further the withdrawn amount having been handed over to him, who had later on gave it back to the actual account holder, the order of dismissal from service requires a reconsideration. 9. In the circumstance, the consideration before this Court is whether the conduct of the appellant as concluded in the enquiry report justifies a reconsideration of the order of punishment for dismissal merely for a reason that the alleged amounts were withdrawn at the instance of Biswajit Bardhan and that the withdrawn amounts were handed over to him, who in turn gave it back to the actual account holder. 10. 10. From the materials on record what is noticeable is that firstly, the withdrawals were made through the method of withdrawal slip, which requires the pass book to be accompanied whereas in the instant case, the withdrawals so made were allowed by the appellant being the Cashier-cum-Clerk without verifying the signature in the withdrawal slips, which were not accompanied by the concerned pass book of the account holder. Further, the materials also indicate that the money so withdrawn was handed over to the actual account holder by Biswajit Bardhan about seven months thereafter, which also indicates that at least there was some temporary misappropriation of the amount. Further the amount of Rs.3,09,000/-was withdrawn on seven different dates, where Rs.50,000/-was withdrawn on 08.09.2008, 09.09.2008, 12.09.2008, 18.09.2008 and 27.09.2008 whereas an amount of Rs.44,000/-was withdrawn on 29.09.2008 and Rs.15,000/-on 20.10.2008. 11. Such manner in which the withdrawals were made leads to an inference that it was not an one off occasion where the withdrawals were made, but on the other hand, it was a conscious effort to withdraw the amounts on different dates by using the same modus operandi. The aspect that requires a consideration is whether in the given situation, it can be said that the bank still continues to have faith on the appellant so as to allow him to continue in his service, rather than inflicting the punishment of dismissal. 12. In this respect, reference is made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Nath Bhalla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 775, wherein in paragraph-6, it has been stated that:- “Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has already paid back the money which was held proved against him that he had misappropriated. Mere repayment of money does not absolve him of serious charge of misappropriation. The last submission that the punishment imposed on the appellant is too harsh also does not appeal to us, having regard to the serious nature of charges including the misappropriation of money..........” 13. Mere repayment of money does not absolve him of serious charge of misappropriation. The last submission that the punishment imposed on the appellant is too harsh also does not appeal to us, having regard to the serious nature of charges including the misappropriation of money..........” 13. Further reference be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 , wherein in paragraphs-18 and 22, it has been held as under:- 18.”..............In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer.” 22.”.................It is a case of loss of confidence in teh officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case.” 14. Also reference be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P SRTC, ETAWAH vs. Hoti Lal and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 605 , wherein in paragraph-10, it has been held as under:- 10. “It needs to be emphasized that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges..........A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.......” 15. From the above propositions of law, what is discernible is that a mere repayment of the money unauthorisedly taken does not absolve the perpetrator from the serious charge of misappropriation. Further, the fact that the bank had not lost any amount would also be no ground to take a lenient view and the most relevant factor would be the loss of confidence in the employee by the bank. In the event the court interferes in the matter of quantum of punishment, the reasons thereof have to be recorded and a mere statement by the delinquent that the punishment imposed is disproportionate would not be sufficient by itself. Also, if the delinquent holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt, leniency in such situation would be improper and such misconduct is to be dealt with iron hands and in a situation where the concerned person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must without any exception. 16. In the instant case, admittedly the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility of being the Cashier-cum-Clerk of a branch in a bank, which is a position of highest level of trustworthiness and faith on the part of the bank. Any act on the part of such employee resulting in a fraudulent withdrawal and more so when such withdrawals were made repeatedly on no less than 07(seven) occasions, cannot any further lead to a conclusion where it can be said that the bank would still retain its faith on such employee. 17. In such view of the matter, as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant as regards the quantum of punishment and any interference on the punishment of dismissal would be inappropriate in the prevailing facts and circumstance. 18. 17. In such view of the matter, as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant as regards the quantum of punishment and any interference on the punishment of dismissal would be inappropriate in the prevailing facts and circumstance. 18. The stand of the appellant that the withdrawn amount was handed over to one Biswajit Bardhan by itself cannot dilute the fraudulent act on the part of the appellant and it is more so when such acts of fraudulent withdrawal were repeatedly made. Also as required by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no reasons could be found for interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant considering the manner in which the act of fraudulent withdrawals were made. 19. In the circumstance, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs.