JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against confirming judgment in a suit for declaration that the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal from service is void, non-existent and he is deemed to be continuing in service. 2. The plaintiff was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada (Bank) on 15.4.1975. He was deputed as a Manager, Puri Gramya Bank. While functioning as the Manager, Sahidnagar Branch, he was placed under suspension on 9.5.1983. The following charges were framed against him for certain acts of omission and commission. "ARTICLES OF CHARGE : You had contravened Regulation 3.1 and 3.3 of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 a breach of which would amount to a misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 thereof. The said regulations are extracted below: 3.1 : Every Officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. 3.3 : No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, at otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. 24 : Any breach of any of the provisions of these Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Indian Overseas Bank (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976. STATEMET OF IMPUTATIONS: 1. that you had opened a Saving Bank account bearing No.2699 at our Sahid Nagar branch in the joint names of Mr. 24 : Any breach of any of the provisions of these Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Indian Overseas Bank (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976. STATEMET OF IMPUTATIONS: 1. that you had opened a Saving Bank account bearing No.2699 at our Sahid Nagar branch in the joint names of Mr. Gour Goswami and yourself on 7.12.1982; and (a) that five withdrawal slips for an aggregate sum of Rs.51,360/- paid on different dates on the above account have been subsequently torn-off and fresh withdrawal slips written by you and passed for payment by yourself without affixing the 'Cash Paid' stamp have been substituted in the place of the originals by stapling to the vouchers and that the substitutions have been done after commencement of short inspection; and (b) that you had also cut-off your name in the Savings Bank account opening form and in the Savings Bank ledger; and (c) that you were also in possession of the pass book of the Savings Bank account No.2699 wherein also your name has been found cut-off, and (d) that initially you were reported to have said that the voucher bundle of the day wherein the impugned vouchers were missing was not traceable/missing and later on the voucher bundle was found in your cupboard itself. 2. (a) that you had granted overdrafts for in excess of your discretion and without reporting to Regional Office and without submitting the monthly return of overdrafts under Manager's discretion to regional Office/Central Office vide Annexure-I. (b) The following irregularities are also noticed : (i) Temporary Overdrafts were allowed indiscriminately far in excess of branch discretion and beyond the repayment capacity of the borrowers. (ii) The required market report, credit cum opinion sheets and declaration were not obtained in respect of the overdrafts granted. (iii) Temporary Overdrafts were allowed on the very name day of opening the account. In most of the cases current accounts have been opened without the initial cash deposits as required under the rules/procedure. (iv) Huge excesses were allowed totally ignoring the bank's interest and without obtaining any security to safeguard bank's interest. (v) TOD parties were also granted Small Loans/Personal Loans vide SL No.13/83 granted to Sri Gagan Behari Das, which is against the norms. (vi) Most of the accounts where TODs had been allowed were introduced by you. 3. (iv) Huge excesses were allowed totally ignoring the bank's interest and without obtaining any security to safeguard bank's interest. (v) TOD parties were also granted Small Loans/Personal Loans vide SL No.13/83 granted to Sri Gagan Behari Das, which is against the norms. (vi) Most of the accounts where TODs had been allowed were introduced by you. 3. (a) that you had discounted two instruments from one Sri L.N. Agarwal under reference No.DBP(1)-24/82 for Rs.5,000/- and (2) 25/82 for Rs.25,000/- on 21.9.82 and 4.10.82 respectively. As per the remittance schedule, the instruments were supposed to have been sent to India Exchange Place branch and Central Clearing Office, Calcutta respectively. However, there is no evidence to prove that the instruments have been dispatched. Though you had marked these instruments as paid on 2.12.82 it was found that these entries have been eliminated only on receipt of a credit advice dated 2.12.82 from Bhubaneswar branch. The instruments covered by these credit advice were drafts dated 1.12.82 drawn by Vijaya Bank, Bhubaneswar whereby it is evident that this is a clear case of accommodation. (b) that you had purchased a self cheque for Rs.10,000/- for the same party, i.e. Sri L.N. Agarwal on 18.3.83. It had been drawn by Shri Lakshmi Narayana Textiles and signed by Sri L.N. Agarwal and the same had been discounted for credit to Sri L.N. Agarwal's Savings Bank account No.2579. On 15.4.83 when a short inspection was conducted at the branch, the above instrument was found in the table drawer of Sri S.K. Viswanatham, Additional Officer who had stated that it had been retained by him at your request and that he had been advised by you not to reveal about the return of the cheques and the facts. It further transpired that though the instrument had been returned on 26.3.83 with the reason "refer to drawer" you had neither taken up the matter with the drawer/payee for recovery nor made any entry regarding the returned instrument in the cheques returned register. 4. Without prior permission of Regional Office you had granted a loan to one Sri J. Samantaray against the security of deposit receipts amounting to Rs.20,000/- of other banks and LIC Policies not assigned in favour of the bank and without verifying the last premium paid receipt. The present outstanding in the account is Rs.22,564.15. 5. 4. Without prior permission of Regional Office you had granted a loan to one Sri J. Samantaray against the security of deposit receipts amounting to Rs.20,000/- of other banks and LIC Policies not assigned in favour of the bank and without verifying the last premium paid receipt. The present outstanding in the account is Rs.22,564.15. 5. You had granted small loans indiscriminately and without following the set norms and without ensuring the end use, vide Annexure-II. The following irregularities were also noticed: (a) Sri L.N. Agarwal for whom a self cheque was purchased and returned (vide charge No.3(b) has guaranteed several small loans. On 10.2.83 you had granted 11 small loans aggregating to Rs.33,000/- of which 6 have been guaranteed by Sri L.N. Agarwal and the remaining 5 by his father. (b) Application forms in all cases are incomplete with the result the full particulars of the borrower, nature of business, these stake in business, turnover of the business and assets and liabilities of the borrowers are not available. (c) Actual requirement of the trade or business have not been taken into account. The maximum amount of Rs.3,000/- has been granted in most of the cases without assessing the actual need. Out of the 54 loans granted by the branch, 40 borrowers were given loans of Rs.3,000/-. (d) Letter of hypothecation 110A has not been obtained. (e) Loan amount has been disbursed in cash at one stage. End use has not been verified at all. Money receipts, cash bills are not held. (f) Municipal trade licence or rental receipts of the shops are not held. (g) Manager's recommendation column is kept blank. (h) Persons working in OSEB and NALCO have been granted small loans vide Small Loan No.5/82, 20/83 and 41/83. (i) Staff members have been granted small loans in fictitious names vide Small Loan No.2/83, 16/83, 18/83 and 35/83. 6. You had granted personal loans to various parties without adhering to the stipulated norms. The following irregularities have been observed: (a) You had exceeded your discretion of Rs.4,000/- in respect of granting of personal loans and also failed to obtain regional Office sanction in respect of the cases enlisted in Annexure-III. (b) Application forms are incomplete in many respects. Except names and address, other columns are invariably left blank. (c) Salary statements of the borrowers and guarantors are not available in many case. Wherever obtained, salary deductions are missing. (b) Application forms are incomplete in many respects. Except names and address, other columns are invariably left blank. (c) Salary statements of the borrowers and guarantors are not available in many case. Wherever obtained, salary deductions are missing. (d) PL 3 and 4 reference letters are not obtained. (e) Cash bills are not obtained and held with the documents. (f) Persons working and residing outside the command area of the branch have also been granted personal loans. (g) Columns for schedule of securities and other particulars are left blank. PL 6 and F-111 are mostly blank signed with no particulars. (h) In respect of loans granted for purchase of two-wheelers, vehicle loan formalities have not been followed. 7. Small loan as well as personal loan has been granted against the norms to the same party, as detailed below; (a) Smt Bhagya Laxmi Misra has been sanctioned: (i) Small Loan 7/82 for Rs.3,000/- on 13.8.82 for purchase of Knitting Machine for running knitting business (the present outstanding is Rs.3302.80) (ii) Personal Loan 8/82 for Rs.3,960/- on 9.10.82 for purchase of second hand knitting machine. Here her occupation is given as 'employer'. 8. You had granted a Demand Loan of Rs.5,000/- vide Loan No.34/83 dated 22.3.83 to Sri K.C. Behra, a staff member attached to Bhubaneswar branch against security of 3 LIC policies. Out of these, 2 LIC policies have lapsed since no premium has been paid from the beginning. One policy for Rs.15,000/- dated 25.6.78 taken under the Salary Savings Scheme is the only security now available with a surrender value of Rs.1,588/-. You had also suppressed the fact that Sri K.C. Behra is a staff member in the records of the branch including loan documents. 9(a) In respect of the Cash Credit Account of M/s. Nandighosh Combines (P) Ltd., though the advance had been granted against the security of 16 Term Deposits aggregating to Rs.4 lacs standing in the names of third parties and multiple Deposit Account for Rs.67,000/- standing in the name of the company, you had allowed huge excesses over and above this value of the deposits, resulting in the outstanding going upto Rs.9,87,345.47 as on 6.5.83 as against the drawing power of Rs.3,50,250/-. (b) You had allowed two unauthorized debits in this account by preparing and posting in the ledger yourself the vouchers relating to the undernoted transactions. (b) You had allowed two unauthorized debits in this account by preparing and posting in the ledger yourself the vouchers relating to the undernoted transactions. (i) On 25.2.83 you had debited their Current account for Rs.20,000/- and credited the amount to the Current account of M/s.Jagdish Cloth Stores in which Mr.Hari Ram Agarwal is the proprietor. This entry was subsequently reversed only on 31.3.83 by debiting the account of M/s.Jagdish Cloth Stores and crediting the account of M/s.Nandighosh Combines (P) Ltd. (ii) On 23/24.2.83 you had debited their Current account with a sum of Rs.11,362.25 being cost of Godrej Fridge and T.V supplied to Sri B.K. Patnaik, Managing Director of the company and credited the amount to the account of M/s.Maneesh International. There is no authority from the party to effect this debit. 10. You had shown undue and illegal favours to M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency who are enjoying Temporary Overdraft and Small Loan facilities at the branch, as under : (a) On 11/13.3.83 you had debited the Current account of FA & CAO, OSEB with a sum of Rs.50,000/- and issued one demand draft on Cuttack on account of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency, favouring Bharatia Traders. This amount has neither been recovered by you from the said Jyothi Supply Agency nor has been made good by the party to the branch notwithstanding the fact that FA & CAO, OSEB's account has been credited with the amount of unauthorised debit. (b) You had transferred a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 8.3.83 from the account of Sri R.K. Swain to the Savings Bank a/c.No.2808 of Bikram Keshari Panda Proprietor of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency. The transfer vouchers have also been prepared by yourself. (c) You had been granting Temporary Overdraft M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency right from the second day of opening of the account and the maximum went upto Rs.48,500/- on 17.3.83. You had also not reported the excess to Regional Office. (d) You had allowed a Personal Loan of Rs.3,990/- on 16.3.83 (PL 54/83) to Sri Narahari Panda, father-in-law of Sri B.K. Panda, the proprietor of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency and against the guarantee of Sri B.K. Panda himself on an incomplete application and without obtaining PL 3 and 4. There was an outstanding of Rs.3,458/- as on 17.8.83. (d) You had allowed a Personal Loan of Rs.3,990/- on 16.3.83 (PL 54/83) to Sri Narahari Panda, father-in-law of Sri B.K. Panda, the proprietor of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency and against the guarantee of Sri B.K. Panda himself on an incomplete application and without obtaining PL 3 and 4. There was an outstanding of Rs.3,458/- as on 17.8.83. (e) You had also granted a Small Loan to Sri G.B. Das for Rs.3,000/- (Small Loan No.13/83) against the guarantee of Sri B.K. Panda, the proprietor of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency and the outstanding was Rs.1,605.90 as on 17.8.83. In view of the undue favours shown to the party and as a result of your exceeding discretion and overstepping norms, the following amounts have become due to the bank on account of M/s. Jyothi Supply Agency: (a) Amount of DD issued to the debit of OSEB Rs.50,000.00 (b) Unauthorized transfer from the Current a/c. of R.K. Swain to B.K. Panda's Savings Bank a/c. Rs.20,000.00 (c) TOD account Rs.12,227.03 (d) Personal Loan 54/83 granted to Narahari Ppanda Rs.3,458.00 The above amounts are exclusive of the interest chargeable on (a), (b), (c) and (e) as well as the commission on Demand Draft. xxx xxx xxx" 3. A copy of the charge sheet was furnished to him. He was asked to show cause. He submitted explanation denying the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer submitted the report holding that charge nos.1,3,4,5 and 9 had been proved and charge nos.2,6,7,8 and 10 had been partially established. The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal on 26.9.1987. He filed an appeal before the General Manager of the Bank. But then, the appeal was dismissed on 15.6.1989. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 4. Defendants filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable. The disciplinary action was taken in compliance with the regulation governing the conditions of service of the plaintiff. The delay in charge sheeting the plaintiff was due to intervening C.B.I enquiry against him. The article of charges accompanied by the statement of imputations along with annexures had clearly established the commission/omission of the plaintiff in discharge of his duties. The charges had been established against him. Under the regulation, appointment of a management representative was not a mandatory requirement. The article of charges accompanied by the statement of imputations along with annexures had clearly established the commission/omission of the plaintiff in discharge of his duties. The charges had been established against him. Under the regulation, appointment of a management representative was not a mandatory requirement. His representative was the Secretary of the Bank Officer's Association. The management witnesses had been cross-examined at length. The plaintiff had inspected the documents and given certificate on 9.10.1985 to that effect to the disciplinary authority. No prejudice had been caused to him. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had passed the speaking order. 5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the enquiry was conducted fairly. The suit for specific performance of contract for personal service is not maintainable. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.22/40/10 of 1998/97/96 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar, which was eventually dismissed 6. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. "1.Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for quashment of proceeding imposed by the disciplinary authority and the order of reinstatement of the delinquent employee ? 2. Whether the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated in view of the fact that the presenting officer was appointed by the Bank and the enquiry officer was acted as presenting officer ? 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges?" 7. Heard Mr. Amrit Mishra on behalf of Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.P. Tripathy and Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Bank is a statutory body. It acted in violation of the mandatory provision of the statute. Rule 6(6) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976 (Regulation, 1976) provides for appointment of a presenting officer. No presenting officer was appointed by the Bank. The enquiry officer acted as presenting officer and proceeded with the enquiry. The plaintiff raised the objection. But the enquiry officer overruled the same. The report is an infraction of the principle of natural justice and as such, vitiated. He further submitted that charge nos.2,6,7,8 and 10 had been partially proved. No presenting officer was appointed by the Bank. The enquiry officer acted as presenting officer and proceeded with the enquiry. The plaintiff raised the objection. But the enquiry officer overruled the same. The report is an infraction of the principle of natural justice and as such, vitiated. He further submitted that charge nos.2,6,7,8 and 10 had been partially proved. Charge nos.1,3,4,5 and 9 were proved. The disciplinary authority did not apply its mind while inflicting the punishment of dismissal. The plaintiff had earned laurels during his career as an officer of the Bank. The punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. He further submitted that Regulation 1976 was framed as per the powers conferred by Sec.19 of the Banking Companies (Accusation and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government framed the regulation. Regulation, 1976 is statutory in nature. The charges were vague and indefinite. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of the Akola Electric Supply Co. (P) Ltd. v. J.N. Jarare and others, (1963) AIR SC 1721, Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corpn., Lucknow v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, (1970) AIR SC 1244, Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, (1975) AIR SC 1331, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) AIR SC 888 and Union of India and others v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) AIR SC 4860. 9. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 14 read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars the enforcement of a contract of personal service. The suit is not maintainable. It is not mandatory on the part of the Bank to appoint a presenting officer. No prejudice had been caused to the plaintiff for non-appointment of the presenting officer. Though the plaintiff has objected to for non-appointment of the presenting officer, but the same was overruled. The plaintiff participated in the enquiry. The charges levelled against the plaintiff were very grave. The charges were specific. He further submitted that Regulation 1976 was not laid on the floor of the Parliament. It has no statutory force. Though the plaintiff has objected to for non-appointment of the presenting officer, but the same was overruled. The plaintiff participated in the enquiry. The charges levelled against the plaintiff were very grave. The charges were specific. He further submitted that Regulation 1976 was not laid on the floor of the Parliament. It has no statutory force. He placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corpn., Lucknow v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, (1970) AIR SC 1244, Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, (1971) AIR SC 1828 and Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) AIR SC 1647. 10. In Chandra Kiran Tyagi, the apex Court held that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be normally granted. But there are certain well-recognized exceptions to this rule and they are : To grant such a declaration in appropriate cases regarding (1) a public servant, who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311, (2) Reinstatement of a dismissed worker under Industrial Law by Labour or Industrial Tribunal, (3) A statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute. The same view was echoed in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others. 11. In Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, the apex Court held : "7.....Section 14, read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically bars the enforcement of such a contract. It is for this reason the principle of law which is well established is that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement as giving of such relief would amount to enforcing the contract of personal services. However, as laid down in the cases referred to above, and also there are three exceptions to the aforesaid Rule where the contract of personal services can be enforced: (a) in the case of a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (b) in the case of an employee who could be reinstated in an industrial adjudication by the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal; and (c) in the case of a statutory body, its employee could be reinstated when it has acted in breach of the mandatory obligations imposed by the statute. 8. 8. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two categories, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case may be, and in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services....." 12. In Sukhdeo Rai, the apex Court held that violation of regulations framed by the Board of Directors under Sec.45 of the Air Corporation Act does not amount to statutory violation so as to bring the case under third exception. The apex Court further held : "Nor can counsel derive any aid from the decision in Dr. Gupta v. Nathu, (1963) 1 SCR 721 = ( AIR 1963 SC 274 ) where the Court was dealing with a bye-law made by the Central Government under powers conferred on it by the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 which compulsorily amended the bye-laws of the association recognized under the Act and which vested certain powers on authorities external to the association. The bye-law in question was not limited in its application to the members of the association but to all those who entered into forward contracts and were governed by its bye-laws. But all rules and regulations made by authorities in pursuance of a power under a statute do not necessarily have the force of law. In Kruse v. Johnson, (1898) 2 QB 91 at p.96 while considering the validity of a bye-law made by a county council, Lord Russell described a bye-law having the force of law as one affecting the public or some section of the public imposed by some authority clothed with statutory powers ordering something to be done or not to be done and accompanied by some sanction or penalty for its non-observance. If validly made such a bye-law has the force of law within the sphere of its legitimate operation. The function of such bye-laws is to supplement the general law by which the legislature delegates its own power to make them. If validly made such a bye-law has the force of law within the sphere of its legitimate operation. The function of such bye-laws is to supplement the general law by which the legislature delegates its own power to make them. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, (1967) 3 SCR 377 = ( AIR 1967 SC 1857 ) where this Court held the Board set up under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 54 of 1948, as a State within the meaning of Act.12 of the Constitution against which mandamus could issue under Art.226, emphasized the fact that the Act contained provisions which empowered the Board to issue directions, the disobedience of which was punishable as a penal offence. As observed earlier, under sections 8(2) and 20, the appellant-Corporation has been given the power to employ its own officers and other employees to the extent it thinks necessary on terms and conditions provided by it in regulations made under section 45. The regulations contain the terms and conditions which govern the relationship between the Corporation and its employees. Though made under the power conferred by the statute, they merely embody the terms and conditions of service to the Corporation but do not constitute a statutory restriction as to the kind of contracts which the Corporation can make with its servants or the grounds on which it can terminate them. That being so, and the Corporation having undoubtedly the power to dismiss its employees, the dismissal of the respondent was with jurisdiction, and although it was wrongful in the sense of its being in breach of the terms and conditions which governed the relationship between the Corporation and the respondent it did subsist. The present case, therefore, did not fall under any of the three well recognized exceptions and therefore, the respondent was only entitled to damages and not to the declaration that his dismissal was null and void." 13. Admittedly the plaintiff was neither a public servant, nor an employee involved in an industrial adjudication. Regulation 1976 does not have the force of law. 14. In view of the discussions made supra, the inescapable conclusion is that the case of the plaintiff does not fall in any of the exceptions pointed out by the apex Court. Admittedly the plaintiff was neither a public servant, nor an employee involved in an industrial adjudication. Regulation 1976 does not have the force of law. 14. In view of the discussions made supra, the inescapable conclusion is that the case of the plaintiff does not fall in any of the exceptions pointed out by the apex Court. The civil court does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement, as giving such relief would tantamount to enforcing the contract of personal service. 15. The charges were framed against the plaintiff. He denied the charges. He raised the protest for non-appointment of presenting officer. The same was overruled. But then, he participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the management witnesses. The documents were marked with consent. He did not challenge to the same. Merely because the result was not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and say that the enquiry officer was biased. 16. The plaintiff was functioning as a Manager of the Bank. He was supposed to depict financial integrity. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others v. P.C.Kakar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 , the apex Court held : "14. 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, (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 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. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance." 17. With regard to damages, there is neither any pleading nor evidence on record. 18. 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. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance." 17. With regard to damages, there is neither any pleading nor evidence on record. 18. Akola Electric Supply Co. (P) Ltd. is distinguishable on facts. The question arose before the apex Court about framing of gratuity scheme by an Industrial Tribunal, when an industry is on the verge of closure or after it has closed. 19. The decision in Sukhdev Singh is distinguishable on facts. The question arose as to whether Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Life Insurance Corporation are 'authorities' within the meaning and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. 20. In Ram Lakhan Sharma, the order of dismissal from service was set aside on the ground that the enquiry officer acted himself as prosecutor and judge in the disciplinary proceedings. When the suit is maintainable, question of delving deep into the matter does not arise at all. As held above, the plaintiff participated in the enquiry, cross-examined the management witnesses. No prejudice has been caused to him. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal, sans merits, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.