JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. Assailing the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Disciplinary authority & Appellate authority, the instant writ application has been filed for quashing of the finding of the Inquiry Officer vide Annexure-3 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority under Annexures-5 and 7. 2. The brief facts which are germane to the writ application are required to be stated infra. The petitioner initially joined in the Union Bank of India in the year 1984 in the post of Casher-cum-Clerk and after his joining, he has discharged his duty to the utmost satisfaction of his authority without any blemish. While continuing as such at Ambagaon branch as Clerk-cum-Cashier a memorandum of charges for certain omission and commission and irregularities were served on the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. The gravamen of the charge is quoted herein below: (i) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving or likely to involve the bank in monetary loss. (ii) Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank. (iii) Engaging trade/business outside the scope of his duties. (iv) Breach of rule of business of the Bank or instruction for running of any department. In response to the alleged charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges in toto. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Inquiry Officer was appointed and after inquiry, inquiry report was submitted along with suggestion for punishment. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply on proposed punishment and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the order of punishment on the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary authority the petitioner preferred appeal before the opposite party No. 5 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal thereby confirming the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the perfunctory findings of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate authority the petitioner has filed the instant writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Being aggrieved by the perfunctory findings of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate authority the petitioner has filed the instant writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Bank wherein it has been submitted that on the basis of charge sheet a Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the petitioner participated in the said enquiry by submitting his written defence along with documents. He has also cross-examined the management witnesses. The Inquiry officer after going through the documents and the reply of both the parties has finally given its finding by holding that charge No. 1 is proved, charge no. 2 is partly proved and charge no. 3 has not been proved. The said finding of the Inquiry Officer was communicated to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate action in this regard as per the provisions of the Bank and the Disciplinary Authority upon consideration of the said finding and by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after going through the evidence submitted by both the parties was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct and accordingly passed the order as per Annexure-5 to the writ application i.e., order of compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank with superannuation benefit without disqualification from the future employment and stoppage of one increment for a period of six months. Both the punishment will run concurrently. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority nor the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the said findings and orders do not warrant any interference. Further, it has been submitted that in the matter of domestic enquiry more particularly, on proportionality of punishment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases in relation to banking institution has specifically held that any employee found guilty of the charges in a departmental enquiry which constitutes grave misconduct, in such cases dismissal is the proper punishment. In a disciplinary matter the proper test is wednesbury principle. 4. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend his case. In a disciplinary matter the proper test is wednesbury principle. 4. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend his case. The finding of the Inquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are perverse being based on no evidence on record and contrary to the materials on record. Even otherwise the impugned punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. Further it has been submitted that the Inquiry Officer conducted enquiry in a casual manner. Upon such enquiry report, the order of punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed by the opposite party no. 4 and the appeal preferred before the opposite party no. 5 was rejected which was the result of non-application of mind. 5. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate authority on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has gone beyond the allegations made in the Article of charge No. 1 and given-findings in the matter which is not the subject matter of charge sheet. Further, the learned counsel submits that the conclusion given in Charge No. 1 is contrary to the charge sheet and even foreign to the Charge sheet Hence the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer in charge No. 1 with partly proved is based on no evidence and perverse. Therefore, punishment imposed based on the said findings will not be sustainable in the eye of law. Learned senior counsel further submits that there has been flagrant violation of Clauses of Chapter-33 relating to disciplinary matter of the service Regulation. The third ground of challenge is that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice since the petitioner has been awarded punishment on the allegation which are not part of the charge sheet. Therefore, the charge sheet is a vague one. Apart from the challenging the infirmity in the charge sheet learned senior counsel submits that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. It would be profitable to refer the decision in this regard reported in (2017) 4 SCC Page 507 (Para-15 and 19) (Central Industrial Security Force v. Akbar Ali). Apart from the challenging the infirmity in the charge sheet learned senior counsel submits that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. It would be profitable to refer the decision in this regard reported in (2017) 4 SCC Page 507 (Para-15 and 19) (Central Industrial Security Force v. Akbar Ali). During the course of hearing learned senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner by referring to Charge No. 1 submitted that the Charge No. 1 pertains to the allegation that the petitioner having entered into an agreement for sale of his property i.e., House No. FI.116 at Basanti Colony, Rourkela mortgaged with the bank with Smt. Arati Giri wife of Sri R.K. Giri in gross violation of Housing Loan Scheme of the Bank. The Inquiring Officer in' its finding though stated that there is no sale agreement of the sale of property at Basanti Colony, Rourkela i.e. House No. FL-116 at Basanti - Colony, Rourkela, but curiously made inquiry of a property situated at Balasore which is not part of the charge. Since the said property is not the Bank's property, no possession has been given. On perusal of the inquiry report, It is quite apparent that the Inquiry Officer has clearly stated that damage to the property of the Bank is save. Therefore, none of the allegation made in the charge sheet under heading gross misconduct (1) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank in monetary loss (2) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of Bank (3) Engaging in trade/business outside the scope of his duties and minor Misconduct (1) Breach of rule of business of the Bank or instructions for running of any department have been proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is contrary to the evidence and hence not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned senior counsel also submits that it is settled proposition of law in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. In order to fortify his submission referred the decisions reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 (para-8) (Allahabad bank and others Vs. In order to fortify his submission referred the decisions reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 (para-8) (Allahabad bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari), 2017 (1) OLR 251 (Chandramohan Singh Vs. Chairman, Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Limited and others) and (2015) 2 SCC 610 (Para-12) Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekharan. It is also the submission of the learned senior Counsel with regard to the contention that there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as provided in Chapter-33 of the Service Regulation submits that if the initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In this regard he referred the decision reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 , Coal India Ltd. and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others and 2016 (1) OLR 602 (Niroj Kumar Das Vs. United Bank of India) With regard to Charge No. 2 learned senior counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer has given his finding that the allegation is not proved and the 3rd charge is also not proved Therefore, the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of gross misconduct is perverse and contrary to the findings based on no evidence. 6. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the bank vociferously submitted that despite opportunity given to the petitioner he is choosing not to produce any defence witness, which is reflected in the internal page-13 of the Inquiry report. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that in the internal page 15 of the Inquiry report reveals that the Inquiry Officer has mentioned that the fact of sale agreement made by the petitioner that Smt. Arati Giri wife of Mr. Rajkishore Giri on land and house of property acquired by availing bank's housing loan without obtaining prior permission from the Bank violating the rules and service conduct of a bank employee cannot be denied and also dealing of unauthorized cash transaction for sale of the house mortgaged with Bank and thereafter not giving possession of the property is a decisive act and which is established in course of enquiry by documentary evidence and deposition of Management witness. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that the price consideration is the paramount consideration which is expected from the employee of a Bank. Learned counsel further submits that in P.C. Kakkar Vs. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that the price consideration is the paramount consideration which is expected from the employee of a Bank. Learned counsel further submits that in P.C. Kakkar Vs. UCO Bank case their Lordships of the apex Court held that discipline at the work place is a sine qua-non of every employee, whoever violates, dismissal is the proper punishment. In every banking institution every employee should act with honesty, diligently because the customers repose faith and confidence who deals with the public money. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that in the matter relating to disciplinary authority whether punishment imposed is proportionate or disproportionate, the real test to arrive at i.e. the Wednesbury principle. If that test is applied, the Court plays a secondary role as has been articulated by the Hon'ble apex Court vide 2001 LIC 304 (SC) Para 39, 41, 47 and 71.) 7. After having given my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of interference due, to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement. (i) Looking to the charge sheet and the finding of the Inquiry Officer, there appears that the charge of gross misconduct of engagement in business outside the scope of the duties, has not been proved. But with regard to gross misconduct doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank in monetary loss has been proved to the extent that he has not entered into an agreement for mortgage with the Bank without permission and willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank is partly proved. Therefore, breach of rules of business or instruction of running of any department has not been proved. Basing on the inquiry report the punishment has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. From the initiation of proceeding till its culmination apart from vague charges with regard to property at Basanti Colony, Rourkela instead of property at Sahadevkhunta in Balasore, the allegation of misconduct has been proved in the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It is a settled position of law that the scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of Disciplinary proceeding is very limited. It is a settled position of law that the scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of Disciplinary proceeding is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if finds the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. In such a case the Court can remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment. The question of interference with the quantum of punishment has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of judgment and it has been held that the punishment is proportionate to the charges imposition violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2386 in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and others has been pleased to observed as under: 14. In the case of Ranjit Thakur (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:- "But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be 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 in defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review." 15. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), after examining earlier decisions, the Supreme Court observed that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the Court cannot "normally" substitute its own conclusion or penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority "shocks the conscience" of the Court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 17. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rests at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. 17. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rests at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order of punishment is by an means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment inasmuch as it is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in determining the awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so outrageously disproportionate to the charges of misconduct and the Court considers it to be arbitrary and wholly unreasonable. The superior Courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. Where punishment is excessive or disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience of the Court and is unacceptable even then Courts should be slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject is well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court. 18. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that 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 even as to the sentence is in defiance of logic, then the quantum of sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity, observed this Court, are recognized grounds of judicial review. (iii) On perusal of the order of the appellate authority the same has been passed in cryptic manner bereft of any cogent reason. In this connection, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 and paragraph-19 of the said judgment appears to be relevant, which is quoted here-in-below: "19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order." In the aforesaid factual backdrop coupled with the reasons and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-5 and the order of the appellate authority vide Annexure-7 appears to be grossly disproportionate to the charges proved and not commensurate with the charges proved. They are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly the impugned punishment under Annexure-5 and the appellate order under Annexure-7 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the opposite party-bank to pass order on the quantum of punishment commensurate with proved charges within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands allowed.