JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. Heard Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Pegu, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, passed by the respondent No. 2, thereby imposing a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. 3. In brief, the case projected by the petitioner is that he had joined service in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank w.e.f. 28.03.1985. He had served in various branches of the Bank in various capacities. While discharging his duty in Kosugaon Branch, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 02.09.2010, alleging commission of certain irregularities between 25.10.2003 to 24.09.2009 while posted at Serfanguri Branch. The petitioner projects that though he had submitted his show-cause reply, the management of the respondent Bank decided to hold an inquiry purportedly on the ground on non-receipt of show-cause reply. It is further projected that prior to the initiation of the inquiry, the respective customers in whose accounts the petitioner is alleged to have committed irregularities, had voluntarily deposited the differential amount with the respondent-Bank vide pay-in slips dated 08.06.2011, 14.06.2011, 25.10.2011, 26.10.2011 and 29.10.2012. Moreover, it is projected that over and above realizing the amounts from the four customers, the respondent Bank No. 1 had also realized a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the arrear salary of the petitioner, against the allegedly misappropriated amount and, as such, it is projected that the Bank had already realized twice of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the departmental inquiry was conducted without following proper procedure, and it was in violation of the prescribed Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that despite objection, the Inquiry Officer did not allow the petitioner to inspect any documents and moreover, despite earnest request, the Inquiry Officer had also not allowed the petitioner to cross examine the sole management witness. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner did not get a reasonable and/or adequate opportunity to properly defend himself. It is projected that the disciplinary inquiry was only an eye-wash. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner did not get a reasonable and/or adequate opportunity to properly defend himself. It is projected that the disciplinary inquiry was only an eye-wash. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer, without considering the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner, had proposed the punishment of removal from service. Moreover, by referring to the letter dated 20.11.2013, it is submitted that the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, without putting the petitioner to any notice in course of the domestic inquiry, illegally took note of his past service record. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said authority had relied upon extraneous materials to inflict harsh and disproportionate punishment of removal from service. It is further submitted that after mechanical and perfunctory personal hearing, the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, thereby imposing the punishment of removal from service was passed against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the notice dated 02.09.2010, which was initially served on the petitioner, the petitioner had clarified his position by his reply dated 29.09.2010. It is submitted that such stand was maintained by the petitioner all throughout. It is also submitted that prior to the commencement of the Disciplinary Inquiry, the concerned bank customers, namely, (i) Rishinath Narzary, and (ii) Ajit Kumar Brahma, had submitted their letter addressed to the General Manager of respondent No. 1 bank, admitting that the petitioner had acted as per their instructions. Moreover, it is submitted that vide letter dated 23.11.2010, the respondents had realized the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the arrear salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that when the concerned customers became aware that because the petitioner had acted as per their instructions, he was in trouble, vide the following pay-in-slips, viz., (i) slip dated 08.06.2011 for Rs. 17,500/-, (ii) slip dated 14.06.2011 for Rs. 5,000/-, (iii) slip dated 25.10.2011 for Rs. 10,000/-, (iv) slip dated 26.10.2011 for Rs. 10,000/-, and (v) slip dated 29.10.2012 for Rs. 10,000/-, the said customers had voluntarily deposited a total sum of Rs. 52,500/- with the respondent-Bank. 6. 17,500/-, (ii) slip dated 14.06.2011 for Rs. 5,000/-, (iii) slip dated 25.10.2011 for Rs. 10,000/-, (iv) slip dated 26.10.2011 for Rs. 10,000/-, and (v) slip dated 29.10.2012 for Rs. 10,000/-, the said customers had voluntarily deposited a total sum of Rs. 52,500/- with the respondent-Bank. 6. It is submitted that in his show cause reply and written statement of defence, the petitioner had clarified his position that the mistake was due to his lack of knowledge and ignorance and moreover, the concerned customers had admitted in writing that at their verbal request, payments were made to them by the petitioner and that having agreed to regularize their respective account, they had deposited the money with the bank, as such, the respondent No. 1 bank had not suffered any loss whatsoever. It is submitted that, however, the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority did not take cognizance of the admission made by the customers of the Bank that it was on the basis of their verbal instructions that the petitioner had allowed withdrawal of money from their respective account and moreover, the said authorities had also not taken note of the fact that there was no loss to the Bank as the entire amount had been deposited by the customers. It is submitted that the said authorities had also failed to take note of the fact that long before the enquiry was ordered, the respondent Bank had also realized a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner had suffered double jeopardy from the actions of the respondents. It is further submitted that while submitting his reply, the petitioner had denied all the charges made against him and it is also submitted that because the intentions of the petitioner was honest and bona fide, he had merely explained what was actually transpired. Moreover, it is submitted that the customers in whose accounts money was overdrawn had not made any complaint before the Bank, rather, they had admitted giving instructions to the petitioner for overdrawing of the amount from their account and on taking full responsibility of their instructions, the said four customers had also deposited money into their account to regularize the transactions. Hence, it is submitted that it was merely a mistake on the part of the petitioner to have acted in terms of the mandate of the concerned customer but without any intention to commit any fraud and that the Bank had not suffered any consequential loss and, as such the removal of the petitioner from service was unwarranted. 7. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases: (1) Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 539 , (2) The state of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506 , (3) Babul Barman v. The State of Assam, WP (C) 5451/2008, decided on 07.08.2015, (4) Anil Barua v. The State of Assam, WP (C) 172/2008 disposed of on 31.10.2013, (5) Mahendra Nath Das v. the State of Assam, C.R. No. 5307/1998, disposed of on 19.06.2002. 8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has made his submissions in support of the order impugned herein. He has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Cashier-cum-Clerk of the Serfanguri Branch at the relevant time and was holding a position of great responsibility and as the petitioner directly dealt with bank's money, he was required to discharge his duty faithfully and in accordance with the guidelines of the bank. It is submitted that it was not a good defence that the petitioner had acted on the basis of verbal instructions of the constituent customers of the Bank because by doing so, the petitioner had violated the bank's rule of dealing with money lying in customer's account. Moreover, it is submitted that if the transactions were honest and without any mala fide intention, the petitioner was not required to make unauthorised entries in the withdrawal slips, customer's ledger, cash book, sub-cash book, etc., without a specific written mandate from bank's customers. It is submitted that the petitioner had not denied that under his handwriting, entries were made in the sub-cash book, cash book, withdrawal slips and customer ledger accounts. It is submitted that as per the Articles of Charges framed by letter dated 12.04.2011, the manipulated transactions that were done by the petitioner in his own handwriting were as follows - (i) by entries made on 03.12.2004, the bank was defrauded of an amount of Rs. It is submitted that as per the Articles of Charges framed by letter dated 12.04.2011, the manipulated transactions that were done by the petitioner in his own handwriting were as follows - (i) by entries made on 03.12.2004, the bank was defrauded of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-; (ii) by entries dated 05.05.2005, the bank was defrauded of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-; (iii) by entries dated 16.07.2005, the bank was defrauded of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-; (iv) by entries dated 08.11.2008, the bank was defrauded of an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It is also submitted that only after Article of Charges were served on the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2011, a sum of Rs. 52,500/- came to be deposited in the bank on the dates as indicated herein before by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the defrauded money was enjoyed for a period ranging between 3 to 7 years. Moreover, the withdrawal of money in excess of the written mandate from the customer was not reported by the petitioner on the respective dates when such unauthorized entries were made in the customer accounts. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in making illegal and unauthorised entries in the books of the bank was sufficient for the bank to have lost their faith on the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no Rule in the respondent No. 1 Bank which authorizes verbal instructions to be acted upon while paying and/or withdrawing money from customer accounts. Therefore, there was no infirmity in removing the petitioner from service, with condition that the removal shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Accordingly, it was submitted that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Moreover, it is submitted that the reference to past conduct in the letter dated 20.11.2013 was a mere passing remark, which is not reflected in the impugned order of removal from service dated 30.12.2013. 9. It is submitted that Charge Sheet dated 12.04.2011 was issued in accordance with the Staff Service Regulation of the respondent No. 1 Bank, but the petitioner had not submitted his reply within the stipulated 15 days time, but the show cause reply was received in last week of September, 2011. 9. It is submitted that Charge Sheet dated 12.04.2011 was issued in accordance with the Staff Service Regulation of the respondent No. 1 Bank, but the petitioner had not submitted his reply within the stipulated 15 days time, but the show cause reply was received in last week of September, 2011. It is also submitted that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was present all throughout and he was assisted by CSE/DR who took active part in the enquiry proceedings held on 30.10.2012, 03.12.2012 and 11.12.2012 and that the copy of the management exhibits were furnished to the petitioner on 03.12.2012, and moreover, the Charge Sheet contained the list of documents on which the management intended to rely upon and it also disclosed the list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the management, as such, the learned senior counsel has submitted the departmental proceedings were not farce or an eye-wash as alleged, but the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with the extant rules. 10. In support of his submission from the learned Senior counsel for the respondent has relied on the following cases:— (i). Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (dead) through LRs. v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 , (ii). Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 , (iii). General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 233 , (iv). State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 , (v). Narendra Nath Bhalla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 775, (vi). Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669 , (vii). Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, (2006) 6 SCC 187 , (viii). Bank of India v. T. Jogram, (2007) 7 SCC 236 , (ix). Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF, (2006) 2 SCC 541 , (x). Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India, (2005) 1 SCC 13 , (xi). State of U.P. v. Nand Kishore Shukla, (1996) 3 SCC 750 , (xii). T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255 , (xiii). Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 88 , (xiv). Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , and (xv). Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12 . T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255 , (xiii). Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 88 , (xiv). Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , and (xv). Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12 . 11. At the outset it would be relevant to quote the 4 (four) articles of charges framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2011 and the stand of the petitioner in his show cause reply dated 15.05.2001: a. Articles of charges: 1. On 03.12.2004, an amount of Rs. 1500.00 was withdrawn by Sri. Birbal Basumatary from his SB A/C No. 4947/17, which was passed by Sri. Islamuddin Ali Ahmed, then BM. But, you with your malafide intention recorded the same in the Cash book as Rs. 11500.00 by pre-fixing “1”. Again in Sub-cash book, you recorded Rs. 1500.00 against SB A/C No. 4947/17. But to compensate the same you enhanced Rs. 10000.00 in SB A/C No. 5095/17 i.e. withdrawal of Rs. 1000.00 was recorded as Rs. 11000.00. All the entries were made by you. Thus, you defrauded the Bank's money to the extent of Rs. 10000.00 (Rupees ten thousand). 2. On 05.05.2005, the total of Debit side of the cash book was Rs. 217949.00, but with your ulterior motive you enhanced the total of debit side by Rs. 10000.00 i.e. Rs. 217949.00 was reported as Rs. 227949.00. In Sub-cash book, the figure of withdrawal of SB A/C No. 7404 was enhanced by Rs. 10000.00 i.e. actual withdrawal was Rs. 5000.00 and recorded as Rs. 15000.00 to compensate the defrauded amount. Thus, you defrauded the Bank's money to the extent of Rs. 10000.00 (Rupees ten thousand). 3. On 16.07.2005, Sri. Rishinath Narzary withdrew Rs. 5000.00 from his SB A/C No. 4851/17 by cheque No. 0849543, which was passed by Sri. Cornelius Mushahary, then BM, but you as/Cashier with your malafide intention recorded it in the cash book as Rs. 15000.00 by pre-fixing ‘1’. Again in Sub-cash book, you enhanced Rs. 10000.00 in the grand total of SB head i.e. actual total was Rs. 202150.00 but recorded as Rs. 212150.00. All the entries in cash book and Sub-cash book were made by you. Cash book was not signed by any officer but Sub-cash book was signed by Sri. Cornelius Mushahary, the then BM. Again in Sub-cash book, you enhanced Rs. 10000.00 in the grand total of SB head i.e. actual total was Rs. 202150.00 but recorded as Rs. 212150.00. All the entries in cash book and Sub-cash book were made by you. Cash book was not signed by any officer but Sub-cash book was signed by Sri. Cornelius Mushahary, the then BM. Thus, you defrauded the Bank's money to the extent of Rs. 10000.00 (Rupees ten thousand). 4. On 08.11.2008, you made payment of Rs. 20000.00 showing a forged withdrawal slip against SB A/C No. 1423/1 of Sri. Ajit Kumar Brahma in the cash book under Serial No. 55. The said withdrawal was neither passed by the officer nor recorded in Token Register and Ledger sheet. The withdrawal was written by you in your own handwriting and signature appeared in the withdrawal slip is also not similar with the recorded specimen signature of the depositor. Thus, you defrauded the Bank's money to the extent of Rs. 20000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand). b. Stand of the petitioner in the Written Statement of defence dated 15.05.2011, which is in verbatim reiterated in Written Statement of defence dated 19.07.2013: 1. In reply of charge No. 1: I am submitting that I am totally innocent in the matter and no act as alleged has been done by me willfully with intention to defraud bank's money. I truthfully state that the mistake done by me for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of S.B. A/C No. 4947/17 and S.B. A/C No. 5095/17 on 03.12.2004 was due to oversight and by bonafide mistake and I submit that I am ready to make good the losses, if any caused due to my bonafide mistake. With due respect it is humbly submitted for your consideration that both the account holder have not yet made any complaint against me or our bank regarding misappropriation of any amount or any shortage of amount in their accounts and this matter is between us only and I am ready to deposit the amount if I found guilty in the matter for my ignorance and bonafide mistake. 2. In reply of charge No. 2: I beg to state in my defence that on 05.05.2005, in connection S.B. A/C No. 7404 the actual withdrawal was Rs. 15,000/- by the account holder and I have not defrauded the Bank's money. 2. In reply of charge No. 2: I beg to state in my defence that on 05.05.2005, in connection S.B. A/C No. 7404 the actual withdrawal was Rs. 15,000/- by the account holder and I have not defrauded the Bank's money. I further submit that there may be mistake from my side at the time of mentioning the amount in Sub-cash Book due to bonafide mistake which may be compensated by money but taking into consideration of my 25 years long faithful service, which I humbly request you that any drastic step against me may kindly be not taken as I have no other source of income and my family is fully dependent upon in my job and at this stage of my life if I will thrown out or discharge from my service in that event I will suffer a lot along with my family. That Sir, I am local inhabitant with a history of good reputation of myself in my job and except one or two laches which has been done by me due to ignorance but not willfully, if any drastic step would be taken against me then I will become totally ruined. 3. In reply of charge No. 3: I faithfully state that I have not defrauded bank's money to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged and all the allegations are denied by me I state that actually Sri. Rishinath Narzary withdrawn an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 16.07.2005 but he issued a cheque bearing No. 0849543 of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- but being a regular customer of our bank but sometime in emergency he used to get facility of withdrawing, some amount over telephone which we used to pay him and on 16.07.2005 Sri. Rishinath Narzary requested me over telephone that he intended to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,000/- but inadvertently he mentioned in his cheque an amount of Rs. 5,000/- only and he requested me to extend the cheque amount upto Rs. 15,000/- and I had done accordingly in good faith as he assured me to regularize the papers later on but I forget to take the papers afterwards. That Sir, Sri. Rishinath Narzary by his letter addressed to the General Manager A.G.V.B. Guwahati also confirmed the above statement. That the letter of Sri. Rishinath Narzary is enclosed herewith my written statement. 4. That Sir, Sri. Rishinath Narzary by his letter addressed to the General Manager A.G.V.B. Guwahati also confirmed the above statement. That the letter of Sri. Rishinath Narzary is enclosed herewith my written statement. 4. In reply of charge No. 4: I submit that on 08.11.2008 I have not made any payment of Rs. 20,000/- on false withdrawal slip against S.B. A/C No. 1423/1 of Sri. Ajit Kr. Brahma in the cash book under Sl. No. 55 as alleged. That Sir, Sri. Ajit Kr. Brahma has not made any complaint to our bank till date rather he by addressing a letter to G.M. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, head office, Guwahati-5 has confirmed that he himself withdrew an amount of Rs. 20,000/- after requesting me over telephone. Sir, being a regular good customer of our bank he took preference some time on the basis of his good will from our bank in respect of withdrawal of amount from his account over telephone also. Sir in this regard I, being a sincere employee of your bank, request you to ignore my mistakes or irregularities which I had done due to bonafide mistake. 12. Thus, from the written statement, there is no room for doubt that the petitioner has admitted that he had committed mistake of making entries in customer's ledger accounts without proper, lawful and valid written mandate in accordance with the banking norms. It is not the stand of the petitioner that he had the power and authority to disburse money to customers on verbal instructions. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner had assumed powers to disburse money without even a written mandate from the 4 (four) customers as indicated herein. Such manipulated entries were made in the customer's ledger account and in the cash book and sub-cash book of the bank without reporting such entries to the management or to his superior authority, i.e. the Branch Manager. Thus, it appears that the petitioner had carved out his own little empire within the bank branch and acted without authority, and that the money was returned only after charge-sheet dated 12.04.2011 was served on the petitioner. 13. In this connection, it is seen that in the case of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court of India that the proof of loss to the bank is not necessary and upheld the punishment of dismissal from service. 13. In this connection, it is seen that in the case of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court of India that the proof of loss to the bank is not necessary and upheld the punishment of dismissal from service. It was observed in paragraph 7 as follows:— “7] … In the case of a bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organisation - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees 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 Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable.” 14. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable.” 14. In the case of Prabhakar Chaturvedi (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court of India that “… when respondent No. 1 was guilty of misappropriation of such a large amount of Rs. 21,000/- and odd for couple of months it could not be said that punishment of dismissal as imposed on him was in any way uncalled for or was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct proved against respondent No. 1.” 15. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), while dealing with a case of departmental enquiry, the Supreme Court of India had held in that “…the effect of the admission regarding guilt as contained in the letters dated 13-1-1989 and 24-2-1989 have not been considered in the proper perspective. It is a fairly settled position in law that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. It is, however, open to the person making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted upon.” 16. In the case of T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that - “…The scope of judicial review is very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. In the instant case, respondent employee is found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation 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 therefor with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary and appellate authority.” 17. In the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur (supra), the delinquent employee had sanctioned a loan to his wife in violation of the Rules. However, he had himself stopped payment of the cheque and, as such, his wife did not receive the loan amount. In the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur (supra), the delinquent employee had sanctioned a loan to his wife in violation of the Rules. However, he had himself stopped payment of the cheque and, as such, his wife did not receive the loan amount. Yet on admission of guilt before the appellate authority, the punishment of reduction of his salary at one stage was altered and enhanced to one of removal of service and such punishment was upheld by the Supreme Court of India, even when there was no loss to the bank and when before any benefit was actually derived by the wife of the delinquent, because the sanction of loan was in violation of Rules. 18. On facts, the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the present case in hand. In the said case, the delinquent employee was found absent from duty for 25 minutes, and he was awarded 10 day's punishment drill and confinement to cell. In the departmental proceeding, the concerned Commandant had himself appeared as witness and proved the disobedience of his orders as well as the punishment imposed by him and then he also passed the order of dismissing the delinquent from service and thus, became judge of his own cause and moreover, the Supreme Court had also held that the punishment for remaining absent from duty for 25 minutes was itself bad in law and, as such, registering protest by the delinquent could not be said to be justified and accordingly, the punishment was interfered with and he was given the benefit of 50% of his wages from the date of his removal till his date of superannuation with retirement benefits. As regards past conduct of the delinquent, the Supreme Court had held as under:— “35] This Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra, (2009) 13 SCC 102 , considered the earlier judgments of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, AIR 1963 SC 1612 , India Marine Service (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 528 , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506 , Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar, (1998) 3 SCC 192 : AIR 1998 SC 948 ; Director General, RPF v. Sai Babu, (2003) 4 SCC 331 , Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489 ; and Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali, (2007) 8 SCC 656 and came to the conclusion that it is desirable that the delinquent employee be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct could be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. However, in case of misconduct of a grave nature, even in the absence of statutory rules, the Authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the delinquent for “adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the fact of the case so required.” * * * [37] In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusions:— * * * X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. * * * XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally be taken into account to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee. XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave nature that under no circumstance can the past conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be taken into consideration.” 19. Thus, from the herein before quoted parts of paragraph 35 and 37, it is seen that while the past conduct, which was not a part of the charges cannot be the basis to punish the delinquent employee, but it is quite permissible that the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the delinquent for “adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the fact of the case so required”. This had exactly taken place in this case. The letter dated 20.11.2013 amounts to second notice. By the said notice, the petitioner was informed about the tentative decision to impose the punishment of “removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”, and reference was made to the past record of the petitioner. However, in the order dated 30.12.2013, impugned herein the past record did not form the basis of imposing the punishment, rather, there is no reference to the past record of the petitioner in the said order dated 30.12.2013. However, in the order dated 30.12.2013, impugned herein the past record did not form the basis of imposing the punishment, rather, there is no reference to the past record of the petitioner in the said order dated 30.12.2013. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by a mere mention of his past record in the second notice dated 20.11.2013, which was essentially to inform the petitioner about the tentative decision and to call him for giving a personal hearing before actual imposition of any punishment. For the same reasons the ratio of the case Babul Barman (supra) do not apply under the facts of this case. However, it is in the said context, that the decision rendered in the case of K. Manche Gowda (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner justifies the punishment imposed on the petitioner, notwithstanding that in the second notice dated 20.11.2013, reference was made to the past service record. The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 thereof is quoted below:— “7] Under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action: see the decision of this Court in the State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Civil Appeal No. 832 of 1962 D/- 12-2-1963: ( AIR 1963 SC 1612 ). If the grounds are not given in the notice, it would be well nigh impossible for him to predicate what is operating on the mind of the authority concerned in proposing a particular punishment: he would not be in a position to explain why he does not deserve any punishment at all or that the punishment proposed is excessive. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a Government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government servant. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a Government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government servant. It would be no answer to suggest that every Government servant must have had knowledge of the fact that his past record would necessarily be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him; nor would it be an adequate answer to say that he knew as a matter of fact that the earlier punishments were imposed on him or that he knew of his past record. This contention misses the real point, namely, that, what the Government servant is entitled to is not the knowledge of certain facts but the fact that those facts will be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him. It is not possible for him to know what period of his past record or what acts or omissions of his in a particular period would be considered. If that fact was brought to his notice, he might explain that he had no knowledge of the remarks of his superior officers, that he had adequate explanation to offer for the alleged remarks or that his conduct subsequent to the remarks had been exemplary or at any rate approved by the superior officers. Even if the authority concerned took into consideration only the facts for which he was punished, it would be open to him to put forward before the said authority many mitigating circumstances or some other explanation why those punishments were given to him or that subsequent to the punishments he had served to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned till the time of the present enquiry. He may have many other explanations. The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of “presumptive knowledge” or that of “purposeless enquiry”, as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of “reasonable opportunity”. He may have many other explanations. The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of “presumptive knowledge” or that of “purposeless enquiry”, as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of “reasonable opportunity”. We, therefore, hold that it is incumbent upon the authority to give the Government servant at the second stage reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment and if the proposed punishment is also based on his previous punishments or his previous bad record, this should be included in the second notice so that he may be able to give an explanation. [8] Before we close, it would be necessary to make one point clear. It is suggested that the past record of a Government servant, if it is intended to be relied upon for imposing a punishment, should be made specific charge in the first stage of the enquiry itself and if it is not so done, it cannot be relied upon after the enquiry is closed and the report is submitted to the authority entitled to impose the punishment. An enquiry against a Government servant is one continuous process, though for convenience it is done in two stages. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is only recommendatory in nature and the final authority which scrutinizes it and imposes punishment is the authority empowered to impose the same. Whether a particular person has a reasonable opportunity or not depends, to some extent, upon the nature of the subject matter of the enquiry. But it is not necessary in this case to decide whether such previous record can be made the subject matter of charge at the first stage of the enquiry. But nothing in law prevents the punishing authority from taking that fact into consideration during the second stage of the enquiry, for essentially it relates more to the domain of punishment rather than to that of guilt. But what is essential is that the Government servant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to know that fact and meet the same. [9] In the present case the second show cause notice does not mention that the Government intended to take his previous punishments into consideration in proposing to dismiss him from service. But what is essential is that the Government servant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to know that fact and meet the same. [9] In the present case the second show cause notice does not mention that the Government intended to take his previous punishments into consideration in proposing to dismiss him from service. On the contrary, the said notice put him on the wrong scent, for it told him that it was proposed to dismiss him from service as the charges proved against him were grave. But, a comparison of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order of dismissal shows that but for the previous record of the Government servant, the Government might not have imposed the penalty of dismissal on him and might have accepted the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and the Public Service Commission. This order, therefore, indicates that the show cause notice did not give the only reason which influenced the Government to dismiss the respondent from service. This notice clearly contravened the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution as interpreted by Court.” 20. In this case, in view of the admission made by the petitioner in his written statement as extracted herein before, assuming that the “enquiry report” had not been furnished to him, the same has not caused any prejudice because the petitioner had admitted his involvement in the actions referred to in the charges framed against him. Moreover, there is no document on record showing that the petitioner had made any request to the Disciplinary Authority to provide him with enquiry report, as such, the ratio of the case of Mahendra Nath Das (supra), cited by the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. Moreover, there is no document on record showing that the petitioner had made any request to the Disciplinary Authority to provide him with enquiry report, as such, the ratio of the case of Mahendra Nath Das (supra), cited by the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. Moreover, in view of the admission of guilt by the petitioner, the ratio of the cited case of Anil Kumar Barua (supra) also does not help the petitioner, because in the said case, this Court was of the opinion that the actions of the delinquent was not done on his own, but at the behest of the Board of Directors, which is not so in this case in hand and the petitioner took a grave risk of violating the existing rules of the Bank and disbursed more money than what was actually written in the mandate of the customers by manipulating the entries, amounting to falsification of customer ledger accounts, withdrawal slips, cash book and sub-c ash book. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to show any rules of the Bank that permitted disbursement of money on verbal or telephonic instructions from the customer. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that prior to the initiation of disciplinary inquiry, the alleged misappropriated money had been recovered twice, from the customers and also from the petitioner. In this regard, the Court is of the opinion that even if such money is deposited, the act of such subsequent return of money does not absolve the petitioner of the misconduct. In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84 , the Supreme Court of India had held that the manager of a bank who had indulged in unauthorized withdrawals, subsequently returned the amount with interest, yet his conduct of unauthorized withdrawals amounted to a serious misconduct. Similar is the situation in the present case in hand. 22. Thus, no case is made out for arriving at a conclusion different from that of the Disciplinary Authority. It would be appropriate to mention herein that in the case of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra), the Supreme Court of India had taken notice of collapse of Barings Bank. Even in recent times, the non-adherence and/or bending of bank's rules has allowed huge money of several nationalized banks to be siphoned out of the Country. It would be appropriate to mention herein that in the case of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra), the Supreme Court of India had taken notice of collapse of Barings Bank. Even in recent times, the non-adherence and/or bending of bank's rules has allowed huge money of several nationalized banks to be siphoned out of the Country. In the case of State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi, (2005) 7 SCC 435 , the Supreme Court of India had held that a bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and integrity. He is concerned with the deposits of the customers of the Bank and he cannot permit the deposits to be tinkered with in any manner. 23. In the case of General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held as follows:— “41] At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A Bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a Bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the Bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the Bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the Bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the Bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower's account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other Bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected.” 24. It is well settled that normally when disciplinary proceedings has been initiated and findings of fact have been recorded in such inquiry, they cannot be interfered with unless such findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, or are such that no reasonable man may have reached. In the present case in hand, based on the facts proved in the disciplinary inquiry, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be harsh, unjustified or disproportionate. Hence, the doctrine of proportionality invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be allowed. In the present case in hand, based on the facts proved in the disciplinary inquiry, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be harsh, unjustified or disproportionate. Hence, the doctrine of proportionality invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be allowed. In this regard, this Court finds support from the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank (supra). 25. In view of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to show leniency on the punishment meted out to the petitioner. Rather, if leniency is shown, it would amount to give premium to the petitioner, who had admitted making the illegal and unauthorised entries in the books of the bank and in the customer ledger accounts and allowed withdrawal of money without having such power or authority and without bringing it to the notice of the Branch Manager or to any of his other superior officers before permitting such withdrawal. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. Accordingly, the Rule issued by order dated 31.03.2014 stands discharged in terms of this order. 26. No cost.