JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order of punishment dated 29.01.2001 under Annexure-6, the consequential order of the appellate authority dated 31.07.2001 under Annexure-7 and also the review order dated 29.11.2002 under Annexure-8, further also seeking a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all consequential service benefits. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner while discharging his duty as Branch Manager in MMGS-II, State Bank of Hydrabad GCP, Bhubaneswar Branch, the Disciplinary Authority/General Manager (Operation) served a charge memo dated 16.09.1998 on the petitioner making therein the allegation involving the petitioner that during his service tenure from 26th of June, 1995 to 27th September, 1997, he failed to discharge duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence. Petitioner was called upon to furnish his written statement in response to charge memo, which the petitioner submitted on 17.11.1998 denying the allegations leveled against him. Petitioner disclosed that during his tenure as Branch Manager at G. Prasad Branch, Bhubaneswar, he brought the loss making Branch into profit after 5 years of its opening. It is only involving such result the petitioner was conferred with the prestigious Managing Director's award. Petitioner also contended that he acted upon with good faith and with clear anxiety to develop the business of the Institution by taking certain business risk in the interest of the Bank and all his intention was to bring the Branch into a greater height. While the defence of the petitioner was pending consideration of the opposite parties he was served with another charge-sheet framing certain additional charges on 10.07.1999. The petitioner alleged that he was not intimated regarding the development on his defence on both the occasions but however in the meantime the Enquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 11.12.1998 and 30.08.1999 passed by the General Manager (operation). Petitioner also alleged that he was never communicated regarding such appointment. During inquiry the petitioner called for certain document in order to substantiate his defence in the inquiry clearly indicating therein that unless the relevant documents are not supplied he will be prejudiced and will not be in a position to defend his case in the inquiry proceeding. Petitioner also alleged that he was never communicated regarding such appointment. During inquiry the petitioner called for certain document in order to substantiate his defence in the inquiry clearly indicating therein that unless the relevant documents are not supplied he will be prejudiced and will not be in a position to defend his case in the inquiry proceeding. It is alleged that in spite of several request no documents were supplied to the petitioner and under compelling circumstance the petitioner was constrained to participate in the inquiry but in absence of supply of relevant documents. The petitioner also alleged that he was not even allowed by the Enquiry Officer to examine witnesses in the inquiry. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the Manager and even the petitioner has not been allowed to examine himself. It is only on the basis of the statement made by the Management, its witness and the document produced by the Management, the Enquiry Officer came to find that the allegation against the petitioner has been proved. Petitioner also alleged that the inquiry report only relies on the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2002. Petitioner contended that report vide Annexure-4 is in violation of the principle of natural justice besides the same, the report also appears to be an ex parte one. It is thus alleged that based on such defective inquiry report the Disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment thereby directing for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Bank service and also directing therein for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as token recovery towards loss incurred to the Bank. Petitioner also alleged that before imposition of the penalty the Disciplinary authority should have given an opportunity to show cause. It is thus alleged that the order of penalty suffers on account of gross violation of the natural justice. Petitioner while also challenging the order of the Disciplinary authority only on the premises of copy paste of the findings of the Enquiry Officer also alleged that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its independent mind while passing the order of punishment vide Annexure-6. Petitioner while also challenging the order of the Disciplinary authority only on the premises of copy paste of the findings of the Enquiry Officer also alleged that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its independent mind while passing the order of punishment vide Annexure-6. It further reveals that the petitioner preferred appeal raising all the above allegations but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by its order dated 31.07.2001 in total non-consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner, on the other hand it appears, the appeal has been dismissed on the sole ground that the irregularities committed by the petitioner are so serious and hence, it does not require any interference in the order of punishment. The order of the appellate authority is appearing at Annexure-7. The petitioner filed review on 19.10.2001. After receiving the notice in the Writ Petition in its pre-amendment stage, the opposite party no.1 without taking into consideration the ground reality rejected the review application hurriedly and arbitrarily. Copy of which was received by the petitioner on 12.12.2002 vide Annexure-8 and brought by way of amendment of the Writ Petition. 3. Assailing the orders vide Annexures-6, 7 & 8 Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the ground of defence by the petitioner more particularly the inquiry report suffers on account of non-supply of document applied for, not providing opportunity of examination of the delinquent, not providing opportunity of show cause before imposition of punishment and the appeal order suffers on account of non-consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, also submitted that the Reviewing Authority even did not comply the provision of State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 hereinafter in short be called as "the Regulation, 1979", which requires, the Reviewing Authority should dispose of the review by calling for the records of the case before passing the final order. It is alleged that the reviewing authority has not followed the statutory rules. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority and the Reviewing Authority have not taken into account that in the meantime 90% of the irregularities mentioned in the charge-sheet have already been regularized. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that during incumbency of the petitioner in the G. Prasad Branch, Bhubaneswar, the Bank was running with huge loss. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that during incumbency of the petitioner in the G. Prasad Branch, Bhubaneswar, the Bank was running with huge loss. It is for the great efforts of the petitioner the Bank got into profit making institution. For which the petitioner has been awarded by the A.G.M, D.G.M, the M.D. and also by the District Collector. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that during pendency of the above proceeding, the petitioner was allowed to attend the interview for promotion to the post of Middle Manager-II to M.M-III Cadre for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the result involving such interview particularly involving the petitioner has been kept in sealed cover. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also alleged that there has been some illegal adjustment from the provident fund account of the petitioner unilaterally. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner further alleged that the Disciplinary authority did not realize the request of the petitioner to change the Enquiry Officer as he was anticipating, not to get justice in the inquiry and continued with such Enquiry Officer who even did not record the statement of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is also unknown to law. Referring to clause 67 of the Regulation called as State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the regulation 67 prescribes, any one or more of the penalties may be imposed on an Officer for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason. Similarly learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the Clause 67(1) of the regulation speaks of compulsory retirement as a major penalty, whereas clause 68 of the regulation 1979 says that the Disciplinary authority himself or whom directed by his superior authority may institute a disciplinary proceeding against the Officer. It further provides that it may also impose any of the penalties specified in the Regulation 67 of the Regulation 1979. Referring to the above provisions of the Regulation, 1979, Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify his allegation. It further provides that it may also impose any of the penalties specified in the Regulation 67 of the Regulation 1979. Referring to the above provisions of the Regulation, 1979, Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify his allegation. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also referring to the provision at regulation 67 contended that when the provision prescribes imposition of major penalty by appointing authority on the recommendation made by the disciplinary authority, in the case at hand the impugned order of penalty of compulsory retirement was passed by the General Manager who works two stages below than the appointing authority. It is, therefore alleged that the General Manager had no authority to impose such punishment and thus the impugned order of punishment ought to be interfered with and set aside. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also alleged that the authority did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner belongs to middle Manager-II to M.M-III Cadre. It is, in the above circumstances Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for setting aside of the impugned orders vide Annexures-6, 7 & 8 and to grant consequential relief. 4. Sri Sakti Prasad Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.1 to 6, on the other hand while disputing each of the allegations made by the petitioner referring to the counter statement of the opposite parties-Bank institution in their counter affidavit contended that allegations that the first charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner all on a sudden is false and incorrect. Sri Das contended that it is after noticing series of irregularities committed by the petitioner involving several banking aspects many of which irregularities came to the light during visit of Assistant General Manager to the Branch and also during audit of the Branch, petitioner was initially called for explanation. In the meantime, certain other irregularities involving the petitioner could also come to the notice of the authority and the petitioner again was asked to file show-cause. The issue also involved the preliminary enquiry resulting in placing the petitioner under suspension. It also involved a special audit. Shri Das submitted that replies of the petitioner being not satisfied, charge-sheets were issued on 16.09.1998 and 10.07.1999 respectively. The issue also involved the preliminary enquiry resulting in placing the petitioner under suspension. It also involved a special audit. Shri Das submitted that replies of the petitioner being not satisfied, charge-sheets were issued on 16.09.1998 and 10.07.1999 respectively. To the allegation of the petitioner that he was not afforded with opportunity to show-cause, Sri Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 6 referring to counter response also contended that originally the bank gave the petitioner fifteen days time to submit his reply and on consideration of his request for grant of more time, time was also extended for another fifteen days with permission to the petitioner to verify the records at the Branch for two days. Only after the response of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for departmental enquiry by making appointment of the Enquiry Authority as well as the Presenting Officer. On the allegation that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner, Sri Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 6 contended that not only the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner but the same was also made following a meticulous system as well as procedure required in such matters. Petitioner participated in the inquiry taking assistance of another Senior Officer of the Bank. He has also submitted his defence in proof. Allegation with regard to non-supply of documents is also claimed to be false on the premises that petitioner was given sufficient time to verify records at the Branch office and it is all through after completion of the management's case again the petitioner was given one day time to verify the records for cross-examination to the defending Officer. It is also contended that petitioner had never raised any objection with regard to non-supply of material or non-performance of any procedure during the entire enquiry proceeding. Allegation that the petitioner was not given chance to examine the witness on his behalf is also stoutly denied. Sri Das, learned counsel in addition to the above contended that in the departmental enquiry representative of the petitioner rather made a clear statement that he is not going to present any witness on behalf of the defence. Allegation of not giving scope for cross-examination is also seriously objected. Sri Das, learned counsel in addition to the above contended that in the departmental enquiry representative of the petitioner rather made a clear statement that he is not going to present any witness on behalf of the defence. Allegation of not giving scope for cross-examination is also seriously objected. It is, on the other hand contended that the defence representative not only cross-examined the witness of the management on 30.12.1999, 19.01.2000, 21.01.2000 and 24.01.2000 but he also availed the opportunity of further cross-examination of such witness on 21.01.2000. This apart, petitioner also presented 13 exhibits, which are marked as TE-12 to DE-11. Sri Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 6 also submitted that it is only based on the findings of the enquiry authority and the materials available on record, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty. Claim of the petitioner on non-supply of documents is also objected on the premises that each of the documents relied on by the Management were handed over to the defence on a day today basis. Filing additional counter affidavit on the amended prayer involving the Writ Petition, the Bank authorities submitted that there is no rejection of the review application filed by the petitioner hurriedly. Allegation of the petitioner that he attended the interview for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade-III Cadre for the year 1998-99 and 2000 during the period of inquiry and the result is kept in sealed cover has absolutely no bearing on the inquiry and as per Service Rule for the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding results involving such interviews are ordinarily kept in sealed cover. But however, for the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, there was no occasion on the part of the management to declare such result. For the information made through the additional affidavit involving acquittal of the petitioner from a CBI case, the petitioner claimed such result has a bearing on the disciplinary proceeding. Filing counter affidavit to such additional affidavit, the opposite parties contended that charges framed involving both the cases may have been linked but the method followed in both the proceedings since completely different, the Bank authority contended that giving a benefit of doubt by the CBI court, has no bearing on the enquiry, disposal of which is based on the materials and the findings available therein. In their defence, the opposite parties have relied on the following decisions, which are quoted hereunder: 1) The Disciplinary - cum - Regional Manager and others -Vrs- Nikunja Bihari Pattnaik, (1997) 83 CutLT 533 (SC) (2) Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur -Vrs- State Bank of India and others, (2005) AIR SC 314 . (3) Ch. Laxmikantham -Vrs- The Chairman, State Bank of India and others, (2006) 101 CutLT 65 . (4) State Bank of India - Vrs- S. Vijay Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481 . 4. Looking to the petitioner's challenge to the imposition of penalty vide Annexure-6 being passed by an incompetent Officer, this Court takes into consideration the averments made in paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, which reads as follows: "That at the cost of repetition this deponent humbly submits that the proceeding is violated on the ground that the disciplinary authority is two stages below the appointing authority which the petitioner has averred is not correct in view of the amendment of the Officers regulation 1979 by the Board at its meeting held on 25.05.1996 wherein it has been amended that the appointing authority for Officers of category of JMGS I to MMGS-III is G.M. in place of CGM, (Prior to this M.D. was the appointing authority and Disciplinary Authority accordingly the order of punishment was passed by the G.M. as per the above amended regulation. A Similar question was raised in the case of S.B.I vrs. S. Vijay Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Though appointed by Executive Committee but at the time of their dismissal, Chief General Manager made the appointing authority- In the circumstances, held, order of dismissal passed by the Chief General Manager competent being not by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Service Law- Dismissal- Competent authority- Bank Officers-Governed by statutory regulations- Regulation conferring right not to be dismissed by any authority lower than the appointing authority- Explanation to the regulation amended with retrospective effect providing that appointing authority shall mean and include the authority who had been designated such at the time when such order was passed. Service Law- Dismissal- Competent authority- Bank Officers-Governed by statutory regulations- Regulation conferring right not to be dismissed by any authority lower than the appointing authority- Explanation to the regulation amended with retrospective effect providing that appointing authority shall mean and include the authority who had been designated such at the time when such order was passed. Though the Officers were appointed by Executive Committee but at the time of passing of dismissal orders against them, Chief General Manager had made the appointing authority- Hence dismissal order passed by the Chief General Manager competent- Amendment of the regulation with retrospective effect, having been made in exercise of power conferred by the statute itself, not open to question on ground of affective vested rights." For the response of the opposite parties this Court finds, there is no substance in the allegation at the instance of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by an incompetent Officer. 5. It appears, the petitioner has faced the following charges: "While working as Branch Manager, G.G.P. Branch, Bhubaneswar during the period from 26th June, 1995 to 27th September, 1997, you appear to have failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official inasmuch a: (1) You had fraudulently debited local clearing a/c and passed on undue benefit to the borrowers. (2) You had sanctioned loans to the borrowers exceeding the discretionary powers vested in you without proper appraisal and failed to report these sanctions to the Controlling Authority. (3) You had allowed excess drawings the borrowal a/cs and suppressed information regarding these excess drawings from your Control Authority. (4) You had sanctioned clean overdrafts to the borrowers for which you were not having discretionary powers and suppressed the information from the Controlling Authority. (5) You had purchased cheques in excess of your discretionary powers and suppressed the information from the Controlling Authority. You failed to recover the amounts when some of the cheques purchased by you were returned unpaid. (6) You had sanctioned loans under Government sponsored scheme to ineligible persons/ defaulters violating the laid down norms. (7) You had sanctioned loans under Government sponsored scheme which have become sticky and doubtful of recovery and the bank is likely to incur loss. You failed to recover the amounts when some of the cheques purchased by you were returned unpaid. (6) You had sanctioned loans under Government sponsored scheme to ineligible persons/ defaulters violating the laid down norms. (7) You had sanctioned loans under Government sponsored scheme which have become sticky and doubtful of recovery and the bank is likely to incur loss. (8) You had sanctioned loans for consumer durables even though the branch is not identified for sanction of consumer durable loans and suppressed the information from the Controlling Authority. You failed to adhere to the laid down norms thereby rendering the a/cs sticky and doubtful of recovery. (9) You had released loan for consumer durable violating the terms of sanction of the Regional Office. (10) You had sanctioned loans to the borrowers violating the instructions of the Controlling Authority not to release the loans and thus, ignored the lawful instructions of the Controlling Authority. (11) You had sanctioned loans to the borrowers, without proper appraisal and failed to report these sanction to the Controlling Authority. Your above acts, if established are in violation of Regulation 50(4) of SBH (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and constitutes misconduct under Regulation 66 of the said Regulation. Additional charges reads as follows:- While working as Branch Manager, G.G.P. Branch, Bhubaneswar during the period from 26th June, 1995 to 27th September, 1997, you appear to have failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official inasmuch as: (1) You have fraudulently debited Local Clearing Account and Clearing Adjustment Account and extended under benefit to the customers/ borrowers by sanctioning temporary overdrafts jeopardizing the interest of the Bank. (2) You have allowed credits to the lends accounts by debit to IBIT/ Suspense accounts by way of allowing temporary overdrafts exceeding the discretionary powers vested in you. (3) You have failed to recover income receivable towards interest on account of the superfluous credits given to the accounts. (4) He had sanctioned an overdraft against the Spl.TDRs without marking lien, in the respective Spl. TDR registers, violating the extant guidelines. 6. Now coming to the charges involving the Disciplinary Proceeding, this Court finds, there is clear statement by the opposite parties that for detection of certain irregularities during consideration of the issue involving the first charge-sheet, the Bank was constrained to issue the additional charge-sheet. TDR registers, violating the extant guidelines. 6. Now coming to the charges involving the Disciplinary Proceeding, this Court finds, there is clear statement by the opposite parties that for detection of certain irregularities during consideration of the issue involving the first charge-sheet, the Bank was constrained to issue the additional charge-sheet. It is on the allegation of the petitioner that he has not been given with fair chance for submission of his explanation, it appears, the first charge-sheet dated 16.09.1998 was received by the petitioner on 24.09.1998. Originally though he was given with fifteen days time for submitting his reply, but on his request dated 6.10.1998 for extension of time by another 15 days, he was not only permitted to verify the records at particular Branch for two days, but he was also given further time to file his submission. Petitioner had submitted his response before the Disciplinary Authority and it is only after considering the response of the petitioner and finding response of the petitioner not being satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority directed for initiation of a departmental proceeding by appointing the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer with communication of the said fact to the petitioner on the second charge-sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner chose not to submit any response. This Court also observes, the inquiry was conducted clubbing both the charges together. Petitioner was even permitted to take assistance of another Senior Officer as his defence representative. It is, in the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no deficiency in the observance of the natural justice in the disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner. This Court here also takes into considertion the counter response of the opposite parties that petitioner not only was provided with opportunity of perusal of documents relied on by the Management which was availed by defence assistance but there is also supply of documents by the Management. This court here also takes into cognizance of the response of the oppostie parties that there was no such complain by the delinquent during the enquiry proceeding and it appears, these allegations are subsiquently developped. 7. This court here also takes into cognizance of the response of the oppostie parties that there was no such complain by the delinquent during the enquiry proceeding and it appears, these allegations are subsiquently developped. 7. It is, at this stage of the matter, considering the other submissions of the petitioner that for his acquittal in the proceeding conducted through C.B.I on some of the charges involved herein, the petitioner also deserves to be cleared in the disciplinary proceeding, this Court for the settled position of law of land observes, the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings though involve common issues but consideration since involve different parameters, acquittal in one cannot be simply be the basis of acquittal in the other proceeding. It is in the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no substance in such claim of the petitioner. Coming to the allegation of non-consideration of his case by the appellate authority, this Court finds, the appellate authority after taking into account the submission of the petitioner and finding the irregularities committed by the petitioner being confirmed through the disciplinary proceeding has made clear observation that the irregularities and the lapses committed by the petitioner delinquent are serious and thus found the punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and fair and accordingly dismissed the appeal. From the discussion of the appellate authority, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the same. Law has also been fairly settled holding that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction cannot sit as appellate authority and role is very very limited. 8. Now coming to the allegation of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment being disproportionate to the offence alleged and established, taking into account the charges framed against the petitioner and looking to the findings of the Enquiry Officer appearing through Annexure-4 in consideration of the material as available before him, this Court finds, the Enquiry Officer after discussing on each aspect not only placed some admission of the petitioner but while coming to assess the charges no.1 on imputation 1(a) found the same to have been established except that the petitioner had sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.1,25,000/- to M/s. Mathrushakti Agency. Similarly found the imputation 1 (b) not established. On imputation no.2 the Enquiry Officer found, imputation 2 stood established to the extent indicated therein. Thus there has been partial establishment of the charge no.2. Similarly found the imputation 1 (b) not established. On imputation no.2 the Enquiry Officer found, imputation 2 stood established to the extent indicated therein. Thus there has been partial establishment of the charge no.2. The Enquiry Officer found the charge no.3 to have been established. Charge No.4 has also been established. Charge no.5 contains three imputation also established. Charge no.6 containing several imputation. Though the Charge no.6(a) is not established, Charge no.6 (b) stood established. Charge no.7 has several imputations, but could not be established. Charge no.8 stood established except that he obtained the salary certificate/ letter of undertaking in respect of four accounts and five accounts respectively were either closed or adjusted subsequently and the control returns were submitted by the Branch belatedly i.e. after 2/3 months. Charge no.9 is also established partially. Charge no.10 stood established. Charge no.11 also stood established. So far as the second charge sheet is concerned, charge no.1 having several components found to have been established. Charge no.2 involving additional charges is also established. Charge no.3 is established but partially. Charge no.4 also stood established. For better appreciation this Court here records the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, which reads as follows: "From the depositions MW-1 and also on perusal of Chapter-V, Para-5.4 of Bank's Book of Instructions, (ME-1). It is observed that when a loan is considered against the TDR deposit necessary lien should be marked in TDR Register, ledger and pass book. On liquidation of loan account, the lien is to be cancelled and to be authenticated by an official. Perusing para-14.2 of Chapter-V, Bank's Book of Instructions, ME-2, it is observed that the term deposit is not transferable, discharge over a revenue stamp acknowledging the receipt of interest/principal and direction of renewal is required. Instructions to pay to a third party or another Bank must be through a separate letter. Perusing ledger sheets (ME-3/1 to 7) Control Card (ME-4) of M/s.Xero Care, C-A/c/SIB/222, it is observed that an OD limit of Rs.40,000/- was mentioned which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- and thereafter was reduced to Rs.1,20,000/-. The alteration/ changes made in the limits were not authenticated. Perusing a cashkey loan document pertaining to current A/c. No.SIB/222, it is observed that a limit of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned by the CSO on 6.9.1996 to Mrs. The alteration/ changes made in the limits were not authenticated. Perusing a cashkey loan document pertaining to current A/c. No.SIB/222, it is observed that a limit of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned by the CSO on 6.9.1996 to Mrs. Sarifa Khatoon, Proprietrix, M/s.Xero Care against the security/ pledge of duplicate term deposit 0391104 and 0391105 for Rs.25,000/- each which were due for payment on 17.07.1998. Through another set of documents, it is observed that an overdraft limit of Rs.1,60,000/- pertaining to the same account was sanctioned on 14.09.1996 to Mrs. Sarifa Katoon, Proprietrix, M/s. Xero Care, by the CSO against the security of special TDR's. The particulars of the securities were i.e., numbers were noted only on control card. i.e., Spl. TDR's 0715073 to 0715078 all dated 16.07.1996 due on 17.07.1998 each for Rs.25,000/- (total Rs.1,50,000/-), (ME-5/1 to 5/8). On perusal of the 6 transfer credit vouchers and 6 application forms for issuance of Spl. TDR's, it is observed that on 16.07.1996, 6 Spl. TDRs were issued each for Rs.25,000/- for a period of 2 years favouring Smt. Sarifa Khatun bearing Nos.0715073 to 0715078 with due dates 17.07.1998 and signed by Shri J.K. Rath (Manager). On the application forms for TDRs. The Spl. TDR Nos.0715073 to 0715078 were rounded and Nos.0391104 to 0391109 were incorporated and authenticated by the CSO. Out of the 6 TDRs issued, on the TDR Nos.0715075, 5077 and 5078 (MEs-8/3, 8/5, 8/6) a notation rounding the original Nos. and were written as duplicate bearing Nos.0391106, 3091108 and 0391109. The duplicate TDRs 0391106, 1108 and 1109 (MEs-9, 10 & 11) were paid through transfer and credited to C-A/c/SIB/222 on 5.10.1996 by the CSO. Perusing TDR Register (ME-12), it is observed that the original TDR No.0715073 to 078 earlier written in the Register were authenticated by Shri J.K. Rath (acting Manager). It is further observed that they were rounded off and the duplicate Nos.0391104 to 0391109 were written on the TDRs respectively and were authenticated by the CSO. Lien for C-A/c OD/SIB/222 was written and authenticated by MW-1 against TDR Nos.0715073. It was brought on record through the depositions of MW that the ledger a/c was showing a debit balance of Rs.177581/71 as on 01.05.1998, and on 27.06.1998, the balance was Rs.1,76,916.71 (debit). After crediting the proceeds of TDR Nos. 0715073. Lien for C-A/c OD/SIB/222 was written and authenticated by MW-1 against TDR Nos.0715073. It was brought on record through the depositions of MW that the ledger a/c was showing a debit balance of Rs.177581/71 as on 01.05.1998, and on 27.06.1998, the balance was Rs.1,76,916.71 (debit). After crediting the proceeds of TDR Nos. 0715073. 5074 and 5076 on its due date which was paid through the transfer along with the interest total aggregating to Rs.96,867/-, the balance outstanding as on 17.07.1998 in the account was reduced to Rs.80,049/71. It is observed from the proceedings that the outstanding amount of Rs.80,049.71 increased to Rs.96,406.71 as on 22.06.1999. As the amount could not be recovered from the party, it was transferred to Protested Bills Account as there were no securities left with the branch. From the letter No.ADV/270 dated 03.03.98 addressed to the Controller (ME-14), it is observed that the Branch advised the Regional Office about issue of 6 Spl. TDRs on 16.07.96 each for Rs.25,000/- and also about the OD facility of Rs.1.60 lacs sanctioned on C-A/C/SIB/222 to M/s. Xero Care against the security of original Spl. TDRs on 14.09.96 by the CSO and the lien for OD was not marked in Spl. TDR Register. Duplicate TDRs were issued during August, 1996 as per its serial numbers. Letter from depositor and indemnity bond for issuance of duplicate TDRS were not obtained and held on branch record. It is further observed that the Branch submitted a detailed report (ME-17/2) to the Controller in which it was stated that 6 Spl. TDRs were issued on 16.07.96, debiting A/c No.SIB-222. A DL of Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned against duplicate TDR 0391107 to Sarifa Khatun on 30.08.1996. The A/c was closed by remittance of cash on 26.11.1996. No acknowledgement of borrower/ depositor in the ledger for having received the security, i.e. TDR was obtained. From the foregoing, it is observed that the CSO sanctioned OD limit Rs.1,60,000/- against Spl. TDRs-0715073 to 5078, each Spl. TDR was of Rs.25,000/- standing in the name of Sarifa Khatun on C-A/c/SIB/222 to M/s.Xero Care for which she was the Proprietrix. The CSO rounded off the original Spl. TDR numbers on application froms and mentioned duplicate term deposit nos.., in the TDR Issue Register. TDRs-0715073 to 5078, each Spl. TDR was of Rs.25,000/- standing in the name of Sarifa Khatun on C-A/c/SIB/222 to M/s.Xero Care for which she was the Proprietrix. The CSO rounded off the original Spl. TDR numbers on application froms and mentioned duplicate term deposit nos.., in the TDR Issue Register. While issuing duplicates, he had not obtained letter from depositor for issuing duplicates and also the indemnity bond as per the procedure in vogue to safeguard the interest of the Bank. He sanctioned an overdraft/ cashkey of Rs.40,000/- on 06.09.96 against duplicate TDR No.0391104 and 1105. He also sanctioned a DL of Rs.20,000/- to Sarifa Khatun against duplicate TDR No.0391107 on 30.08.1996 which was closed by cash. The duplicate TDRs-0391107 on 30.08.1996 which was closed by cash. The duplicate TDRs-0391106, 1108 and 1109 were paid prematurely on 05.10.96 and credited to OD A/c-C-A/c/SIB/222 while the originals were held as security for loan. It is evident from the DL/OD sanctioned on 30.08.1996 and 06.09.1996 that the duplicate TDRs were issued on or before 30.08.1996 and the TDRs were issued by the CSO. While sanctioning OD of Rs.1,60,000/- on 14.09.96 against original STDRs, he did not notice the existence of duplicates which the CSO himself had issued earlier in lieu of originals. Apart from not noting lien for the loans on the TDRs and in the relative TDR Register, he also sanctioned a Demand Loan and Overdraft against duplicate TDRs which were issued by him in lieu of originals. He further allowed premature payment of 3 duplicate TDRs on 5.10.1996 and the proceeds were credited to OD A/c and permitted further withdrawals without reducing the Drawing Power accordingly. The CSO in his submissions stated that though a lien was not marked he mentioned the C-A/c. No.222 on all TDRs. The 3 TDRs were prematurely closed and the amounts were transferred to the account. Since the drawing power was not reduced, the party drew from the account. Since the originals were misplaced at the branch, no indemnity was obtained. The CSO submitted that he was appointed as RDO without having working knowledge about general banking and advances as such, some procedural irregularities might have occurred. He brought the loss making branch into profit. His branch was a member of MD's club. In an anxiety for development of business he had taken certain business risks in the interest of the bank. He brought the loss making branch into profit. His branch was a member of MD's club. In an anxiety for development of business he had taken certain business risks in the interest of the bank. He requested to please consider his submissions and to take a lenient view of the irregularities alleged against him. The submissions of the CSO are not tenable as he failed to adhere to the extant guidelines in issuance of duplicate TDRs and sanctioned loans against original/ duplicate TDRs resulting in loss to the Bank. In view of the foregoing, I hold the charge/ imputation-4 alleged against the official as established, concurring with the findings of the I.A. Taking into consideration the charges held as established against the CSO, I impose the penalty of compulsory retirement from Bank's service and recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a token recovery towards loss incurred by the Bank, on Shri B. Senapathy, Officer, MMGS-II, (Under Suspension) which would meet the ends of justice. The period of suspension will be treated as off duty and he will not be eligible for any payment other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him. He will also not be eligible for any increment during the period. The period of suspension is not to be counted for service. Considering the above and as this Court finds, many of the charges being serious, this Court is of the opinion that establishment of any one of them even appearing to be unbecoming on the part of a responsible Officer of a Bank. The Disciplinary Authority having taken a lenient view appearing to have passed the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from service, the same cannot be termed to be disproportionate to the quantum of offence. For the clear finding of the Enquiry Officer being confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and for the settled provision of law that Writ Court cannot seat as an appellate authority in this situation, this Court has no scope to interfere in the impugned orders. 9. Taking into account the citations shown by Shri Tripathy learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds, for the clear establishment of the charges and involvement of serious allegation and for difference in the fact scenario in the cited decisions, none of the decisions have any application to the case of the petitioner. 9. Taking into account the citations shown by Shri Tripathy learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds, for the clear establishment of the charges and involvement of serious allegation and for difference in the fact scenario in the cited decisions, none of the decisions have any application to the case of the petitioner. It is, on the other hand, this Court finds, the decision in the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur -Vrs- State Bank of India and others, (2005) AIR SC 314 supports the case of the Bank as against the claim of the petitioner that for the recoveries of the shortfalls being made, there is no loss on the Bank, therefore the petitioner should have been exonerated. Decision in the case of Ch. Laxmikantham -Vrs- The Chairman, State Bank of India and others, (2006) 101 CutLT 65 , Decision in the case of The Disciplinary - cum - Regional Manager and others -Vrs- Nikunja Bihari Pattnaik, (1997) 83 CutLT 533 (SC) supports the case of the Bank on the objection to the interference in the Disciplinary proceeding on the premises that a Writ Court is not competent to appreciate the evidence and findings by the Enquiry authority. Similarly on the question of impugned order being passed by an incompetent officer this Court finds, the Bank has support of the decision in the case of State of India Versus S. Vijaya Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481 and State Bank of India -Vrs- S. Vijay Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481 . 10. It is, in the circumstance this Court finds, there is no merit involving the Writ Petition, which is hereby dismissed accordingly. However there is no order as to cost.