JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the orders under Annexures-8 and 10 involving an order of dismissal by the employer arising out of a disciplinary proceeding and also involving the order in rejection of appeal. 2. Short background involving the case of the petitioner is that petitioner joined the services of Canara Bank at the Umar Branch in the district of Cuttack as a Sub- Staff (Daftary) on 27.3.1990. Petitioner claims that during his service, he could be able to mobilise deposit of Rs.5,29,300/- during the year 1996-97, for which, the Bank has issued certificate of appreciation to him. This apart, the Bank has also issued congratulation letter to the petitioner for his keen involvement in learning all the aspects of the banking. The petitioner has helped the Bank for recovery of loan amount from various non-performing accounts. Petitioner has also been issued with congratulation/ appreciation letter from the Bank recognising satisfactory performance by the petitioner. Involving some complaints from the outsider, opposite party no.2 instituted an investigation on the allegation made against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, a report was submitted to the opposite party no.2 concluding that there has been no evidence to prove most of the allegations against the petitioner. But however finding involvement of the petitioner in some of the aspects pointed out therein, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the opposite party no.2 involving the petitioner on the charges framed, vide Charge-Sheet No.CC/DAC/F-37/1404-CH(W-14/2000) dated 02.12.2000 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of charge-sheets. In the meantime, the Enquiry Officer was also appointed. The enquiry was concluded with the observation establishing all the four charges against the petitioner. Report of the enquiry is appearing at Annexure-6. Consequent upon consideration of a response to the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal dated 09.04.2002, vide Annexure-8 by way of imposition of major penalty. Subsequently, petitioner also preferred appeal to the opposite party no.1 involving the order of dismissal and this appeal was dismissed on 14.2.2003 vide Annexure-10, resulting filing of the present writ petition. 3. Subsequently, petitioner also preferred appeal to the opposite party no.1 involving the order of dismissal and this appeal was dismissed on 14.2.2003 vide Annexure-10, resulting filing of the present writ petition. 3. Dr.Sujata Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking this Court to the grounds taken in the writ petition as well as the grounds raised in the written note of submission contended that statement of different persons have been recorded including that of management witness and the complainants involved therein. Taking this Court to the evidence of such parties recorded during the process of enquiry, Dr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence establishing any of the charges against the petitioner and there is an attempt by the management to somehow or other punish the petitioner with the order of dismissal. Dr.Dash alleged that the finding of the Enquiring Officer also remains contrary to the materials available on record. She also alleged that there is no proper consideration of the grounds taken by the petitioner in respect to the enquiry report. Further, taking this Court to the evidence, Dr. Dash also contended that Charge Nos.1 and 2 for the admitted position of the petitioner in the Bank, no responsibility involving the same could have been fixed on the petitioner and so far as Charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, Dr. Dash, while submitting that finding on both the charges remain contrary to the materials available on record, she also contended that looking to the gravity of offence, order of dismissal was unwarranted. Dr. Dash on the above premises submitted that even assuming that there is no material that petitioner has utilised a portion of loan amount for his own purpose but accepting that petitioner is involved in receipt of hand loan on both occasions for such activities having no connection with bank business, the punishment imposed appearing to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of offences involved therein. Further, taking this Court to the letter of congratulation and letter of appreciation issued by the Management from time to time, Dr. Dash also contended that these documents should have also weighed in the minds of the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major penalty. Looking to the recording of punishment, acceptance of confession of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, Dr. Further, taking this Court to the letter of congratulation and letter of appreciation issued by the Management from time to time, Dr. Dash also contended that these documents should have also weighed in the minds of the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major penalty. Looking to the recording of punishment, acceptance of confession of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, Dr. Dash further contended that the confession of the petitioner was limited to the extent that he had taken some money by way of hand loans from the borrower and for the clear evidence of those persons involved expressing that they have not lend any amount from out of the loan amount extended by the Bank as illegal gratification, Dr.Dash contended that there has been improper consideration of the evidence available on record. In support of her contention, Dr. Dash relied upon the following decisions: 1) S.Bhattacharjee Vrs. Sentinel Assurance Co. Ltd., (1955) AIR Calcutta 594 ; 2) Aher Raja Khima Vrs. State of Saurashtra, (1956) AIR SC 217 ; 3) Sarwan Singh and another Vrs. State of Punjab, (1957) AIR SC 637 ; 4) State of Mysore Vrs. K.Manche Gowda, (1964) AIR SC 506 ; 5) Colour-Chem Limited Vrs. A. L. Alaspurkar, (1998) AIR SC 948 ; 6) Union of India Vrs. K.A.Kittu and others, (2000) 5 SLR 797 ; 7) Union of India Vrs. Gyanchand Chhatar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 ; and 8) Subash Chandra Panda Vrs. State of Odisha and others, (2013) 1 ILR(Cut) 750/ 1998 CJ (SC) 195 . Placing reliance on the above judgments, Dr.Dash has attempted to claim that for the application of the above judgments to the case of the petitioner, the impugned orders ought to be interfered with and set aside. 4. State of Odisha and others, (2013) 1 ILR(Cut) 750/ 1998 CJ (SC) 195 . Placing reliance on the above judgments, Dr.Dash has attempted to claim that for the application of the above judgments to the case of the petitioner, the impugned orders ought to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties-Bank on the other hand while not disputing the factual aspect that the petitioner was holding the post of Daftary and that there was issuance of letter of appreciation as well as letter of congratulation for the involvement of the petitioner getting the loanees to the door of the bank and getting the NPA resolved with his initiation and involvement but however taking this Court to the charges and the observation of the Enquiry Officer further the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority contended that establishment of each of the charge itself is a case that financial institution losing faith/trust on its employee inviting a punishment of major penalty. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank thus contended that there is no infirmity in either of the orders. 5. Taking this Court to the evidence recorded during course of enquiry, learned counsel appearing for opposite party through the same attempted to establish that each of the charges has been established against the petitioner, there was no alternative with the Disciplinary Authority to award lesser punishment than dismissal. To the allegation that there has been wrong appreciation of material available on record as well as evidence on record therein, learned counsel appearing for the Bank contended that the allegations are far from truth. Taking this Court to the discussion in the enquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority, learned counsel appearing for the Bank attempted to justify the impugned orders. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-Bank also taking this Court to the position of law in the matter of disciplinary proceeding contended that since petitioner's case has already been considered by the Appellate Authority for prohibition under law, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority against an appellate order. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank relied upon the following judgments: 1) Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vrs. A. Rajapandian, (1995) AIR SC 561 ; 2) The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank relied upon the following judgments: 1) Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vrs. A. Rajapandian, (1995) AIR SC 561 ; 2) The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. B. Ashok Kumar, (1997) AIR SC 2447 ; 3) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central CoOperative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vrs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., (2000) AIR SC 3129 ; and 4) L.K.Verma Vrs. H.M.T. Ltd. And Anr., (2006) AIR SC 975 . 6. Taking this Court to the decisions in the above cited case, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party under the premises that the High Court's powers being limited contended that there is no scope for the High Court to interfere in the impugned orders. Hence a request is being made for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court from the communication of the charges vide Annexure-2 involving the Disciplinary Proceeding finds the charges framed involving the petitioner are as follows : 1) You have taken the loan proceeds of FBC 14/95 sanctioned to Sri Hare Krishna Moharana for Rs.20,000/- and FGC 63/95 sanctioned to Damodar Nayak for Rs.20,000/- on 08.12.95. Vide your letter dtd. 10.9.99, you have confessed for having utilised the proceeds of FGC 14/95 and FBC 63/95. You have also remitted Rs.500/- each on 3 occasions (28.7.99, 25.8.99 and 22.9.99) to FGC 14/95 on the salary dates. The paying in slips are prepared/filled up and initialled by you. 2. It is also revealed that TOD's were granted/allowed on 14.10.97 in SB. A/c. No.196 of Sri Bichitrananda Maharana of Umara at your instance and you have utilised the said TOD proceeds (partly). The party has stated that TOD's in his SB. A/c. No.196 have not been availed by him but the amount has been used by you. Sri B. Maharana has stated that he has not credited any amount after the TOD's were granted. However, the following credits have been made in the said SB. A/c. No.196, the details of which are as follows: Amount Date of Credit Rs.2000/- 22.10.1997 Rs. 100/- 06.11.1998 Rs. 500/- 26.05.1999 Rs. 300/- 28.09.1998 Rs. 200/- 04.08.1999 The paying-in-slips are prepared by you under your initial. 3. It is further revealed that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was disbursed to Sri Manaas Ranjan Mohanty of Umara towards Agricultural Loan (ALBCE/93). A/c. No.196, the details of which are as follows: Amount Date of Credit Rs.2000/- 22.10.1997 Rs. 100/- 06.11.1998 Rs. 500/- 26.05.1999 Rs. 300/- 28.09.1998 Rs. 200/- 04.08.1999 The paying-in-slips are prepared by you under your initial. 3. It is further revealed that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was disbursed to Sri Manaas Ranjan Mohanty of Umara towards Agricultural Loan (ALBCE/93). You have taken Rs.2,000/- from Sri Manas Ranjan Mohanty of Umara out of Agriculture Loan proceeds of Rs.5,000/- disbursed to him. In this regard, the party has lodged a complaint on 28.01.1999 to the bank/ Branch. 4. On 04.11.1998, an amount of Rs.625/- was reimbursed to you towards the cost of woollen livery as you have submitted two bills (cash memo & delivery memo) dated 2.9.98 towards the cost of suiting and revealed that the bills submitted by you to the bank in this regard are fake ones. Thus, you have committed a fraud on the bank and you have misused the facilities for reimbursement of woollen livery. 8. Reading through the aforesaid charges, this Court finds Charge nos.1 and 2 involves allegations that petitioner has utilised the proceeds of FGC-14/95 and FGC-63/95 and in some transaction, petitioner has also alleged to have been remitted Rs.500/- each on three occasions, i.e. on 28.7.1999, 25.08.1999 and 22.09.1999 to FGC-14/95 on salary dates and the other one is utilisation of TODs by the petitioner himself whereas other charges such as Charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned it appears Charge No.4 relates to drawing a sum of Rs.625/- illegally reimbursed towards the cost of woollen livery and the other one involving an allegation that petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.2,000/- from one Manas Ranjan Mohanty of Umara out of agricultural loan proceeds of Rs.5,000/- disbursed in favour of beneficiary. 9. From the enquiry report, so far as Charge No.1 is concerned, this Court finds there is reliance of Management of Exts.2 and 3, a confession letter given by R.C. Barik, the petitioner herein having utilised the loan proceeds of FGC A/c. No.14/1995. 9. From the enquiry report, so far as Charge No.1 is concerned, this Court finds there is reliance of Management of Exts.2 and 3, a confession letter given by R.C. Barik, the petitioner herein having utilised the loan proceeds of FGC A/c. No.14/1995. FGC 63/1995, the original letter was written in Oriya and by the petitioner himself with the witness of one N.C. Mallik, Officer of the Branch Management Exts.4, 5 and 6 involving Charge No.1 establishes as well as slips are filed in by the petitioner and the debts are salary disbursement of debts from the Bank, the person paying in involving the slips dated 28.07.1999 appearing to be the petitioner. Similarly, Management Exts.7 and 8 involving Charge No.2 from the written statement of Bichitrananda Moharana holder of SB A/c. No.196. Sri Moharana has clearly stated that Sri R.C Barik, the petitioner along with another person have taken the money by allowing TOD, as they were in need of money. Sri Moharana has also made it clear that he has not paid any amount towards this TOD belonging to his savings bank account. Similarly, from Management Exts.10 and 11 involving Charge No.4, the proprietor of the shop Sri Krushna Chandra Sahoo in his written statement has clearly stated that though the signature in the cash memo/bill is his but the contents are not filed by him. Sri Sahoo also made it clear that M/s.Shanti Krushna Bastralaya of which he is the proprietor is not dealing with woollen clothes or garments and further that the bill placed in the bank by R.C. Barik was granted by the shop for purchase of some clothes by the petitioner for his daughter and the amount indicated therein was paid for that purpose. 10. So far as the allegation against the petitioner vide Charge No.3 involving the petitioner taking Rs.2,000/- from Manas Ranjan Mohanty, who had taken a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards agricultural loan. This is based on a complaint of Manas Ranjan Mohanty, vide Ext.14 and the English Translation, vide Ext.15 material discloses TOD involved therein SB A/c. No.196 was granted as per the recommendation of the petitioner and a portion of the same has been utilised by the petitioner. Some documents in this regard relied upon by the Management have also been confirmed by the petitioner. Some documents in this regard relied upon by the Management have also been confirmed by the petitioner. It appears the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal on a proven misconduct by the petitioner involving all the charges. There it also appears petitioner has been put to show-cause before the punishment is imposed. Preferring the appeal, the appeal was disposed of vide Annexure-10. Reading through Annexure-10, this Court finds the appellate authority not only taking into account all the grounds raised by Sri Barik, the petitioner but also dealt with the same before coming to the conclusion in dismissal of the appeal. In the circumstances and for the involvement of a case of proven conduct, this Court finds the law of the land, which reads as under: "In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant" The same view has been reiterated in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc., (2000) AIR SC 3129 and Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vrs. Krishnan Bihari and Ors., (1996) AIR SC 1249 . 11. This case involved a case of proven misappropriation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held once the charges are proved, there is no question for considering past records. In Union of India Vrs. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 1 LLJ 1 SC , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings, with the respondent was one which reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court." 12. Similarly, in the case of The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. B. Ashok Kumar, (1997) AIR SC 2447 , in paragraph-3 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed "It is now legal settled position that imposition of the penalty is the right of the disciplinary authority consistent with the magnitude and the misconduct imputed and the evidence in support thereof." 13. In the case of Jagdish Singh Vrs. Punjab Engineering College and others, (2009) AIR SC 2458 , the Supreme Court held that the Courts can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Further, in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vrs. Union of India and others, (1996) AIR SC 484 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that interfering in the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and directed for reconsideration of the penalty imposed is available only in exceptional and rare cases. 14. Taking into consideration the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court here finds the petitioner is involving in a series of incidents, all have been established, hence the case at hand does not fall within the exceptional and rare case so as to attract the above judgments to the case of the petitioner. This Court has gone through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner but however for the case of repeated misconduct involving herein, none of the decisions support the case of the petitioner. 15. This Court has gone through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner but however for the case of repeated misconduct involving herein, none of the decisions support the case of the petitioner. 15. Coming back to the case at hand for the proven misconduct at the instance of the petitioner that too by an employee attempting to breach the trust of the institution poured on him may be he is a holder of the post of Daftary but has attempted to misutilize the trust created between the employer and the employee. For the observation for a case of proven misconduct and for the settled position of law as discussed herein above, this Court finds there is no infirmity in either in the findings of the Enquiry Authority or in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority requiring this Court to interfere in the same. 16. In the wake of the aforesaid, the petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.