JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - The writ petition involves a challenge to the order of termination being passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of rejection of appeal involving termination of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority vide Annexures-3 and 4 and thereby directing opposite party nos.1 to 3 to reinstatement the petitioner in service with all service benefits. 2. Heard Mr. M.K.Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. None appears for opposite party nos.1 and 4. 3. Short background involving the case is petitioner joined the Union Bank of India as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at its Angul Branch on 28.5.1977. In May, 1985, petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Cashier. Petitioner's next promotion would have been to the post of Scale-I Officer. On 02.12.1999, when the petitioner while was working as a 'C' category Head Cashier in the Union Bank of India, Balukhanda Branch, Puri, he was suspended by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar on 02.12.1999 vide Annexure-5. Pending initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, a departmental proceeding was initiated. Charge-sheet was communicated to the petitioner on 16.3.2000. On the allegations made therein, petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet vide Annexure-7 completely denying the allegations made against him. In response to the same, the Disciplinary Authority intimated to the petitioner on 10.6.2000, vide Annexure-6 that the Disciplinary Authority is not satisfied with the defence plea. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.4 was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 10.6.2000. As a consequence, the Enquiry Officer communicated to the petitioner that he has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer-cum-Disciplinary Authority to enquire into the allegations involving the petitioner. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer communicated his assessment in the enquiry on 31.05.2001 as appearing at Annexure-15 and thereby suggesting punishment of dismissal from service from the Bank with stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. Second show-cause was issued to the petitioner. Personal hearing was conducted by opposite party no.4 on 28.06.2001 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority finally opposite party no.4 passed the order of punishment vide Annexure-3 giving scope for filing of an appeal. Appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority as appearing at Annexure-4. Second show-cause was issued to the petitioner. Personal hearing was conducted by opposite party no.4 on 28.06.2001 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority finally opposite party no.4 passed the order of punishment vide Annexure-3 giving scope for filing of an appeal. Appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority as appearing at Annexure-4. Advancing his submission on the maintainability of the enquiry proceeding through opposite party no.4, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner explaining the position of opposite party no.4 and the provision of the service rules of the Bank called as 'Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976' contended that for the provision therein opposite party no.4 can never act as a Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. In addition to the above, he also challenged the enquiry proceeding for having no merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is a biased one, as the Appellate Authority has not taken into account the points raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. More particularly, in the matter of competency of opposite party no.4 to impose punishment of termination on the petitioner. In the process, the petitioner claimed that the enquiry report being a void report, no action could have been contemplated involving such report. Petitioner contended that since opposite party no.4 was not the appointing authority; he could not have been engaged as a Disciplinary Authority. It is also contended that since the charge-sheet against him and the disciplinary proceeding were all initiated by opposite party no.1, action of opposite party no.4 remain incompetent. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that order of punishment is also void ab initio making thereby the order of the Appellate Authority inconsequential. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the material particulars as well as evidence recorded during the enquiry proceeding contended that for the amount involved therein being refunded by the beneficiaries, there is in fact no loss to the Bank as a consequence and for no suffering of the Bank, there would not have been punishment of termination involving the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the order of termination also remained not in consonance with the volume of charges. 4. It is accordingly contended that the order of termination also remained not in consonance with the volume of charges. 4. In his response Mr.S.Das, learned counsel appearing for the Bank Authority while referring to the stand taken by the opposite party through their counter while justifying the appointment of opposite party no.4 as the Enquiry Officer-cum-Disciplinary Authority taking this Court to the gravity of charges and establishment of most of the serious charges against the petitioner contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Sri Das, learned counsel for the Bank Authority also contended that for the fairness in the disciplinary proceeding with the fullest opportunity to the petitioner, petitioner having failed to establish the charges wrong and not proved against him, Sri Das, learned counsel for the Bank Authority further contended that for the limited role of the High Court and for involvement of concurrent finding by both the authorities including that of the Appellate Authority, this Court cannot sit as appellate authority over the appellate authority. Sri Das, learned counsel for the Bank taking this Court to the provisions of award popularly known as 'Sastry Award as well as Desai Award' contended that for the provision contained therein, there is no illegality in the appointment of opposite party no.4 as Enquiry Officer. Sri Das also taking reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar situation in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal Vrs Bank of Baroda and others, (1984) AIR SC 289 , contended that similar context involving another employee of the same Bank having been considered and similar action of the management having been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Sri Das submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the appointment of opposite party no.4 as a consequence there is no illegality in the enquiry being conducted by opposite party no.4 functioning as Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority. On the allegation of punishment disproportionate to the quantum of offence, Sri Das taking this Court to the proving of serious charges against the petitioner contended that each of the charge involved therein considered as a serious charge and establishment of a single charge even would have entail the order of dismissal. Sri Dash thus requested this Court for dismissal of the writ petition for having no merit in it. 5. Sri Dash thus requested this Court for dismissal of the writ petition for having no merit in it. 5. It is at this stage considering the contentions of the petitioner and the rival contention of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 on the question of appointment of opposite party no.4 as Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority, this Court finds in a similar situation again involving the provision of Sashtri and Desai Award referring to herein above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) in paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 observed as follows: "12. Before us arguments were advanced by Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate and Mr. F.D. Damania, Advocate appearing for the workman and management respectively. Only two questions were raised before us, namely, whether or not Sen Gupta who held the domestic enquiry and passed the order of dismissal of the workman was Disciplinary Authority competent to award the punishment and whether the learned Judge of the High Court was or was not justified in remitting the matter to the Tribunal for the management having an opportunity to adduce further evidence in support of the charges and also to consider the question whether the workman was or was not gainfully employed in the intervening period. It is not disputed that no additional statement were filed and no further evidence was let in by the parties after this Court held that the dispute is an industrial dispute and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 13. Mr. Rao drew our attention to the notice of enquiry dated 23.7.1965 and submitted that it does not specifically clothe Sen Gupta who had been constituted as the Enquiry Officer, with the powers of a Disciplinary Authority without the workman disclosing either in the claim statement filed before the Tribunal or in the arguments before the learned Judge of the High Court are even before us as to who the appointing Authority in relation to the workman was. Mr. Mr. Rao submitted that Sen Gupta who was Agent of the Ludhiana Branch of the Bank which was different from the Jullunder Branch in which the workman was employed as a Clerk at the time of his suspension was not the Appointing Authority and that the order of dismissal passed by him pursuant to his finding recorded against the workman in the domestic enquiry is therefore invalid in law. Mr. Damania also could not say who the Appointing Authority was in regard to the workman. But he submitted that the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority were constituted as per the directions given in para 521(12) of the Sastri award and para 18.20 (12) of the Desai award and, therefore, the question as to who the Appointing Authority was/is not material. He further submitted that the fact as to who was the Disciplinary Authority is clear from the notice of enquiry dated 23.7.1965 and the conduct of the workman. We think Mr. Damania is right in his submission. As observed by the learned Judge of the High Court from the fact that Sen Gupta has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the notice of enquiry dated 23.7.1965 and that it has been stated in that notice that any appeal from his order could be made to Majumdar, Chief Agent of the Bank at Delhi, it could be inferred that Sen Gupta has been constituted also as the Disciplinary Authority as otherwise it would not have been stated in that notice that any appeal against his order which could naturally include an order imposing punishment pursuant to any finding recorded in the domestic enquiry conducted by him should be presented before the Chief Agent of the Bank at Delhi. The workman also understood Sen Gupta to be functioning also as the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry when he did not question his authority to award the punishment but merely stated that the enquiry was arbitrary, biased and improper. The workman also understood Sen Gupta to be functioning also as the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry when he did not question his authority to award the punishment but merely stated that the enquiry was arbitrary, biased and improper. Para 521(12) of the Sastri award which has been bodily incorporated in para 18.20(12) of the Desai award reads thus: "18.20(12) It also seems to us necessary that a bank should decide which officer shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment and that it should also make provision for appeals against orders passed in disciplinary matters to an officer or a body not lower in status than the manager, who shall if the employee concerned so desires in a case of dismissal hear him or his representative before disposing of the appeal. We direct accordingly and further direct that the names of the officers or the body who are empowered to pass the original orders or hear the appeals shall from time to time be published on the bank's notice boards, that an appeal shall be disposed of as early as possible, and that the period within which an appeal can be referred shall be forty-five days from the date on which the original order has been communicated in writing to the employee concerned." 14. It would appear from this portion of the awards that it is not necessary that only the Appointing Authority or any authority superior to that authority can be the Disciplinary Authority in regard to employees of a Bank and that on the other hand the Bank should decide which officer shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment and that it should also make provision for appeals against orders passed in disciplinary matters to an officer or body not lower in status than the Manager. But what is required by that para in the awards is that the names of the officer or body competent to pass the original orders or hear the appeals shall from time to time be published on the Bank's notice boards. But what is required by that para in the awards is that the names of the officer or body competent to pass the original orders or hear the appeals shall from time to time be published on the Bank's notice boards. The workman has not contended anywhere including in the course of arguments advanced on his behalf even before us that there was no such publication in the notice board in regard to the Jullunder Branch of the Bank where he was employed at the time of his suspension. In these circumstances we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Rao that the order of dismissal suffers from any lack of authority of Sen Gupta to award that punishment. 6. This Court finds the decision referred to herein above has direct application to the case of the petitioner at hand. Accordingly, this Court holds that there is no infirmity in the appointment of opposite party no.4 as an enquiry officer and simultaneously also to function as Disciplinary Authority. 7. On a cursory perusal of records and on the basis of allegations made against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer came up with nine contentious issues, which are extracted herein below: 1) Whether, the instrument No.77124 dtd.18.08.1999 in the a/c Nakul Bisoi was posted, cancelled by any of the officers. 2) Whether CSE made entry of this instrument in cash supplementary as well as in cash payment register. 3) Whether CSE made payment to the party even without the procedure followed? 10 4) Whether CSE had fraudulent motive in this transaction? 5) Whether CSE on 09.10.1999 had scrolled the entry at token No.50 for Rs.60,000? 6) Whether CSE made an entry of cash payment of Rs.60,000/- in cash supplementary and cash payment register. 7) Whether CSE made corresponding debit entry towards such payment in the ledger folio of CC a/c B.K.Sahu. 8) Whether any loose cheque was issued to the party enabling the party to withdraw Rs.60,000/- from his a/c. 9) Whether CSE had dealt with the instrument for Rs.60,000/- or was it merely a fictitious entry Each of the issues is elaborately discussed by the Enquiry Officer for arriving at a just decision and inviting appropriate punishment against the petitioner. The same reads as under: 1) As regard Issue No.1, the Enquiry Officer held that the instrument was not either posted or cancelled by any of the officers. The same reads as under: 1) As regard Issue No.1, the Enquiry Officer held that the instrument was not either posted or cancelled by any of the officers. The documents MEX-3 presented in the proceedings bears no such posting and cancellation mark stamping has also not been appeared on the instrument. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the said instrument was cleared by CSE himself without any authority. 2) As regard Issue No.2, the Enquiry Officer held that while examining the documents MEX-6 and MEX-7 that with deposition of MW-1 and statement of CSE in MEX-12 establishes that CSE himself had made entries in both registers. On the other hand defence has tried to establish that cheque was in order for payment however as per the procedure it was not dealt with by the other officials making the same payable. 3) As regard Issue No.3, the Enquiry Officer held that while examining document MEX-3, i.e. Cheque No.77124 dtd.18.08.1999 of Nakul Bisoi and examining the MEX-6 and MEX-7 it is observed that relevant entries were made by CSE and the payment was effected. However, CSE while making entry in MEX-6 and MEX-7 he has written the name as P.C.Behera instead of Nakul Bisoi. It has not been denied by the defence any where having not effected such payment. On the contrary, the defence has tried to establish under the garb of rendering good customer service, that the CSE had paid the amount. 4) As regard Issue No.4, the Enquiry Officer held that the sequence of events in dealing with this transaction reveals much about the intention of CSE. It is evident from MEX-6 and MEX-7 that CSE made the entries being a Head Cashier in the branch and the title of the instrument was written as Shri P.C.Behera instead of Shri Nakul Bisoi. It is also evident from document MEX-3 that no other procedure like posting, cancelling were carried out before effecting payment on MEX-3. It is also evident on the deposition of W-1 that although the title of instrument was Nakul Bisoi, CSE wrote P.C. Behera in MEX-6 and MEX-7. It is also revealed from the deposition of DW-2 in examination in chief in verbatim "I requested Shri Trilochan Das to make payment. It is also evident on the deposition of W-1 that although the title of instrument was Nakul Bisoi, CSE wrote P.C. Behera in MEX-6 and MEX-7. It is also revealed from the deposition of DW-2 in examination in chief in verbatim "I requested Shri Trilochan Das to make payment. If cheque is not passed I will give a cheque drawn on a/c P.C. Behera, who is my grandson", read with statement of CSE in MEX-12 in verbatim "as he assured me of replacement of the cheque by a cheque drawn by Shri P.C. Behera, I entered the payment in the cash supplementary as a payment in the debit of Shri Behera", which reveals that nothing has happened after completing the transaction in the a/c Nakul Bisoi. It is also observed in MEX-5 Nakul Bisoi's a/c that no entry was effected as on 18.08.99. It is seen from the MEX-5 at the first instance the entry was made in debit side, subsequently it was cancelled and no effect was made in the ledger folio, i.e. MEX-5. It is also observed that effect of this transaction was given after this had been detected in balancing of books and an entry was incorporated in the a/c with a remark "entry of 18.08.99 voucher not posted and cancelled and stamped". This clearly speaks about the motive of CSE in (i) effecting payment on his own (ii) not effecting the relevant debit entries in MEX-5, (iii) not informing the higher authorities of such payment and (iv) not obtaining cheque from P.C. Behera shows mala fide intention of CSE in this transaction. The deposition of DW-2 is an eyewash having made outside compromise with the party, thereby inviting the party in enquiry proceedings and depose in favour of the defence. Had the CSE clean hand in dealing with this transaction, he would have brought this thing into the knowledge of the Branch Manager in the same evening or on the next day and got the action ratified from him. However, it has not happened so and the payment of Rs.4900/- has not been reflected in the debit side of the concerned a/c. Only on the detection of the matter, whole story has been created by the defence trying to get clean chit in this matter. However, it has not happened so and the payment of Rs.4900/- has not been reflected in the debit side of the concerned a/c. Only on the detection of the matter, whole story has been created by the defence trying to get clean chit in this matter. I have, therefore, reason to believe that CSE wilfully made this transaction, got the payment fraudulently and created the story after detection of the fraudulent motive at the time of balancing of books at the Branch. It is also evident from the limit sanctioned to the party, i.e. Rs.1 lac and the outstanding was the debit balance of Rs.1,14,926/- so that further issuance of cheque would not have been entertained by the Officer concerned. Revealing fact is that after effecting payment considerable time has been lapsed up-till detection of such fictitious payment in the fag end of November, 1999. CSE has miserably failed to show the irregularities not committed by him which speaks about his mala fide intention. 5) As regard Issue No.5, the Enquiry Officer held that while examining the evidence of MW-1 it is revealed that CSE made an entry in the scroll book at token No.50 for Rs.60,000/- (MEX-9). CSE has also admitted in his explanation dtd.20.04.2000 (MEX-12) that he issued token No.50 along with token No.51 and 52. It has not been refuted by the defence anywhere in the proceedings that token No.50 not scrolled by CSE. 6) As regard Issue No.6, the Enquiry Officer came on the deposition of MW-1 and close look in MEX-10 and MEX-11 came to hold that the relevant entries were made CSE. It is also revealed from the defence arguments dtd.16.01.2001 by CSE himself that he made payment of Rs.60,000/- to B.K. Sahu on 09.10.99. It has not been denied anywhere by the defence having not made such entries by the CSE. 7) As regard Issue No.7, the Enquiry Officer held that it is revealed from the deposition of MW1 perusing MEX-8, i.e. extract of CC a/c Usharani & Bijoy Kumar Sahu that no entry of withdrawal as on 09.10.99 was made by CSE. It has also not been refuted by the defence anywhere in the proceedings. Hence, it is established that no corresponding debit entry was made towards payment of Rs.60,000/- effected on 09.10.99. It has also not been refuted by the defence anywhere in the proceedings. Hence, it is established that no corresponding debit entry was made towards payment of Rs.60,000/- effected on 09.10.99. 8) As regard Issue No.8, it was held that since no evidence of instrument is available in the records of the Branch it cannot be said that the payment was effected against any instrument. While perusing MEX-9 and MEX10, no cheque number is written in the relevant registers. Even in the explanation of the CSE dated 20.04.2000, i.e. MEX-12 no such reference is made by the CSE. Other formalities i.e. entering in scroll as well as cash supplementary and payment cashers register have exclusively been dealt with by the CSE, it is therefore, cannot be established that such payment was effected against presentation of any of the instrument. Therefore, the contention of defence having paid Rs.60,000/- against loose cheque No.68736 cannot be accepted. The defence has tried in vain during cross-examination of MW-1 as well as in defence arguments that payment was effected against loose cheque and such contention of the defence cannot be accepted. 9) As regard Issue No.9, the Enquiry Officer came to hold that while observing deposition of the MW-1 and examining the documents MEX-8 to MEX-11 and in absence of the instrument of Rs.60,000/- in the records of the Branch, it has been reason to believe that no such instrument was presented. While perusing MEX-8, MW-1 deposed that no withdrawal was debited in account on 09.10.99. On MEX-9, MW-1 deposed that an entry of Rs.60,000/- in the account of B.K. Sahu at token no.50 was made by CSE. In the same manner MW-1 deposed while perusing MEX-10 and 11 that corresponding entries were made exclusively by CSE only and no other staff was involved. In reply to other question by MR, MW-1 deposed that the instrument is not available and they have searched every books and corner of the Branch but it could not be traced. Even every concerned officials were consulted at the Branch but nobody could throw light on so called instrument. He has further deposed that after 09.10.99 no theft was occurred at the Branch. Thus, issuance of loose cheque is a brain child of CSE and concocted at the Branch. Thus, issuance of loose cheque is a brain child of CSE and concocted story meted out by the defence. He has further deposed that after 09.10.99 no theft was occurred at the Branch. Thus, issuance of loose cheque is a brain child of CSE and concocted at the Branch. Thus, issuance of loose cheque is a brain child of CSE and concocted story meted out by the defence. The non-availability of the instrument and no corresponding debit entry made by the CSE forced me to believe that it was merely a fictitious entry rather than presentation of an instrument in the transaction. While examining the deposition of DW-3, it is revealed that DW-3 is a tutored witness trying to establish that he had presented the instrument and received the proceeds of the transaction. It is evident from the deposition of defence witnesses in the enquiry that said payment was purported to have been effected to the party on 09.10.99. Whereas the party had deposited Rs.60,000/- only on 30.11.99, i.e. after detection of irregularities in balancing of books in the fag end of November, 1999 DW-3, i.e. party namely, B.K. Sahu came into picture only after disclosure of unlawful withdrawal from his account. The concocted story have been created aftermath of detection of fraud and defence has tried their level best to present the deposition of DW-3 meticulously. However, whole transaction have been dealt with by CSE himself inclusive of recording the entries, withdrawal of payment speak itself about the fictitious entry made by the CSE. Since no posting of instrument of Rs.60,000/- was made in the ledger folio of B.K. Sahu, it came to light after nearly 1.5 months from the date of withdrawal, it was debited to suspense a/c to balance the cash credit book. The account holder came into picture only after such detection. It is derived from the mode of transaction that CSE met the customer after detention and convinced him to deposit the amount depicting himself as recipient of the payment. The a/c holder deposited Rs.60,000/- on 30.11.99 with the Bank, however, it could not be accounted for in his a/c. It was credited in suspense a/c as earlier withdrawal was not debited in his a/c. While perusing DEX-4, the a/c. Holder has demanded to account for the said amount in his account. Another revealing fact is that the a/c holder came forward to deposit the money only after detection of the said incident. Had he been genuine recipient of the withdrawal on 09.10.99. Another revealing fact is that the a/c holder came forward to deposit the money only after detection of the said incident. Had he been genuine recipient of the withdrawal on 09.10.99. On perusing MEX-8 it is observed that there were eight transaction carried out in his account from 10.10.99 to 30.10.99 another transactions might have carried out in a/c till he came to the branch for depositing Rs.60,000/- he would have drawn this matter to the knowledge of the Branch Manager but he has not done so which speaks about his tutored one in his deposition in the proceedings as he is not the recipient of the withdrawal. Under the circumstances deposit of DW-3 appears to be tutored one and deposition made in the proceedings is not reliable hence not acceptable. In view of the above charges, the Enquiry Officer came to find the CSE is guilty of all the charges levelled against him and imposed punishments accordingly." 8. Now coming to decide on the quantum of punishments being disproportionate to the quantum of offences, this Court finds petitioner has faced the following two charges: 1) Gross Misconduct : Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank likely to involve the Bank in monetary loss. 2) Minor Misconduct:- Breach of instructions for the running of any department. From the memorandum of charges, vide Annexure-15, this Court finds the petitioner was held liable involving most of the serious charges by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly awarded with punishment of dismissal from the services of the Bank by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Looking to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Charge Nos.1 to 9 being fully established, this Court finds for the material available therein and for establishment of above charges each of the charge since serious for the involvement of offence involving financial institute, this Court is of the view that establishment of each charge itself is sufficient to inflict punishment of dismissal. On the allegation that no loss being sustained by the Bank, the petitioner should have been exonerated from the charges, this Court finds for the serious financial irregularities at the instance of the delinquent petitioner, it is not a question whether there is loss of one pie or thousand pies. The question for determination as to whether there occurred financial irregularities or not? And whether the petitioner is responsible for the same or not? The question for determination as to whether there occurred financial irregularities or not? And whether the petitioner is responsible for the same or not? For the clear and cogent finding on the charges indicated hereinabove and further based on material charges being proved, this Court finds there is no question of showing any leniency and/or sympathy involving a Bank Officer. In the result, this Court finds the writ petition has no merit, as a consequence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.