JUDGMENT : NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J. 1. In this writ appeal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20459/2014 has assailed the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.09.2017 by which, the learned Single Judge upheld the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.03.2012 terminating the petitioner from service as well as the Order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.11.2012 by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was rejected. 2. It is evident from the Writ Petition that the petitioner was functioning as a Chief Manager at Bellary Branch of the respondent-Bank and while so officiating, he was placed under suspension on the ground that he had abused his official position and had extended loans to various persons in violation of the norms prescribed under the credit policy of the Bank. Following the order of suspension, a charge sheet was issued on 16.06.2011, whereby the petitioner was accused of granting loan under the Synd Jaikisan Scheme without complying KYC norms and without proper pre-sanction appraisal of the credit proposals and without ensuring end use of the loan and also failed to conduct post sanction follow up. It was further stated that the acts of the petitioner had resulted in an amount of Rs. 1,45,01,896/- becoming sticky and exposed these loans to the risk of being classified as NPA. The petitioner is stated to have contested the charge sheet by filing his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted proceedings and submitted his report (Annexure-N). The Enquiry Officer held that some of the charges were proved while some of them were partly proved and another charge was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority before whom the enquiry report was placed, issued a notice, calling upon the petitioner to make his submissions, if any, against acceptance of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner is stated to have tendered his submission against acceptance of the report of the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority having gone through the submissions made by the petitioner, passed an Order dated 28.03.2012 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Bank with immediate effect. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Disciplinary Authority having gone through the submissions made by the petitioner, passed an Order dated 28.03.2012 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Bank with immediate effect. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in terms of the order dated 23.11.2012 confirmed the major penalty of dismissal from services of the Bank and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. Challenging the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court. The respondent filed its objections contending that all opportunity was provided to the petitioner at the enquiry. The primary contentions that were urged before the learned Single Judge were that, the Disciplinary Authority while conducting the proceedings had violated the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees’ Regulations and that the Regulation 6(17) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees’ Regulations was violated. It was also argued that the entire amount which was disbursed as loan was recovered and there was no loss to the Bank. It is therefore urged that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate. It is strenuously contended that the Bank failed to produce the witnesses whose unverified statements in writing were relied upon at the enquiry. It is thus claimed that the petitioner could not cross examine these witnesses. The petitioner therefore claimed that principles of natural justice were not complied by the Enquiry Officer. 5. The learned Single Judge noticed these contentions and repelled the same in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 4599 of 2001 dated 12.10.2004 as well as the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 812 of 2006 and also the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 4221 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011 as regards the violation of Regulation of 6(17) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees Regulation. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case reported in Diwan Singh and Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 341 and held that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the charges. 6. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case reported in Diwan Singh and Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 341 and held that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the charges. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before the Enquiry Officer statements of some officials of the Bank that were recorded in writing were marked in evidence but those persons were not subjected to cross examination to establish the truth. He also contended that there was another Manager named Mr. Havanur who was responsible for sanction and release of loan, and who was also responsible for re-scheduling of loans. He therefore contended that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were thoroughly prejudiced against him. He also contended that he had put in 36 years of blemishless service and therefore the order of dismissal from service was disproportionate. In view of the fact that the entire amount that was advanced by the Bank was recovered, he pleaded that the order of the Disciplinary Authority requires to be interfered with. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the materials placed on record. We have also thoroughly verified the enquiry report as well as the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The Enquiry Officer has gone through each and every charge leveled against the petitioner and the charge against the petitioner is duly supported by voluminous and overwhelming evidence. 8. The petitioner claims to have put in 36 years of blemishless service and at the relevant time was officiating at the level of an officer of the Bank. However, instances galore in the case which demonstrate that the petitioner doled out loans to people without proper verification and throwing caution to the wind. In many cases, loans were arranged to the friends/acquaintances of the petitioner and at times to others at the instance of the friends/acquaintances who seemed to collect commission etc., The petitioner has willfully ignored the rules/regulations of the Bank relating to advances under the Synd Jaikisan Scheme. In short, the petitioner is accused of dealing with the funds of the Bank in contempt of the rules/regulations of the Bank. In short, the petitioner is accused of dealing with the funds of the Bank in contempt of the rules/regulations of the Bank. Though, it is claimed that the Bank has not suffered any loss which is only providential, that cannot be a justification to countenance the Disciplinary Proceedings. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not venture to sit in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. It is needles to state that it is not the decision but the decision making process that has to be considered. In the present case, we have found that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity and all the procedures that are required to comply with principles of natural justice were followed. It is now well established that it is not the decision but the decision making process that has to be considered in excise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A careful consideration of the material on record discloses that the petitioner has been provided with sufficient opportunity at all stages of the proceedings and a few instances here and there as narrated by the petitioner would not and cannot upset the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. 9. We are reminded of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. In the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545 , it is held as follows: “18. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. 19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty.” It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.” 10. Likewise, in the case of The High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikanth S. Patil and Another, AIR 2000 SC 22 , it is held as follows: “16. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the following: ORDER: The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.