ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (B&O), State Bank of India confirming the order dated 31.10.2012 removing the petitioner from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager (RBO-2) Bhavnagar whereby the petitioner was removed from the service in terms of Clause : 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement on the Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen whereby the present petitioner was removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and / or Provident Fund and gratuity as would be dubbed otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. 2. Since the orders passed by the respondents in the year 2012 and 2013 are sought to be challenged by way of present petition in the year 2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 21.12.2020 passed the following order. “1) The petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs: “A. To admit and allow the present petition; B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2020 (09.03.2013) passed by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (B&O) State Bank of India and also the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Assistant General Manager (RBO-2), Bhavnagar and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and be given all consequential benefits; C. To pass any other and further order that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (2) Learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain appearing with learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti for the petitioner requires time to substantiate the oral say of illness of the wife of the petitioner for challenging the order of the Year 2013 in the Year 2020 and to satisfy the court on legal aspect to condone this huge period. At their request, let the matter be posted on 23.12.2020.” (emphasis applied) [In the aforesaid order, while reproducing the prayer made in the petition, due to typographical error ‘date has been wrongly mentioned as ‘09.03.2020’ instead of ‘09.03.2013’] 2.1 Then on 23.12.2020 passed the following order “Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate, seeks time to substantiate the cause for delay in filing the petition as recorded in the order dated 21.12.2020. Stand over to 11.01.2021.” 2.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain for learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti produced on record “ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER” along with annexures in the form of prescriptions and pathological report of the wife of the petitioner. 2.3 The petitioner though vide order dated 23.12.2020 was given sufficient opportunity to explain the delay has explained the delay in one paragraph by way of “ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER” which reads as under, more particularly in para:2: “2. It is submitted that, when the petitioner was in service at the respondent bank the wife of the petitioner was suffering from a brain stoke and her body was almost completely paralyzed. A copy of medical papers of wife of the petitioner is annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-A1”.” 2.4 A bare perusal at the annexures to the “ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER” would indicate that the documents produced by the petitioner are in the form of prescriptions of doctor who was treating petitioner’s wife. Amongst those documents, there is also discharge summary of patient viz. Joshi Vanita Gamanbhai which indicates that she was admitted to Meru Nursing Home, Bhavnagar and was undergoing treatment of Dr.Dijesh K. Shah, Consultant Neurological and Spinal Surgeon where the wife of the petitioner was admitted for four days i.e. from 13.04.2015 to 16.04.2015. Even as per the discharge summary, at the bottom of the discharge summary, under the head “advice” there are only general advices given to the wife of the petitioner while discharging which indicates that there was no advice for bed-rest which may even remotely indicate that the wife of the petitioner was bed ridden for substantially long period and therefore petitioner could not approach this Court in time. Even the prescriptions and pathological report also indicate that wife of the petitioner though was undergoing treatment, it seems that treatment was taken only once or twice in a year, may be for routine check-up as the prescriptions are of the years 2015, 2018 and 2019 which would not help the petitioner to explain as to why the orders passed in the year 2012 and 2013 were challenged in the year 2020 as those documents do not substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from brain-stock and her body was “almost completely paralised” and, therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay only as the same is not sufficiently explained. 3. However, since the petition pertains to removal of the petitioner from service, this Court thought it fit to examine the matter even on merits along with the aspect of delay and hence Mr.Narendra L. Jain, learned advocate was permitted to argue on merits as well, along with the aspect of delay. 4. Before considering the arguments of learned advocate Mr.Jain, the factual matrix of the petition is required to be seen. The same are as under: 4.1 The petitioner joined the service of respondent Bank in the year 1995 as Peon and according to the petitioner he was performing his duty to satisfaction of his superior. While the petitioner was serving as Peon in Nondhanvadar Branch from 02.08.2004 to 21.12.2011. During that period, it was alleged that the petitioner had misused the per-signed cheques of the customer of the Bank and withdrew the amount of Rs.70,000/- in all. One cheque was withdrwan from the savings bank account of one customer of Nondhanvadar Branch viz. Kanjibhai Virjibhai Solanki from whose account petitioner withdrew Rs.30,000/- and another customer of Kalanala Branch viz. Kurjibhai Patel from whose account petitioner withdrew sum of Rs.40,000/-. 4.2 When such action was noticed, the petitioner himself confessed about such act committed by him vide letter dated 17.12.2011 addressing to the Branch Manager, SBI Nondhanvadar Branch. 4.3 Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 28.04.2012 issued to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted and as such principles of natural justice was duly complied with. 4.2 When such action was noticed, the petitioner himself confessed about such act committed by him vide letter dated 17.12.2011 addressing to the Branch Manager, SBI Nondhanvadar Branch. 4.3 Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 28.04.2012 issued to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted and as such principles of natural justice was duly complied with. The Inquiry Officer, vide inquiry report dated 29.08.2012 held all the three charges against the petitioner ‘proved’ and thereafter on the basis of the charges proved against the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from services with superannuation benefits i.e. pension, provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. The said punishment was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2012. 4.4 The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order to the Appellate Authority and Deputy General Manager (B&O) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, who, in turn, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.03.2013 and, therefore, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, 31.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager (RBO–2) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar and Appellate Authority and Deputy General Manager (B&O) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, the petitioner preferred the present petition challenging the aforesaid two orders of 2012 and 2013 in the year 2013 i.e. almost after seven years. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain for learned advocate Mr.Hetvi Sancheti for the petitioner. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Jain submitted that considering the condition of the wife of the petitioner, case of the petitioner was required to be considered sympathetically by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Mr.Jain further submitted that there are no direct evidence against the petitioner to the effect that he has siphoned the amount and, therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the present petitioner. According to Mr.Jain, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is excessive and there are no direct evidence against the petitioner. In such circumstances, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. No other or further arguments were advanced by learned advocate Mr.Jain, nor he has relied upon any Staff Regulation or Disciplinary Rules of Bank nor cited any judgment in support of his submissions. 6. In such circumstances, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. No other or further arguments were advanced by learned advocate Mr.Jain, nor he has relied upon any Staff Regulation or Disciplinary Rules of Bank nor cited any judgment in support of his submissions. 6. As stated in forgoing paras, there is no sufficient justification coming forward from the petitioner’s side to explain the delay of seven years. The explanation tendered by the petitioner cannot be said to be convincing explanation in view of this Court. Apart from the aspect of delay, even if the case of the petitioner is examined on merits, it is well settled by now that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when a proper disciplinary inquiry is held against the petitioner / delinquent, and principles of natural justice are duly complied with by the authority (respondent bank authority herein), this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the findings of Inquiry Officer and reappreciate the evidence. 6.1 Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer has noted that the petitioner himself has, in writing, confessed about his act of stealing the cheques of customers of the Bank and has siphoned total amount of Rs.70,000/- and, therefore, respondents were justified in imposing the punishment of removing the petitioner from the service. The banking industry is an industry which requires absolutely honest staff as it provides financial services and any person having dishonest intention or with a tainted past cannot be permitted to continue in service and, therefore, the respondents have rightly removed the petitioner from the services, and hence punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh. 6.2 Therefore, when all the three charges against the petitioner are held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer and substantially confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the punishment imposed by the petitioner is absolutely just, legal and proper and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 09.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (B&O), State Bank of India and dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager (RBO-2) Bhavnagar . 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.