JUDGMENT : 1. Present writ petition is filed being aggrieved of termination order dated 31.03.2014 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service in view of the charge-sheet dated 09.01.2013. It is also noted that against the said dismissal order, an appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.01.2014. Review application filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 29.11.2014 and therefore the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 01.05.1984 on the post of clerk with the respondent-Bank against substantive vacancy through regular selection. He was promoted on 02.04.2005 as a Junior Manager Grade-1. The cause and controversy in the matter arose when on 21.12.2012, while the petitioner was working as an Officer in Karauli Branch of respondent-Bank, he came to be suspended under contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and a show-cause-notice (SCN) dated 08.02.2013 was issued regarding certain irregularities observed in the advances portfolio of Branch in relation to certain accounts. 3. In response to the said SCN, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 18.03.2013 refuting each and every charge levelled against him. It is submitted that Karauli Branch was a small branch having staff of only three employees; a Manager, petitioner himself and a IVth class employee, wherein the petitioner was discharging duties of handling Cash and Report Section, used to make entries only on the directions given by the Manager. Impugned charge-sheet (Annexure-4) was issued and served under Regulation 6 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (in short ‘Discipline Regulation 1976’) for violation of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 (in short ‘Conduct Regulation 1976’) wherein allegation for mala-fide, misconduct, dishonesty with authority were specified along with charges of connivance with Manager Mr. Bairwa. 4. In response to the said charge-sheet, a reply dated 04.09.2013 was furnished and the allegations levelled were refuted in entirety. On 31.01.2014, disciplinary authority, after considering the reply to the said charge-sheet, issued an order for punishment of dismissal from services under Regulation 4(J) of Disciplinary Regulation 1976. Against the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014. On 31.01.2014, disciplinary authority, after considering the reply to the said charge-sheet, issued an order for punishment of dismissal from services under Regulation 4(J) of Disciplinary Regulation 1976. Against the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014. Thereafter, review application was also rejected by Reviewing Authority after considering the order in original passed in pursuance to the charge-sheet, vide order dated 29.11.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while acting as an Officer, the petitioner had carried out his duties on the instructions of Manager-Mr. Bairwa. On the said instructions he had recorded certain entries in favour of family members of the Manager. By the said entries the petitioner was not at any advantage, nor the said entries have given any personal benefit to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Manager, Mr. B.L. Bairwa, committed all fake entries levelled in the charge-sheet by misusing trailer password of the petitioner and the entire embezzled amount was used exclusively by him for his own benefit. 6. The petitioner admits opening saving bank accounts in the name of his wife and children, however he maintains that he has not carried out any fraudulent transactions which gave him, or any of his family members, any personal/individual benefit. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no mention of any loss to the bank in the charge-sheet, nor has any quantified loss been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Manager has accepted the fault/misconduct on his part and has deposited the entire amount quantifying to approx Rs.9.65 lakhs in toto which shows petitioners bona fide. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent-Bank has registered FIR on 17.12.2013 on the same set of facts, wherein a challan and final report were filled after due investigation on the same set of facts and circumstances, wherein petitioner’s role in the alleged transactions was ruled out and he was exonerated and the only liability and wrong was qua the Branch Manager, Mr. Banwari Lal Bairwa. Banwari Lal Bairwa. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is settled position of law that if on the same set of facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings are set aside and held to be not maintainable, then civil proceedings cannot be initiated and/or continued, for which he has placed reliance on H.L. Gulati vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 2015 (12) SCC 408 . 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is difference between misconduct and negligence. In the case in hand, without prejudice to his argument, he has submitted that the actions of the petitioner may be treated as case of negligence as the petitioner has only opened accounts in the name of his family members but has not committed any act of embezzlement, nor has he availed any profit either in his favour or in favour of his family members. It is submitted that for such act of negligence, severe punishment of dismissal is neither warranted nor legally justified. There was no loss to the Bank as the entire money has been deposited by the General Manager himself after acknowledgment of misconduct on his part. As such, no loss accrued to the Bank and therefore he submits that as per settled position of law, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer, (R.K.Rai), Allahabad Bank and Ors. reported in 2003 (9) SCC 480 , the principle of proportionality has to be followed and therefore in his case punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, especially when in criminal proceedings for the same set of facts and circumstances, he has been exonerated and the respondent-Bank did not file any appeal against the same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment of Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) SCC 566 , Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 , Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 713 . Learned counsel has placed reliance on Webster dictionary for the definition of the word ‘lapse’. He has pointed out that ‘lapse’/’negligence’ is different from misconduct. Learned counsel has further relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment titled as United Bank of India Vs. Ltd. And Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 713 . Learned counsel has placed reliance on Webster dictionary for the definition of the word ‘lapse’. He has pointed out that ‘lapse’/’negligence’ is different from misconduct. Learned counsel has further relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment titled as United Bank of India Vs. Biswasnath Bhattacharjee reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 108, and has submitted that in this similar case it was held that the case is of negligence and not of misconduct and therefore, the employee should be given a proportional punishment/treatment and not high magnitude punishment of dismissal. Finally, learned counsel has submitted that once in the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts, proceedings are set aside, the same can neither be initiated nor continued under civil or service law. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, Ms. Anita Aggarwal, has submitted that it is admitted by the petitioner that he had shared his confidential password with the Bank Manager, Mr. B.L. Bairwa and the amount of Rs.9.65 lakhs was misappropriated and siphoned off to different accounts which were not entitled for that money. It is submitted that the petitioner misused his official position by debiting GL & LCCR heads unauthorisedly causing huge financial losses to the respondent-bank. The above acts of the petitioner raised huge questions upon his honesty and integrity, which also caused loss of reputation of the respondent Bank. Therefore, charges were levelled against the petitioner for violation of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Conduct Regulations 1976 and a charge-sheet dated 09.08.2013 was issued with specific allegations. Learned counsel has emphasized that respondent Bank afforded all reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only after considering his response/defence, arrived at the conclusion that petitioner was guilty for his involvement in misutilizing the proceeds of OCC/KCC/Diary Loans/Kisan Suvidha/ALLHV, Canara Mobile loans which he had appraised/recommended at the branch and also misused his official position by debiting GL & LCCR heads unauthorizedly during his tenure at Karauli branch and the money was siphoned off by merging the transactions and giving credits to different accounts not entitled for that money. As it was held that the actions of the petitioner were not bona fide and because the transactions were not genuine normal banking transactions, petitioner was dismissed from service as envisaged under Regulation 4(j) of Discipline Regulations 1976. 11. As it was held that the actions of the petitioner were not bona fide and because the transactions were not genuine normal banking transactions, petitioner was dismissed from service as envisaged under Regulation 4(j) of Discipline Regulations 1976. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that actions of the petitioner are rightly construed as ‘misconduct’ and not ‘negligence’ because the period of scam was distributed between 06.06.2010 to 21.12.2012, which is a period of two and a half years and the same was done with mala fide intentions in different Bank accounts on different dates. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per charge No.3, the Officer/petitioner has opened savings accounts in the name of family members and as per mandate of Regulation 15(i), 15(iv) and 20(4) of Conduct Regulations 1976, did not report the transactions made in these accounts to the Controlling Officer, which insinuated that he was discharging his duties with dishonesty and without integrity & devotion. Learned counsel has further relied on Articles of Charge-III, wherein, the petitioner opened Bank accounts in the name of his wife (Smt. Manju Gupta), son (Mayank Goyal) and daughter (Ms. Mahak Goyal) wherein several transactions involving huge amounts were made without reporting them to the bank, which is grave misconduct and attracts major penalty. Learned counsel has further submitted that after consideration of the case, the Original Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, in speaking orders, have confirmed all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet except for sixth charge which was half proven. It is submitted that in view of proven charges, the Bank has all the reasons to have a justifiable lack of confidence, which having regard to nature of duties performed made it necessary in the interest of the Bank to terminate the services of the petitioner by imposing punishment of “Dismissal which shall be a disqualification for future employment”. 12. With regard to criminal proceedings on the same facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of charge sheet dated 09.08.2003, and the charges contained in the charge-sheet were never considered/inquired into in criminal proceedings. The respondent Bank had initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Bank for specific charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet and for which specific punishment/penalties are also prescribed. The respondent Bank had initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Bank for specific charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet and for which specific punishment/penalties are also prescribed. The respondent Bank has proceeded totally independent of the criminal case and has proved the charges based on the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry. Though the petitioner was exonerated but the facts that he admitted sharing of confidential password and that he opened savings account in the name of his family members were not considered in the criminal proceedings. In the light of above, it is contended that the argument of same set of circumstances on law and facts, in the present case, is not made out. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 and has submitted that in the cases where the two proceedings are in different context and reliance is also placed on different laws in service matters, even if no loss is caused to the Bank and criminal case is closed, the same cannot be a bar to invoke disciplinary proceedings against the accused. Learned counsel has also submitted that judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant for the above said reasons. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the case in hand, only two Bank employees were there in the small Branch who misused the funds, acted dishonestly, committed breach of trust not only qua the Bank/employer, but also qua the customers for a long period of two and a half years. Therefore, it is not a case of mere negligence and as per the rules, it calls for major penalties. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per settled position of law, in case of concurrent finding and speaking orders, the Hon’ble Court should be slow to entertain the petitions for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except when there is gross error, manifest error on the face of record or failure of justice. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 14. Upon consideration of all, it is observed that in the case in hand, the Manager Mr. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 14. Upon consideration of all, it is observed that in the case in hand, the Manager Mr. Bairwa and the petitioner were the only white collar employees in the Karauli branch. This court is of the view that the transactions were not genuine normal banking transactions, they were carried out mala fidely and the money was siphoned off by merging the transactions and giving credit to different accounts not entitled for that money. The petitioner admittedly shared his confidential password with the manager, against the bank norms and guidelines, and this practice of fraudulent transactions continued for a period of over 2 years and at no point of time did the petitioner changed his password despite being fully aware of the nature of transactions. Such an act cannot be considered as mere negligence, for the simple reason that it was not done just once or twice without the knowledge of the petitioner, but continued throughout the period in a proportionate manner. It is also reflected from the charge-sheet and impugned orders that the petitioner had opened saving bank accounts in his own name as well as in the names of his wife, Smt. Manju Gupta, son, Mr. Mayank Goyal and daughter, Ms. Mahek Goyal and made inter accounts transactions with customers/borrowers of branch involving huge cash transactions without informing the same to the controlling office, which was a clear violation of provisions of Regulations 15(1), 15(4) & 20(4) of Conduct Regulations 1976 and as such breached the faith not only qua the Bank but also acted in fraudulent and mala-fide manner with the customers. The said charge have been found proved by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. The said fact of opening and maintaining accounts of family members was not considered in the criminal enquiry/proceedings, which itself was concluded in hastened manner. For whatever reason, the same was not appealed by the respondent-Bank, which is unfortunate. 15. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he has shared his confidential password. The contention of the petitioner, that the averments in the police complaint/FIR as well as the charge sheet issued by bank are identical, is also incorrect. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on different case laws is distinguishable. 15. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he has shared his confidential password. The contention of the petitioner, that the averments in the police complaint/FIR as well as the charge sheet issued by bank are identical, is also incorrect. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on different case laws is distinguishable. In the case in hand, the case before the Police Department and before the Disciplinary Authority was under different provisions. Charges levelled in the charge-sheet dated 09.08.2013 were never considered by the Police Authorities, rather their own enquiry/investigation was ill founded. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court, in series of judgments including P.C. Kakkar (supra), has held that if there is a misconduct, then nullity in criminal case cannot come as a bar to disciplinary proceedings, especially when they are on different footing under different rules/regulations and in the case of fiscal transactions/banking, acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of commission of misconduct. Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that it would depend upon the facts of each case and have no universal application. In this regard, the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P.C. Kakkar (supra) is fairly valid and applicable in the present case. 17. It is also held time and again that the scope of judicial review and interference in the service matters, departmental enquiry is limited and is rather impermissible especially when the charge-sheet, order in original, order in appeal and review order are passed on logical conclusion and are speaking in nature and are not shocking conscience of the court. The present case is not falling under the category of rarest of rare case and there is no manifest error in the impugned orders under challenge. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank is worth consideration as in both the proceedings i.e. disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, the charges were altogether different and distinct, exclusive and independent to each other. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. vs. K. Meerabai reported in 2006 (2) SCC 255 has held that when there is loss of confidence, sympathy or generosity cannot be a ground. In the case in hand, the respondent is a leading Bank of the country having small branches in small towns. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. vs. K. Meerabai reported in 2006 (2) SCC 255 has held that when there is loss of confidence, sympathy or generosity cannot be a ground. In the case in hand, the respondent is a leading Bank of the country having small branches in small towns. The petitioner has flouted the regulations and carried out acts which constitute misconduct under Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24, Regulation 15 and Regulation 20 of Conduct Regulation 1976, for which he was dismissed from services and the dismissal order was approved by Original Authority, Appellate Authority, Reviewing Authority and Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case on proportionality of punishment and on bar on disciplinary proceedings when the criminal proceedings are closed. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no aid for the reasons stated above, as both the proceedings were carried out under different Regulations on different grounds and different charges and for the reasons referred to in the Hon’ble Apex Court rulings of P.C. Kakkar (supra) which makes the judgments relied upon by the petitioner distinguishable and not applicable in the case in hand. 18. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the view that it was not a case of negligence/lapse but was the case of intentional mala fide and misconduct under Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24, Regulation 15 and Regulation 20, of Conduct Regulations 1976 which has attracted major penalty of dismissal. Therefore this court is convinced that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the impugned charge-sheet, order in original passed by the disciplinary authority, impugned appellate order and the impugned review order are held valid and hence calls for no interference. 16. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.