JUDGMENT : Soumitra Saikia, J The appellant was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Canara Bank. He earned his promotion in due course and at the point in time he was employed as Special Assistant and was posted in the Sikh Temple Branch, Guwahati since 17.06.1994. The appellant was served with a Show-Cause notice dated 26.08.2002 issued by the Deputy General Manager (DGM), Circle Office, Calcutta alleging irregular adjustments in Suspense Deposit Account. The appellant replied to the Show-Cause notice denying the allegations made. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept his explanations/reply. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 14.06.2003 holding all the charges levelled against the appellant to be proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” as provided for under Regulation 4 (B) of Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code (hereinafter referred as “Service Code”). The appellant being aggrieved by the order of “Compulsory Retirement”, preferred an appeal before the Authority prescribed under the Service Code. His appeal also being rejected by the Appellate Authority, he preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 6377/2005 challenging the validity, legality and proprietary of the order of “Compulsory Retirement” dated 27.09.2003 as well as the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 17.09.2013 dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the order of Compulsory Retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 2. Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations/charges against the appellant were totally uncalled for as the appellant had been diligent in rendering his service since his date of appointment. The learned Senior counsel referring to the communication dated 26.08.2002 would submit that the same was issued to the appellant to explain Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your part. There was no allegation of causing financial loss to the bank or wrongful gain by the appellant. The learned Senior counsel referring to the communication dated 26.08.2002 would submit that the same was issued to the appellant to explain Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your part. There was no allegation of causing financial loss to the bank or wrongful gain by the appellant. That apart, the learned Senior counsel urged that during the enquiry proceedings, there are management witnesses who had testified that the appellant was one of the excellent employees of the Branch. The learned Senior counsel also submits that as per the Canara Bank Service Code “Misconduct” may be “gross misconduct” or “minor misconduct”. Referring to Clause 3 of the Service Code, he submits that the acts and omission of “gross misconduct” referred thereunder does not relate to any of the charges made against the appellant. Instead at best, the acts or omissions provided for under Clause 5 (d) can be attributed to the appellant namely “breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any department”. He refers to Clause 6 of the Service Code and submits that the punishment pursuant to any finding arrived at in respect of minor misconduct are provided for under Clause 6 of the Service Code. The learned Senior counsel, therefore submits that besides the enquiry being conducted in gross violation of the procedures mandated under law and with total disregard to the lack of evidence against the appellant, even assuming though not admitting that pursuant to the enquiry any punishment was required to be imposed upon the appellant, the same could only have been done as provided for under the Service Code for those which relate to minor misconduct. The earned Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellant Authority is wholly disproportionate and the learned Single Judge having failed to pass appropriate orders in this regard, the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with, set aside and consequently, the punishment imposed by the Bank Authorities be set aside and quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel would relied upon the following Judgments: 1. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 2. State Bank of India and Ors. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel would relied upon the following Judgments: 1. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 2. State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 3. State of Meghalaya and Ors. Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580 4. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ram Daras Yadav, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 236 5. M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310 6. Ram Janam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1722 7. Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1377 8. Regional Manager, UP SRTC, Etawah and Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal and Anr, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 605 3. Per contra, Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the Bank strongly disputes the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not cause any financial loss to the Bank. On the contrary, referring to the communication dated 26.08.2002, he submits that the said communication gave a detailed descriptions of irregularities caused by the appellant in respect of a Suspense Account maintained at the Bank by preparing an unauthorized debit and credit vouchers in favour of one M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. According to the Bank, such casting mistakes were occasioned due to the failure of the appellant to adhere to the instructions of Senior Manager by not verifying the old records before debiting the Suspense Deposit. The learned counsel for the Bank further disputes the contention that the acts and omissions of the appellant at best can be termed to be “minor misconduct” and not “gross misconduct” as has been held by the Bank. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the appellant had admitted before the Bank Authorities which is also reflected in his reply as well as in the appeal that the casting mistakes were at the instance of the instructions of Senior Manager. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that such casting mistakes did not happen in a single day rather it was spread over a period of time. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that such casting mistakes did not happen in a single day rather it was spread over a period of time. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 3 of the Service Code amongst the acts and omissions of any employee which are construed to be gross misconduct, habitual act of minor misconduct as well as doing any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank are some of the acts and omissions which are considered to be gross misconduct and which are attributable to the appellant. The learned counsel for the Bank relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia bank and Ors reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806 to support his contention. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that any deviation from the procedural guidelines of the Bank would lead to erosion of public trust of the Banks. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the appellant being a Bank Officer, a great deal of trust is required to be reposed upon an Officer of the Bank and any dereliction of duty in respect of flouting of the norms and procedures cannot be viewed to be a minor mistake or minor misconduct. He, therefore submits that there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and the appellant having admitted that there were casting mistakes, the imposition of punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” is appropriate and no interference thereof is called for by this Court in exercise of judicial review. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the pleadings on record. 5. To understand the allegations made against the appellant, it will be appropriate to extract the contents of the letter dated 26.08.2002 which details the irregularities stated to have been resorted to by the appellant. “CANARA BANK STAFF SECTION (OFFICER), CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLKATA. KC:: 4455: E_113(i) SKH: 2002 AUGUST 26, 2002 Shri Ashis Kumar Goon (38469) Special Assistant Canara Bank Sikh Temple Guwahati. Dear Sir, Sub: Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your Part. It has been reported to us that at the time of creation of master date for computerization of your Branch, it was found that suspense Deposit Account was not tallied since 30.09.2001 and there was a difference of Rs. 18,552/- in the account. Dear Sir, Sub: Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your Part. It has been reported to us that at the time of creation of master date for computerization of your Branch, it was found that suspense Deposit Account was not tallied since 30.09.2001 and there was a difference of Rs. 18,552/- in the account. A detailed investigation into the matter has revealed the following: 1. One Mr. Dilip Das vide his letter dated 29.06.2001 requested to pay back Rs. 18,522/- through pay order as he had deposited a cheque on 02.08.1989 without writing the account number in the pay-in-slip and the same is kept in Suspense Deposit Account of the branch for want of full particulars. On the top of the said letter, the Senior Manager of the Branch instructed to verify the old records and then credit. 2. On 30.06.2001 you have prepared the debit slip for debiting Rs. 18,522/- to Suspense Deposit Account and also credit slip for DD favouring Shri Dilip Das for Rs. 18,522/-. Basing on the same the Senior Manager has signed the debit slip authorizing debit to Suspense Deposit account. The transaction has been put through on 02-07-2001 and DD No. 550694 dated 02-07-2001 for Rs. 18,522/- has been issued favouring Shri Dilip Das. 3. The Suspense Deposit Account has been presumably debited against the following credits: Date of Credit 05-09-1989 06-09-1989 06-09-1989 03-08-1989 06-09-1989 03-08-1989 Amount: Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 22/- Rs. 18,522/- However, these amounts have already been reversed during August to September’ 89 and credited to the following accounts: DETAILS/NAME: TYPE OF TRANS AMOUNT ADJUSTED ON ADJUSTED TO T. Singh B.C. Baid B.K. Sharma U.C. Medh S.D. Singh D.C. Jain Clearing do- do- do- do- do- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 1,500/- 22/- 05-09-89 06-09-89 06-09-89 03-08-89 06-09-89 03-08-89 SB 539 SB 537 SB 1130 SB 491 SB 41 Illegible 18,522/- Thus the second debit of the amount on 30-06-2001 has been done without any corresponding credit being available in Suspense Deposit Account. 4. During investigation, it has also been observed that no person named Shri Dilip Das is residing at the address given in letter dated 29-06-01. 5. On 05-07-2001, the said DD dated 30-06-2001 favouring Shri Dilip Das was received by you at the branch at Clearing Deptt. 4. During investigation, it has also been observed that no person named Shri Dilip Das is residing at the address given in letter dated 29-06-01. 5. On 05-07-2001, the said DD dated 30-06-2001 favouring Shri Dilip Das was received by you at the branch at Clearing Deptt. With credit challan for credit to CA 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corpn. The amount has been credited to the subject account on 06-07-2001 after clearing. On further verification, the following is observed: i) On 12-08-2000, there was a casting mistake in Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corpn. when you were the Supervisor of Current Account Department resulting in debit balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87. The party has repaid the amount gradually and a sum of Rs. 22,143/- is debited to the account till 30-06-2001 as TOD interest. ii) After crediting Rs. 18,522/- on 06-07-2001, further Rs. 7,000/- has been recovered by way of cash on 07-07-2001 and the Current Account TOD has been regularized. From the above it is observed that you have failed to adhere to the instructions of the Senior Manager by not verifying the old records before debiting Suspense Deposit. You have also accepted the DD issued in favour of Shri Dilip Das and have credited the proceeds to the Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corpn. In view of the above you are hereby called upon to explain as to what you have to say in the matter within 7 days of receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible (N.Jeevagan) DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. Copy to:- 1. Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch: Please deliver the original to the converned employee against his dated acknowledgement and sent the acknowledged copy to us (1) for their files. 2. Regional Office, Guwahati 3. Staff Section (Workmen), Circle Office, Kolkata. 4. goon 2. Txt.” 6. In the reply, the appellant made a categorical statement that the Senior Manager instructed him to prepare debit vouchers debiting Suspense Deposit Account for Rs. 18,522/- and also the corresponding credit slips to be prepared for DD favouring Shri Dilip Das. The appellant stated that he had prepared both the slips and had handed over to the Senior Manager and after being duly authorized, the amount of Rs. 18,522/- vide DD no. 550694 dated 02.07.2001 was issued in favour of the said Sri Dilip Das. 18,522/- and also the corresponding credit slips to be prepared for DD favouring Shri Dilip Das. The appellant stated that he had prepared both the slips and had handed over to the Senior Manager and after being duly authorized, the amount of Rs. 18,522/- vide DD no. 550694 dated 02.07.2001 was issued in favour of the said Sri Dilip Das. In respect of the casting mistake relating to Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation on 12.08.2000 resulting in debit balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87 and its regularization thereof on 07.07.2001. It is stated that the same are available in the records of the Branch. The reply of the appellant in response to the letter dated 26.08.2002 is also reproduced below: “From : Sri Asish Kumar Goon, (38469), Canara Bank, Sikh Temple, Guwahati. To: The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Kolkata (Through the Manager, Sikh Temple Brach) Dear Sir, I Acknowledge receipt of your KC:SSO:4455 E_113(i) SKH 2002, dated 26 th August, 2002 and submit the following for your kind perusal and favourable consideration. 1. At the outset permit me to place on record that the said letter dated 29.06.01 nor the instructions “Verify the old records and then credit” was neither given/shown to me by the then Senior Manager of the branch and hence cannot be held against me in any manner. 2. The fact that on 30.06.01 the Senior Manager had instructed me to prepare Debit voucher debiting Suspense Deposit Account for Rs. 18,500/- and also the corresponding Credit slip to be prepared to DD favouring Shri Dilip Das. I had prepared both the slips and handed over to the then Senior Manager., On 2.7.01 the then Senior Manager had duly authorized both the debit slip and the corresponding credit slip and the DD 550694 dated 2.7.01 for Rs. 18,522/- was issued in favour of Sri Dilip Das. 3. For your information the Suspense Deposit Account was not being rounded off at that time for a long period. Hence this procedure was not adhered at all. The amount of debit of Rs. 18,522/- was indicated by the then Senior Manager and it was not debited as presumed by you under point number three of page one of your above cited letter. 4. Hence this procedure was not adhered at all. The amount of debit of Rs. 18,522/- was indicated by the then Senior Manager and it was not debited as presumed by you under point number three of page one of your above cited letter. 4. Even though all the six debits under Suspense Deposit Account were reversed during August-September 1989, the individual debits laying under Suspense Deposit Account were not rounded off. 5. On 5.7.01 I was working in the Clearing Department. The said DD was received in the National Course and credited to Current Account 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. The other observation is about the casting mistake in the Current Account 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation on 12.8.00 resulted in Debit Balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87 and its regularization thereof on 7.7.01 are available in the records of the Branch. I have just prepared the debit and credit For Rs. 18,522/- as instructed by him on 30-06-01 prior to his relief on SVRS…. The service of the Bank on the said date. I have neither met Sri Dilip Das nor the letter dated 29-06-01 shown me with the alleged instructions of the then Senior Manager “Verify the old records and then credit”. Hence the question of failure to adhere to the instructions of the then Senior Manager as stated does not arise at all. I was really surprised to note such instructions were written by the then Senior Manager who was fully aware about the position of the unbalanced Suspense Deposit Account and procedure for reversing the entries from Suspense Deposit Account were not being adhered to. Hence proceeding against me on the alleged lapse of not adhering to the procedure and system that too for preparing the slips as directed is not fair. I have put in more than two decades of unblemished record of service in our institution. I have also stood with the Branch on many difficult situations. I request you to consider this reply dispassionately and drop further proceedings and render justice to me. Thanking you, Dated: 20th September, 2002. Place: Guwahati. Your’s faithfully Sd/- Illegible (Asish Kumar Goon)” 7. What is evident from the letter dated 26.08.2002 and the reply thereto by the appellant is that there were two irregularities noticed by the Bank during investigation. The first pertains to the Suspense Deposit Account in respect of an amount of Rs. Thanking you, Dated: 20th September, 2002. Place: Guwahati. Your’s faithfully Sd/- Illegible (Asish Kumar Goon)” 7. What is evident from the letter dated 26.08.2002 and the reply thereto by the appellant is that there were two irregularities noticed by the Bank during investigation. The first pertains to the Suspense Deposit Account in respect of an amount of Rs. 18,522/- which was debited against the following credits: Date of Credit: Amount: 05-09-1989 06-09-1989 06-09-1989 03-08-1989 06-09-1989 03-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 22/- Rs. 18,522/- The said amounts were however reversed during August to September, 1989 and credited to the following accounts: DETAILS/NAME: TYPE OF TRANS AMOUNT ADJUSTED ON ADJUSTED TO T. Singh B.C. Baid B.K. Sharma U.C. Medhi S.D. Singh D.C. Jain Clearing -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 1,500/- 22/- 05-09-89 06-09-89 06-09-89 03-08-89 06-09-89 03-08-89 SB 539 SB 537 SB 1130 SB 491 SB 41 Illegible 18,522/- 8. Therefore, the second debit entry of the said amount on 30.06.2001 was done without any corresponding credit being available in the Suspense Deposit Account. Further the person in whose favour the DD of Rs. 18,522/-was issued and was found to be not a resident of the address and the said DD favouring the said Shri Dilip Das was received by the appellant himself at the Branch with a Credit challan for credit to the Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. Thereafter, on 12.08.2000 there was a casting mistake in the Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation resulting in a debit balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87. The said account holder thereafter repaid the amount gradually and a sum of Rs. 22,143/-is debited to the account till 30.06.2001 as TOD interest. As such, the allegations against the appellant is that contrary to the instructions of Senior Manager, the old records were not verified before debiting the Suspense Account. He had also accepted Demand Draft in favour of one Shri Dilip Das and credited the proceeds to the Current Account No. 1925 of M/s Ishu Sales Corporation. The Bank Authorities being dissatisfied with his explanations in response the letter dated 26.08.2002 framed charges and issued charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was accompanied by the lists of documents and names of the witnesses. The Bank Authorities being dissatisfied with his explanations in response the letter dated 26.08.2002 framed charges and issued charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was accompanied by the lists of documents and names of the witnesses. The charge-sheet dated 13.11.2002 is extracted below: “CANARA BANK DISCIPLINARY ACTION CELL : : CIRCLE OFFICE : : KOLKATA REF NO: KC: DAC: 747: CH(W-3/2002) CHARGE SHEET VIDE CHAPTER XI. REGULATION 9(1)(a) OF CANARA BANK SERVICE CODE IN THE MATTER OF : Alleged act of misconduct on the part of NAME SRI ASISH KUMAR GOON STAFF NUMBER 38469 DESIGNATION SPECIAL ASSISTANT (U/S) BRANCH AT WHICH WORKING. SIKH TEMPLE, GUWAHATI To, SRI ASHISH KUMAR GOON (38469) SPECIAL ASSISTANT (U/S) CANARA BANK SIKH TEMPLE BRANCH GUWAHATI Whereas there are Prima facie grounds for believing that you have committed misconduct, the particulars whereof are given below, this charge sheet has been drawn up against you and you are hereby required to submit your explanation in writing within fifteen days of receipt of this charge sheet, meeting forth your defence, if any, any stating cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. CHARGE : You are working at our Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch as Special Assistant (U/S) since 17-06-94. At the time of creation Master Data for back office Computerisation of Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch, it was revealed that the suspense deposit account was not tallied after June, 2001 and there was a difference of Rs.18,522/-. An investigation was conducted in this regard and the following has been revealed. Vide Letter dated 29-06-2001, one Mr. Dilip Das requested to pay back Rs.18,522/- through pay order as he deposited a Cheque on 02-08-89 without writing the account No. in the pay-in-slip and the same was kept in Suspense Deposit Account of the branch for want of full particulars. On the top of the said letter the Senior Manager has specifically mentioned to verify the old records and then credit. On 30-06-2001 you prepared the debit slip for debiting Rs.18,522/- the Suspense Deposit Account towards payment of below mentioned credit items dated 02-08- 89. Date of credits: Amount 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/ 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 1,500/ 02-08-1989 Rs. 8,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 22/- Contra Credit slip for the like amount for preparing DD favouring Sri Dilip Das was prepared by you. Date of credits: Amount 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/ 02-08-1989 Rs. 3,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 1,500/ 02-08-1989 Rs. 8,000/- 02-08-1989 Rs. 22/- Contra Credit slip for the like amount for preparing DD favouring Sri Dilip Das was prepared by you. However, these amounts have already been reversed during August-September 1989 and credited to the following accounts. (Amount in Rs.) Details/Name Type of Trans Amount Adjusted on Adjusted to T. Singh Clearing 3,000/- 05-09-89 SB 539 B.C.Baid -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 537 B.K.Sharma -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 1130 S.D.Singh -do- 1,500/- 06-09-89 SB 41 U.C. Medhi -do- 8,000/- 03-08-89 SB 491 D.C. Jain -do- 22/- 03-08-89 To clearing Cheque returned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thus, the debit for the amount of Rs.18,522/- on 02-07-2001 has been done without any corresponding credit being available in Suspense Deposit Account. During the investigation it is revealed that no person named Sri Dilip Das is residing at the address given in the letter dated 29-06-01. On 17-08-2000 you were working as the supervisor of the Current Account department of the branch. On that date, there was casting mistake in CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation resulting in debit balance of Rs.1,97,327.87. The party has repaid the amount gradually and a sum of Rs.22,143/- is debited to the account till 30-06-2001 as TOD interest. On 05-07-2001 DD dtd. 02.07.2001 favouring Sri Dilip Das was received by you at the branch with credit challan for credit to CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation. The amount of Rs.18,522/- has been credited to the Account of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation on 06-07-2001. After crediting Rs.18,522/- on 06-07-2001, a further amount of Rs.7,000/- has been recovered by way of cash regularised. You have failed to adhere to the instructions of the Senior Manager to verify the old records before debiting Suspense Deposit. On 30-06-2001 you have prepared the debit Slip for debiting the suspense deposit by Rs.18,522/- even though there was no contra credit outstanding for the same. You have failed to adhere to the instructions of the Senior Manager to verify the old records before debiting Suspense Deposit. On 30-06-2001 you have prepared the debit Slip for debiting the suspense deposit by Rs.18,522/- even though there was no contra credit outstanding for the same. You have also accepted the DD issued in favour of Sri Dilip Das for credit to the CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation. It is revealed that even though you prepared the slip on dated 30-06- 2001 and got the same signed by the Senior Manager but passed the entry on 02- 07-2001 when the concerned Senior Manager was not in the service of the bank Further, it is revealed that you have addressed a letter dtd. 04-07-2001 to Mr. Manoj Kumar Tekriwal, Proprietor of M/s. Ishu Sales Corporation, in the capacity of the branch Manager giving a commitment regarding waiver of interest of Rs.18,000/- in case the balance amount of Rs.7,000/= is paid by the party on or before 10-07-2001. However, you have not obtained any permission from the Competent Authority to waive any interest amount due from M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation and you were not at all authorized by the bank to issue such letter to the party. Further, a letter dtd. 07-07-2001 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation addressed to the Branch confirming credit of Rs. 7,000/- to their Current Account had also been received by you and the said letter bears you __ initial alongwith the bank’s stamp (transfer stamp). The above fact in respect to the letters dated 04-07-01- and dtd. 07-07-01 have not been brought to the knowledge/intimated to the Manager of the branch on 04-07-2001 and 07-07-2001 with an intention to suppress the facts thereby favouring the party. Thus, you had unauthorisedly issued the letter dated 04-07-2001 to Mr. Manoj Kumar Tekriwal, Proprietor of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation informing waiving of interest. You had also fraudulently debited an amount of Rs.18,522/- to suspense deposit account without having any corresponding entry for issue of DD favouring Sri Dilip Das and got the DD proceeds credited to CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation to make good the TOD interest waiver which you had committed to the customer vide letter dated 04-07-2001. You had also fraudulently debited an amount of Rs.18,522/- to suspense deposit account without having any corresponding entry for issue of DD favouring Sri Dilip Das and got the DD proceeds credited to CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation to make good the TOD interest waiver which you had committed to the customer vide letter dated 04-07-2001. Thus, you have misused your official position in the bank by committing a fraud in the books of the bank and writing letters unauthorisedly in the capacity of Manager thereby exposing the bank to financial loss. Further, you have failed to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. Thereby you have committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 2A(i) and 3(j) of Canara Bank Service Code Further, your above actions being prejudicial to the interest of the bank, you have also committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (m) of Canara Bank Code. CIRCLE OFFICE KOLKATA Sd/- Illegible Deputy General Manager Disciplinary Authority Date, 13 NOV 2002” 9. Pursuant to the issuance of the charges, the appellant submitted his reply and also participated in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report held that all the charges were proved against the appellant. From the report of Enquiry Officer, it is evident that Demand Draft for an amount of Rs. 18,522/-favouring to one Shri Dilip Das was received at the credit section by the appellant along with a credit slip for crediting amount to Current Account No. 1925 of M/s Ishu Sales Corporation. Further, the said Credit account was overdrawn by an amount of Rs. 1,97,327.87 since 17.08.2001 due to a casting mistake which was again attributed to the appellant. On the basis of such findings in the enquiry report which are pursuant to a detailed and extensive enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved and the appellant was held to be guilty. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority who agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose a punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” as provided under Regulation 4(B) of Chapter XI Canara Bank Service Code. The appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority who agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose a punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” as provided under Regulation 4(B) of Chapter XI Canara Bank Service Code. The appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authority upon hearing the appellant vide order dated 27.09.2003 imposed the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. 10. Perusal of the pleadings on record reveals that the appellant had indeed admitted inter alia to the casting mistake in respect of the Current Account No. 1925 relating to M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. Although a plea of defence was sought to be raised by the appellant that the same was at the instructions of the Senior Manager, however, such plea of defence raised by the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the appellant is an employee of a Nationalised Bank and such acts or omissions on the part of the appellant had resulted in infraction of the procedures as well as the instructions relating to financial and/or banking transactions. The responsibility of a Bank Officer is to be viewed from the standpoint of the high degree of faith and confidence reposed by the depositors in respect of their deposits made in the bank of which he is an Officer. The explanations of the appellant, in respect of the allegations made regarding the transaction pertaining to the said Shri Dilip Das as well as the casting mistake resulting in unauthorized debit balance in the Current Account no. 1925 relating to M/S Ishu Sales Corporation cannot be brushed aside as being minor discrepancies as the findings of the Enquiry Officer reveal that such discrepancies did not happen in a single day. The appellant was aware of such discrepancies which had occurred over a period of time. However, there is no statement of the appellant to suggest that these discrepancies upon having been noticed by him were brought to the notice of the higher authorities and/or appropriate authorities in the Branch and also as to what remedial steps were undertaken by the appellant to rectify these mistakes. The appellant merely states that these transactions were as per the instructions of Senior Manager. The appellant merely states that these transactions were as per the instructions of Senior Manager. It is not even stated that as to what steps were taken by the appellant in respect of discrepancies referred to in the charge-sheet, as also it is not the case of the appellant that he was unaware of the transactions which are related to the discrepancies alleged. 11. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi(supra) referred to does not come to aid of the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant does not deny his act or omission in respect of the charges alleged. Rather he has consistently maintained that the said transactions were pursuant to instructions of the Senior Manager. The appellant has not stated that the transactions in respect of against which the charge-sheet is issued are acceptable as per the banking procedures and conventions. The appellant is a sufficiently experienced Bank Officer and therefore, unless it is specifically stated that the transactions in respect of which the charge-sheet is issued, are not contrary to banking procedures and conventions, his mere defence that the same were entered upon the instructions of the Senior Manager cannot be countenanced. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Dinkar Punde(supra)relied upon by the appellant relates to the scope of judicial review in respect of departmental enquiry. The Apex court held that the re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in judicial review. It is held by the Apex Court that the bank officer committing misconduct for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors must be dealt with iron hand without any leniency. In Mecken Singh N. Marak(Supra), the Apex Court held that the punishment pursuant to the Departmental Enquiry unless shockingly disproportionate, is not subject to judicial interference and therefore, in such cases judicial review is extremely limited. In Ram Daras Yadav(Supra), the Apex Court held that where it is difficult to examine the veracity of the allegations against the employee and in the absence of definite conclusion, punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. In Ram Daras Yadav(Supra), the Apex Court held that where it is difficult to examine the veracity of the allegations against the employee and in the absence of definite conclusion, punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. In M.S.Bindra(supra),the Apex Court held that where the conclusions arrived at by the administrative authority were not supported by way of available material, such action can be judicially reviewed The Judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Janam Singh (Supra) pressed into service by the appellant pertains to the date of reckoning on notional seniority. The Judgment is clearly not related to the facts and issues raised in the present case. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta (Supra) is in respect of an order the High Court of Allahabad where the question of punishment of removal from service whether grossly disproportionate to the charge was not decided and was therefore, remitted back for a decision on the issue. The Judgment in Regional Manager UPSRTC, Etawah (supra) also relied upon by the appellant holds that the scope of judicial review in respect of penalty and punishment is extremely limited and restricted to exceptional cases. Where the Court holds the punishment to be not commensurate with the charges, reasons must be given for coming to such a finding. 12. In the facts of the present proceedings, there is a clear finding by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges alleged coupled with the admission of the appellant that such transactions were indeed resorted to but only upon the instructions of the Senior Manager of the Bank. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the judgments referred to by the appellant. Therefore the Judgments of the Apex Court on the facts of this case is clearly not applicable and therefore does not come to the aid of the appellant. In view of the specific findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer coupled with the admission of the appellant in respect of his involvement with regard to the transactions against which the enquiry was conducted, the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable as the facts are distinguishable. 13. In the context of the facts in the present proceedings, the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Boloram Bordoloi(supra)is clearly applicable. 13. In the context of the facts in the present proceedings, the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Boloram Bordoloi(supra)is clearly applicable. The Apex Court held that the appellant therein had verbally admitted to the charges but was trying to explain such lapses due work before and even expression his willingness to bear the loss suffered by the Bank on account of his lapses. It was held that the procedural guidelines which are issued for grant of loans, are expected to be followed meticulously by the officers and the employees, as any deviation would lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. The Apex Court held that since the charges levelled against the appellant therein were grave and serious in nature, the Disciplinary Authority was liberal in imposing punishment of Compulsory Retirement. The relevant extract of the Judgment is reproduced below: “12. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16-8-2005, to the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that he has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying — he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the Bank on account of his lapses. 13. The Manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-6- 2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-6- 2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.” 14. The facts which unfurl from the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bank and the facts which are evident pursuant to the enquiries made as well as upon due consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the acts and omissions of the officer are covered by the expression “gross misconduct” as per the Clause 3 of the Service Code. The punishment in respect of “gross misconducts” is provided for under Clause 4 of the Service Code. The Bank Authorities upon the findings arrived at imposed the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” which is prescribed under sub clause (c) of clause 4 of the Service Code. In view of such specific findings, this Court comes to a finding that the “gross misconduct” has been resorted to by the acts or omissions on the part of the appellant and the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” imposed by the bank authority is not disproportionate. 15. Considering the discussions above, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. We, accordingly, uphold the Judgment of the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17.09.2013 and decline to allow the present appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.