ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.02.2009 and the consequent order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.10.2009 and the review authority order dated 18.03.2010. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent/bank on 01.11.1973 and was promoted in the year 1979 as Officer and subsequently promoted to Officer Scale II in the year 1992 and thereafter as MM Scale – III Cadre on 31.03.2005. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Deopuri Branch. The said bank was Agricultural Rural Branch and the main activity was to finance agricultural activities and village knowledge center. It is submitted that a target of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) per month disbursement of agricultural loans was fixed in the year 2005 and that a target of Rs.18,00,00,000/- (Eighteen Crores only) towards the loan disbursement portfolio consisting of Rs.8,00,00,000/- towards the agricultural finance and remaining Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards other loans. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner performed well in so far as business of the bank is concerned, however vide letter dated 12.04.2006, the Credit Department, Regional Office, Raipur withdrew the petitioners loan sanctioning power. Explanation was called for from the petitioner as to why the loans were sanctioned despite withdrawing the powers. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the General Manager. The petitioner claims to have met with an accident 30.06.2006 and suffered with injuries which left him bedridden for two months. The petitioner was transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.09.2006. Articles of charge were framed against the petitioner on 11.06.2008 as follows : (a) Failure to discharge his duty with utmost devotion and diligence. (b) Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. (c) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank. (d) Acting otherwise than in his best Judgment in performance of the Official Duties. 4. The Article of charges was enclosed with list of 72 accounts which were on the bunch of becoming NPA. An enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry between 25.08.2008 to 28.08.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.09.2008 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that all four charges were proved against the petitioner. Basing on the enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.02.2009. An enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry between 25.08.2008 to 28.08.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.09.2008 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that all four charges were proved against the petitioner. Basing on the enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.02.2009. The petitioner exhausted his right of appeal and review before the appropriate authorities of bank in vain. The consequent orders are also challenged in the writ petition. 5. The petitioner claims that the enquiry officer has not taken into account the explanation of the petitioner in correct sense and the disciplinary authority and the review authority have equally ignored the submission of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that out of 72 loan accounts amounting to Rs.572.52 Lakhs which were claimed to be on the verge of declaring as NPA, 44 loan accounts were closed and an amount of Rs.211.59 Lakhs. Out of the balance 28 accounts 20 accounts amounting to Rs.308 Lakhs are secured by standard assets and only 8 accounts are considered as substandard accounts and recoveries are under process. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sanctioning of loans is the primary duty and business of the bank. The business of the bank has to be essentially conducted through the staff of the bank led by the Branch Manager. Thus, framing of charges for discharging the duties and taking forward the business of the bank are with malafides and not relating to any specific act of illegal gain of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Regulation – 6 of the Union Bank of India Officers Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1976 relates to procedure for imposing major penalties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said regulation was violated as no definite charges were framed on the basis of allegations against the employee and that the statement of allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses along with copies of statements of witnesses shall be communicated to the charged officer, who is required to submit his reply. 7. The respondent/bank has filed a detailed counter and it mainly contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the bank would not come within the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. 7. The respondent/bank has filed a detailed counter and it mainly contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the bank would not come within the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is also the case of the respondents that the due procedure was followed in conducting the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has found reasons for imposing a major penalty of dismissal. It is specifically stated by the respondent on account of lapse on the part of the petitioner Rs.410.38 lakhs were at stake. 8. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and basing on such report the Articles of charge dated 11.06.2008 were framed along with the Articles of Charge, list of documents and list of witnesses were furnished. The enquiry report is devoid of any reasons except for stating the version of the petitioner without assigning any specific reasons the finding was given against the petitioner. The charges which are framed against the petitioners are (a) Failure to discharge his duty with utmost devotion and diligence. (b) Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. (c) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank. (d) Acting otherwise than in his best Judgment in performance of the Official Duties. The Articles of charge dated 11.06.2008 has further details with respect to the charges and the annexures, list of documents are to be read together for understanding the reasons for framing of the charges. The enquiry was conducted in a detailed manner and the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that doctrine of proportionality would be resultant of doctrine of unreasonableness. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Nirmala J.Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2013) 4 SCC 301 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the aspect of principle of preponderance of probabilities and finding arrived at must be backed by evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Nirmala J.Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2013) 4 SCC 301 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the aspect of principle of preponderance of probabilities and finding arrived at must be backed by evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that on the aspect of principles of natural justice where the charged employee should be treated fairly and the enquiry officer should not act as a Prosecutor or a Judge and his role is only to examine the evidence presented by the Department and that of the charged officer and submit his report. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that the petitioner is raising the issue of charge been vague in the writ petition and the same was not raised before the Enquiry Officer. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that re-appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in a writ petition Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 , the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC 775 , Disciplinary Authority – Cum – Regional Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 , Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh & Others, (1997) 3 SC 657. In all these Judgments the legal position with respect to exercising the power of Judicial Review is settled. Unless and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which would shock the conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the discretion can be exercised. It may not matter as to whether there was no loss which was resulted by the acts of the charged officer. However, when the amounts of the bank are at risk and there is a necessity for recovery of the due amount the funds of the bank will be placed in jeopardy. 11. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 ., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. 11. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 ., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion. 12. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out by the established law and the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents discussed the facts therein and the Court has held basing on the facts of those cases. However, so far as the law relating to the scope of judicial review is very narrow. Considering the facts of the case, wherein articles of charge dated 11.06.2008 were communicated after duly considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 21.03.2007, 23.05.2007 and 23.10.2006 in response to memorandum dated 01.05.2007. . The various omissions and commissions of the petitioner and the list of documents, list of witnesses are furnished to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that no documents were furnished to him. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity to defend his case. In the absence of an exceptional situation for interference in the findings by the disciplinary authority, this Court cannot certainly interfere in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity to defend his case. In the absence of an exceptional situation for interference in the findings by the disciplinary authority, this Court cannot certainly interfere in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also not a case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in trying to re-appreciate the evidence which admittedly is based on several documents which were placed before the enquiry officer by the presenting officer. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was aged 58 years when the writ petition was filed and now the petitioner is 71 years old. The order of termination is dated 24.02.2009. The petitioner had joined the bank in the year 1973 and served in the bank for about 36 years and the disciplinary proceedings were issued during the fag end of his service. Considering the long service of the petitioner and the present age of the petitioner, this Court while dismissing the writ petition directs the respondent/bank to pay the terminal benefits due payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order if not already paid. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.