ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority-respondent no. 2, whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of punishment dated 27.09.2014 passed by the Assistant General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority-respondent no.3 has been confirmed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of “bringing down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages” as provided under Chapter XI, clause 4(e) of Canara Bank Service Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as 'Single Window Operator A', Canara Bank, Doranda Branch, Ranchi, a written complaint was made against her on 30.6.2014 by one Ankita Kumari. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.7.2014, directing her to file explanation. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed her reply on 5.8.2014 denying the allegations levelled against her, however, chargesheet dated 4.9.2024 was served upon her containing the charges, which read as under:- (i) Your negative attitude towards work is hampering customer service of the branch. You are not attending and behaving properly with the customer which has resulted unsatisfactory customer service of the branch and also tarnishing image of the Bank. (ii) You are in the habit of behaving rudely with the customers. (iii) You are not obeying the lawful instructions of your seniors in the branch to improve Customer Service. 3. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted the enquiry report on 22.09.2014, holding her guilty of charges nos.(i) and (iii) and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.9.2014. It is further submitted that the complainant-Ankita Kumari was not examined by the enquiry officer in the departmental proceeding due to which the petitioner was not able to cross-examine her. Though the petitioner was not at all guilty of the charges levelled against her, the respondent no.3 fully agreed with the findings of enquiry officer and passed the order dated 27.9.2014, imposing punishment of “bringing down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages” as provided under Chapter XI clause 4 (e) of Canara Bank Service Code. Aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner filed departmental appeal before the respondent no.2, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 18.5.2015 and the order passed by the respondent no.3 was confirmed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is also disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against her. 4. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned orders dated 27.9.2014 and 18.5.2015, the said respondents have failed to appreciate that the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against her only on conjectures and surmises who concluded the enquiry in great haste that too only in 18 days. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside, since the defence of the petitioner has not been considered in its proper perspective in the departmental proceeding and she has not been given sufficient opportunity to controvert the allegations made against her. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that one Ankita Kumari, a valued customer of Doranda Branch of the respondent-Bank having SB A/c No. 1642101019382 made a written complaint to the Bank on 30.6.2014 alleging that on 18.06.2014, when she visited the branch for opening a FDR deposit, the petitioner, who was entrusted with cash duties, refused to accept the cash at first instance and also used some derogatory words to her. An investigation was conducted by the Bank for the said allegation and during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of other employees of the said branch as well as recorded the statement of the complainant wherein she reiterated about the rude behavior of the petitioner. Thereafter, the investigating officer submitted report on 18.7.2014 and based on the observations made by the Investigating Officer, an explanation was asked from the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2014 which was replied by her on 5.8.2014. The said reply of the petitioner having been found not satisfactory, she was issued chargesheet dated 04.09.2014 and departmental proceeding was conducted in the matter. 6. It is further submitted that during departmental proceeding, the petitioner was represented by a Defence Representative of her choice who placed the defence on behalf of the petitioner against the allegations levelled against her. 7. 6. It is further submitted that during departmental proceeding, the petitioner was represented by a Defence Representative of her choice who placed the defence on behalf of the petitioner against the allegations levelled against her. 7. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case and after analyzing the oral/documentary evidence produced in the enquiry, it was concluded that the behaviour of the petitioner towards the customer was not up to the mark and she was not obeying the lawful instructions of her senior. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 22.09.2014 and a copy of the same was forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner for making her submission in that regard whereupon she had submitted her response towards the findings of Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 26.09.2014. 8. It is further submitted that before passing the order of punishment, the respondent no. 3 provided personal hearing to the petitioner wherein she accepted the charges without any demur and sought apology for her behaviour. Learned counsel for the respondents also argues that respondent-Bank is a customer oriented organization and good customer service is very important for its growth. The employees of the Bank are supposed to behave properly with the customers and to help them in carrying out the financial transactions. Moreover, no organization can survive if its employees are given free hand to defy the lawful instructions of the superiors. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court against the order of punishment passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the appellate order passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the order of the respondent no. 3 has been affirmed. 10. Before coming to the merit of the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court wherein the scope of interference by the writ court in exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the disciplinary authority has been summarized. 11. In the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “13. 11. In the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 12. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. & Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal [ (2005) 2 SCC 638 ]; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [ (2006) 12 SCC 561 ]; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [(2006) 13 SCC 727]; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi [ (2007) 11 SCC 681 ]; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak [ (2008) 1 SCC 456 ] and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi [ (2008) 2 SCC 310 ].) 21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 259 ].) 22. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.” 13. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 259 ].) 22. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.” 13. Thus, the High Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has a limited role of interference in disciplinary matter. The High Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the conclusion of the inquiry officer if the same has been done in accordance with law. If the disciplinary proceeding has been conducted by following due procedure of law, the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee on the basis of sympathy or sentiment unless it is found to the court that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the employee. 14. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant herself was not examined before the disciplinary proceeding due to which she was unable to cross examine her. It is further contended that the departmental proceeding was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Canara Bank Service Code. 15. It is evident that a complaint from a customer of the Bank was received by the Bank alleging that the petitioner had misbehaved with her. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted wherein several officers/staff of the bank were examined as also the statement of the Complainant/customer was recorded and thereafter investigation report dated 18.07.2014 was submitted observing that the allegation of misbehavior with customer and refusal to accept cash was found true against the petitioner. Thereafter, explanation was asked from the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2014 and after considering her reply dated 05.08.2014, she was served with the chargesheet dated 4.9.2014 annexing the investigation report dated 18.07.2014. Then, an inquiry officer was appointed and during the enquiry, though charge no.2 was not proved, the other two charges were found proved. The petitioner was given personal hearing before the disciplinary authority wherein she accepted the charges and requested for leniency. Finally, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment. 16. Then, an inquiry officer was appointed and during the enquiry, though charge no.2 was not proved, the other two charges were found proved. The petitioner was given personal hearing before the disciplinary authority wherein she accepted the charges and requested for leniency. Finally, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment. 16. It would thus emerge from the aforesaid facts that sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the order of punishment and she was even afforded personal hearing before the disciplinary authority and in course of said hearing, the petitioner did not raise any objection that she was not given any opportunity to cross examine the complainant, rather she accepted the charges and requested for taking lenient view. 17. I have also perused Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code which provides the procedure for disciplinary action against an employee. Clause 9(1)(f)(iii) provides that an enquiry need not be held if the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the show cause notice. Since in the present case the petitioner herself had accepted the charges levelled against her, she cannot subsequently challenge the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that she was not given any opportunity to cross examine the complainant. I am of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the facts and circumstance of the case despite the fact that she was not given opportunity to cross examine the complainant. The petitioner had every right to make an application either before the enquiry officer and before the disciplinary authority to cross examine the complainant, however she failed to avail the said opportunity and as such she cannot be allowed to raise the said issue for the first time before this Court. That apart, the charge of habitual rude behavior with the customers was not found proved against the petitioner and she was punished on the proved charges that her behaviour with the customer was discourteous and she was in the habit of disobeying the lawful instructions of her seniors/higher authorities. Thus, on mere ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of cross-examining the complainant, the impugned order of punishment cannot be held to be illegal. 18. Thus, on mere ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of cross-examining the complainant, the impugned order of punishment cannot be held to be illegal. 18. So far challenge to the quantum of punishment is concerned, this Court is of the view that the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority explained while passing the impugned order of punishment that when the branch was struggling for its positive growth of business which was largely dependent upon excellent customer service, the discourteous behavior of the petitioner towards the customers and her superiors was not at all acceptable. Thus, there appears no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.2 also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner observing that the petitioner did not raise any new contention, rather she repeated what had already been contended before the disciplinary authority during personal hearing. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the punishment order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no.3 and the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent no.2 under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 20. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.