ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to..... issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide No. A and R/VK 61 dated 5.2.2021 rejecting the appeal filed by me and confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent made in No VIG/FIMM/VJS/789 dated 26.11.2020 without considering the grounds of appeal and without considering the explanation dated 7.10.2020 to the show cause and Enquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass..” 2. The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner joined in the service of the Sate Bank of Hyderbad and subsequently he was promoted in the same bank and finally he was working as Chief Associate of Cash In-charge of 4th respondent bank. Subsequently, the said State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India and now he was working in the respondent bank till the petitioner’s service was terminated. While he was working in the 4threspondent bank, on 5.12.2019, his branch manager informed the petitioner that he has undergoing training program from 5.12.2019 to 7.12.2019 at SBILD, Machilipatnam and he was directed the petitioner to relieve the same and handed over the cash in-charge as on that date to Associate Smt. D. Prabhavathi and Haritha. Accordingly, the petitioner was handed over the cash and securities to above said persons as directed by the 4threspondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner relieved by the 4threspondent and he had undergone training program at SBILD, Machilipatnam. It is submitted that, after completion of the said training program, when the petitioner was returning to his house, the said D.Prabhavathi called him through phone and informed the petitioner that there was a shortage of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner went to the bank on 8.12.2019, and verified the cash and cash book registered, which is signed by the 4threspondent on 7.12.2019 and found that there was a shortage of Rs. 12,00,000/- and instructed her to adjust the same in next working day, otherwise, he will inform to 4threspondent and other higher officials. However, the 4th respondent made a complaint. 12,00,000/- and instructed her to adjust the same in next working day, otherwise, he will inform to 4threspondent and other higher officials. However, the 4th respondent made a complaint. Basing on the said complaint, the 3rdrespondent herein initiated departmental proceedings while issuing the show cause notice on 28.5-.020 raising certain irregularities while working Cash-in-charge of the as 4threspondent bank from 1.6.2019 to 11.12.2019 and also ordered enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer. Later, after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 29.9.2020 and the same was served upon the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice as well as enquiry report on 7.10.2020. Further it is stated that the 3rdrespondent herein afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and recorded the evidence of both sides and also basing on the enquiry report, finally passed an order of Dismissal from service without notice and also forfeited gratuity amount to an extent of Rs.7,00,000/- caused loss to the bank and other benefits which he entitled as per Rules vide orders dated 26-11-2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2ndrespondent herein raising several grounds. But without considering the grounds which were raised in the appeal, the 2nd respondent passed an order of rejecting the appeal by confirming the findings of the 3rdrespondent vide orders dated 5.2.2021. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, as per Section 4 (6) (a) & (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Employer is entitled to forfeit the Gratuity amount to the extent of loss caused to the Bank due to misconduct of the employee. It is stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein have passed orders after due consideration of the evidence of the Petitioner herein. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent in its order dated 05.02.2021, specifically mentioned that explanations submitted by the Petitioner are not acceptable after duly considering the same and that they have passed the said orders after considering the facts and evidences independently. The allegations made by the Petitioner herein are purely intentional and to shift his negligence/responsibility to others. The allegations made by the Petitioner herein are purely intentional and to shift his negligence/responsibility to others. It is established in the enquiry that the Petitioner failed to deposit the correct cash balance of Rs.55,92,711/- as at the close of business on 10.12.2019. Instead the Petitioner handed over Rs.48,92,711/- only to the Joint Custodian with shortage of Rs.7,00,000/-. Joint Custodian immediately informed about shortages to the Branch Manager. It is further stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, on the basis of evidences on record, found that there was no difference in the cash balances held in the Branch on 09.12.2019. Thus, there is no question of carry forward shortage of cash balance to 09.12.2019. So, the cash shortage was on 10.12.2019 as stated, the petitioner is solely liable and responsible. It is submitted that, there was no shortage/difference of cash on 09.12.2019, and the question of verifying cash balance register from 05.12.2009 to 07.12.2019 does not arise. It is submitted that the charges were duly established / proved based on the evidence and other material papers. 4. Heard Sri G.V.S. Meher Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the appellate authority without giving any opportunity straight away rejected and passed orders confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents also reiterated the averments made in the counter. He further submits that the Petitioner is intentionally trying to divert his responsibility and escape from the punishment since it is very clearly found that cash shortages were on 10.12.2019. He submits that it is the sole misconduct of the Petitioner, who is trying to implicate the Branch Manager and Accountant, with a malafide intention and out of grudge that their timely action revealed the misconduct of the Petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has committed misconduct while working as a Head Cashier in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad (before merger), Burripalem Branch and awarded a punishment of "Reduction of basic pay by one (1) stage in the time scale for a period of one (1) year" to the Petitioner herein. He further submits that the petitioner has committed misconduct while working as a Head Cashier in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad (before merger), Burripalem Branch and awarded a punishment of "Reduction of basic pay by one (1) stage in the time scale for a period of one (1) year" to the Petitioner herein. This being the second charge sheet. He further submits that after considering the material documents, etc., and after giving adequate opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings in the interest of natural justice, passed an appropriate order against the Petitioner. He mainly contended that the petitioner is having alternative remedy available under the Industrial Dispute Act, which the Petitioner had suppressed and came before this Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a catena of decisions reported in State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , wherein it was held that : "The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence." (ii) Union of India -vs- Sardar Bahadur 1972) 4 SCC 618,the legal position has been restated as extracted below:- "Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court." (iii) In United Commercial Bank -vs- P.C.Kakka, (2003) 4 SCC 364 , which reads as follows:- "A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer / employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority -cum- Regional Manager - vs- NikunjaBihariPatnaik [ (1996) 9 SCC 69 ], it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct." 8. Learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the above decisions, submits that, in the present case, the charges against the Petitioner have been duly proved in the enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding which has been properly conducted following the prescribed procedure, and the allegations of the Petitioner to the contrary are imaginary and self-serving. Further, in the present case, the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner is mensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, is necessary to deter its recurrence. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, as seen from the impugned order dated 5.2.2021, wherein it was mentioned that “all the submissions made by the appellant are far from truth, it was established and evidenced that there is no difference in the branch cash balance held in the branch on 9.12.2019 . While CSE carried Rs.22,00,000.00 for replenishment, ATM records revealed that only Rs.10,00,000.00 was replenished. At the end of the day i..e, on 10.12.2020 there was a cash difference of Rs.12,00,000/- and after deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the CSE, the net difference of Rs.7,00,000/- was evidenced. While CSE carried Rs.22,00,000.00 for replenishment, ATM records revealed that only Rs.10,00,000.00 was replenished. At the end of the day i..e, on 10.12.2020 there was a cash difference of Rs.12,00,000/- and after deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the CSE, the net difference of Rs.7,00,000/- was evidenced. Availability/Non-availability of CCTV footage does not absolve him from the lapse/responsibility. 10. The appellate authority while observing the same held that, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, adequate opportunity has been given to the appellant to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant and the allegations were proved with adequate evidence and that there is no merit in the appeal nor mitigating the factors to consider reduction of the penalty imposed. Therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty imposed on the appellant and the appeal is rejected. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the appellate authority has not passed any reasoned order and that whatever the objections raised in the appeal by the petitioner, without considering the same, the appellate authority simply narrating few facts and relying on the disciplinary proceedings, straightaway rejected the appeal. It appears that the appellate authority passed the impugned order mechanically. So, in view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the orders dated 5.2.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide No.A&R/VK.61 dated 5.20.2021 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent made in No.VIG/FIMM/VJS/789 dated 26.11.2020, is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight(08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.