JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Petitioner while working with the respondent bank as an officer in the Middle Management of Grade Scale-I was placed under suspension on 17th January, 2022 setting into motion a departmental disciplinary proceedings for having misbehaved and having conducted a behaviour unbecoming of an officer of the bank of his scale before the higher officer, namely, Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Agra. 3. Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 18th May, 2022 with as many as 8 article of charges to which he did not submit any detailed reply and instead, wrote a mail letter that his previous reply should be taken to be meeting all the points raised in the charge-sheet. The previous reply that has been referred to is of 6th May, 2022, obviously prior to the date of charge-sheet. He participated in the oral inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the notice dated 8th June, 2022 and cross-examined the departmental witnesses, viewed the CCTV footage of the incident of heated exchange of views between him and higher officers on the fateful day. Inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer ultimately indicting him of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. Petitioner was required to submit reply to the inquiry report to which petitioner submitted reply. 4. The Disciplinary authority having found itself in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and the report in which charges were brought home inflicted upon him major penalty of dismissal from service. 5. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority which also came to be rejected and hence this petition. 6. Assailing the two orders Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings returned in the report of the inquiry officer qua the alleged incident of heated exchange of views and misbehaviour/misconduct with higher officers in the rank in the circle office on 15th January, 2022, was perverse as entire charge was absolutely false for no such incident to have taken place, except a fact that petitioner had visited the circle office, Agra to meet Mr. Animesh and having not found any positive reply to his query as to why he was transferred to a place other that to which he had requested for. He also visited Sri Vikash Kumar, Senior Manager, HRM and then finally entered the room of Sri A Ratnakar Rao, the Assistant General Manager. 7. He has argued that CCTV footage though had visuals/videos but had no audio record and, therefore, it could not have been deciphered as to what exactly transpired while he was in verbal conversation with the higher officers. He submits that merely on the basis of his gesture appearing in the video that he has been held guilty of alleged misconduct, otherwise in his explanation that he had offered as point-wise reply, he had explained his position but that has not been considered in their correct prospective by the inquiry officer. He submits that he had cross-examined the officers and nothing came out in the cross-examination which may be said to be sufficient enough to be substantial one to indict the petitioner of the charges. He submits that disciplinary authority did not consider reply of the petitioner which was furnished in response to the notice alongwith the inquiry report and proceeded to inflict major penalty of dismissal from service. He has also sought to urge that the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the charge. 8. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the bank that petitioner having not replied to the charge-sheet as such and having not taken any pleading as to what cross-examination had taken place and in what manner he could suggest that no heated exchange took place between him and the officer concerned, the findings arrived at in the inquiry report could not be held to be flawed one. It is also argued by learned counsel for the respondent bank that in the event inquiry has been properly held and due participation of the petitioner has been allowed, this Court would not go into the question of appreciation of material discussed by the inquiry officer. It is argued that scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of disciplinary proceeding is very limited one and except where the findings can be held to be devoid of evidence and so perverse, this Court would not be interfering in the disciplinary proceedings. It is argued that scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of disciplinary proceeding is very limited one and except where the findings can be held to be devoid of evidence and so perverse, this Court would not be interfering in the disciplinary proceedings. He also argued that as far as the punishment part is concerned, an officer's misbehaviour with the higher officers that resulted into a misconduct is certainly a glaring example of insubordination and an officer guilty of insubordination for his misconduct in which he even has been charged to have raised eye brows to an higher officer, would make him undeserving to continue in employment as it would result in employees often committing indiscipline spoiling the environment of establishment of bank, if such an employee is retained in employment. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find in the charge-sheet charge Nos. 2 and 3 as specific charges to have been framed of misbehaviour and gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The charges are reproduced hereunder: ''2. You have threatened Sri Animesh Manager, AFPS Section RO-II Agra by saying as under: '' 3. You have tried to attack and inflict bodily harm upon Sri A. Ratnakara Rao (75698) A.G.M. by trying to stop his car forcefully and pelting stones upon his red colour Hyundai i20 car bearing registration number AP 31 CK 6929. 4. You have failed to maintain Good conduct and Discipline and misbehaved with superior authorities. 5. You have shown riotous and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Bank.'' 10. In reply to the charge-sheet the officer, namely, the petitioner instead of giving proper reply he has referred to his some earlier reply made by him on 6th May, 2022. Interestingly, in his reply he admitted to have entered heated arguments with one Mr. Animesh and then Mr. Vikash Kumar, Senior Manager, HRM to reverse the order of transfer and then he straight-way entered into the cabin of Assistant General Manager to meet him and then he followed him. He admitted to have waved his hand to stop him and made a request to cancel the transfer order. To charge 2, 3 and 4 he simply replied that he never committed any such misconduct or misbehaviour. He admitted to have waved his hand to stop him and made a request to cancel the transfer order. To charge 2, 3 and 4 he simply replied that he never committed any such misconduct or misbehaviour. Relevant reply as filed in the writ petition as he claimed to have made on 6th May, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: ''Next Day I received my transfer orders for Bhojeda kalan branch, I was very disturbed after this and was under mental stress one side from my family life and other from this transfer order. I rushed to RO-II by to meet Sri Animesh to ask why he has done this and suddenly our conversation turned into heated argument. I admit on my part I must not have behaved in that manner but all was due to accumulated office and personal stress and tension. After that I rush to CO Agra to meet Mr. Vikash Kumar Sr. Manager HRM section there I plead to him to reverse this order as I have been working in bank past 7 years. I have not got my home posting till date and why I am being transferred 300 kms away from my current posting and 700 kms from my home town. I pleaded the same to AGM, overseeing HRM section and informed him the whole incident. I told him, I have 4 month daughter and in such winter how will I manage all this but he denied strataway and at that moment I was feeling totally humiliated. I came out of CO started crying, once again I went inside AGM cabin to meet him but he left the cabin. Then I walked out of the CO and saw AGM Sir coming out in his car, I waved my hand to stop him and to request again to cancel my transfer order but he did not look at me and turned his car. I was standing next to car in this my right feet came under his car's tyre. As it was of no help I came back home but surprisingly I got my suspension orders and went into deep grief. The pointwise reply to your letter is as follows: 1. I requested Sri Vikash Kumar (77753), SM and Sri A. Ratnakar Rao (75698), AGM to reverse m transfer orders considering my mental health and my family issues. 2. As it was of no help I came back home but surprisingly I got my suspension orders and went into deep grief. The pointwise reply to your letter is as follows: 1. I requested Sri Vikash Kumar (77753), SM and Sri A. Ratnakar Rao (75698), AGM to reverse m transfer orders considering my mental health and my family issues. 2. I did not threatened Sri Animesh, Manager AFPS Section RO-II Agra. I just had discussion within him which later converted into heated arguments, which were from both sides. I apologize for my part but the same was due to my mental stress. 3. I did not try to attack respected Sri A. Ratnakar Rao (75698), AGM. I just requested him to reverse/modify my transfer orders. 4. I did not misbehaved with my superior authorities. Further if it was felt that I misbehaved, it may be due to stress because I was unable to manage work life balance. I really apologize for the same and I shall submit written apology for the same. 5. I did not disobey any orders of management. I discussed the same with my branch head and he denied to do KCC of any other branch. I just obeyed orders/instructions of my branch head. 6. I did not show any Indecent behaviour in bank. I just represented my case and requested for my transfer modification. 7. I did not breach any office decorum. 8. I am fully doing all the duties of an officer with all rules and regulations. In view of the above I would like to submit that I have no intention to create any nuisance or argue with any staff, but if any such incident had occurred, it was not in my control and must be due to extreme stress, and other family problems. I apologize for any of my such act. Hence I request you to consider my reply favourably considering my mental pressure and tension and allow to rest my case and permit me to join office and perform my duties with full enthusiasm. Kindly consider my home transfer request.'' (emphasis added) 11. There is no specific denial to the statement allegedly made by him and recorded in charge No. 2. 12. Kindly consider my home transfer request.'' (emphasis added) 11. There is no specific denial to the statement allegedly made by him and recorded in charge No. 2. 12. Now when these replies were being considered by the inquiry officer, petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to participate that he had availed and petitioner was also shown CCTV footage also. The investigation report obtained on the basis of CCTV footage and in the departmental inquiry and the enquiry officer appreciated the same. The presenting officer of the bank presented his brief to the inquiry officer and took the plea that there was sufficient evidence of CCTV footage/video to prove that petitioner had misbehaved. The only defence taken by the petitioner was that he had visited the circle office because he wanted to be transferred to Lucknow but his request was not being considered. 13. The inquiry officer perused the statement of one Mr. Animesh Kumar, Manager, AFPS Section RO-II and Sri A. Ratnakar Rao, Assistant General Manager and found the complaint made against the petitioner to be true. The CCTV footage that was on record was also minutely examined by the inquiry officer. It is on the basis of the examination of oral statement of the crucial witnesses and perusing the defence statement of petitioner and also his statement made before the inquiry officer that inquiry officer found petitioner to be guilty of the charges. 14. Petitioner has sought to contest the findings only on the ground that CCTV footage/visuals in the absence of audio recording, was not sufficient to decipher any theory to lead to a conclusion that gestures of petitioner showed in videos proved that he was guilty of misbehaviour and resultant misconduct towards the higher officers. 15. In my considered view, the inquiry officer has appreciated everything and merely because upon analysis and appreciation of evidence oral and documentary one can arrive at an alternative finding will not entitle this Court to interfere with the findings returned by the inquiry officer. Similar set of reply has been submitted to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority and disciplinary authority having found himself in full agreement to the findings returned by the inquiry officer, therefore, in my considered view, rightly arrived at a decision to inflict punishment in the nature of dismissal from service. The discretion of disciplinary authority to impose major penalty should ordinarily not be interfered with. The discretion of disciplinary authority to impose major penalty should ordinarily not be interfered with. It is for the employer to decide and so also the disciplinary authority as to what kind of misconduct and misbehaviour is serious enough to dismiss an employee from service. 16. The charges denying departmental enquiry can be proved on the principle of preponderance of probability unlike criminal law where guilt is to be proved to the hilt. Disciplinary enquiry in a disciplinary proceedings and a trial upon charges in criminal law. In the case of Abhay Raj Singh v. Bank of Baroda and another, 2005 (2) UPLBEC 1802, the Court vide paragraph 5 held thus: ''5. It is well-settled principle of law that the degree of proof required in a departmental enquiry is vastly different than the degree of proof required to prove a criminal charge. In the departmental enquiry the findings can be recorded in preponderance of probabilities and it is not necessary that the charge must be proved to the hilt. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. They operate in different fields and they have different objectives. The material or the evidence in the two proceedings may or may not be the same and, in some cases, at least, material or evidence which would be relevant or open for consideration in the departmental proceeding, may be irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The Rules relating to the appreciation of the evidence in the two enquiries may also be different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.'' 17. On the question of quantum of punishment, I again do not find the argument to be convincing. Merely because an employee is depressed for certain family problem, cannot give him a certificate to misbehave with his higher officers. In any establishment it is always a duty cast upon those in management to ensure discipline amongst the employees to avoid any unrest more especially when establishment deals in public. Men in hierarchy deserve respect to set an example of an orderly administration. It would be a different scenario where a lower staff is always humiliated by senior staff to call for an interference but it is not so with the case in hand. Men in hierarchy deserve respect to set an example of an orderly administration. It would be a different scenario where a lower staff is always humiliated by senior staff to call for an interference but it is not so with the case in hand. There is no such case that officials with whom petitioner interacted had a history of ill treating the petitioner very often. A request for transfer if not acceded to, will not result in any assumption that higher officials did it for malice. In such circumstances if insubordination and resultant misconduct is proved, it rests with the sole discretion of disciplinary authority to chose the nature of penalty and major penalty if inflicted upon, in my considered view, was not shockingly disproportionate to the guilt proved so as to warrant interference on the point of quantum of punishment. In the case of Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineer College and others, (2009) 7 SCC 301 , Supreme Court discussed the principle in the matter of interference with a decision of the disciplinary authority to impose a particular punishment. The Supreme Court vide paragraphs 6 and 7 held thus: ''6. The Courts and the tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [ (2005) 7 SCC 338 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 69] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 348, paras 11-12) ''11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 12. To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 7. The other principle that requires to be kept in view is the observation made by this Court in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan [(2006) 13 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 155 : (1994) 1 Scale 631 ] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 621, para 10) ''10. … In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well meant but wholly unsustainable tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.'' 18. Still further in a recent judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, 2021(4) ESC 994 (SC), the Supreme Court has held thus: ''23. Still further in a recent judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, 2021(4) ESC 994 (SC), the Supreme Court has held thus: ''23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the Court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.'' 19. Thus, it finally rests with the discretion of the employer as well as the disciplinary authority to maintain the discipline in employment and if an officer is held guilty for misconduct in subordination, it can fire him. The tribunals and Courts of law should not act as an appellate forum so as to appreciate our material evidence to take a different view which in its opinion may be a better view. The Court or tribunals can only see whether findings are perverse for there being no evidence and/or the procedure adopted was a flawed one. Recently in the case of Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath, 2023(1) ESC 1 (SC), the Court has held vide paragraph 16 & 17 thus: 16. The Court or tribunals can only see whether findings are perverse for there being no evidence and/or the procedure adopted was a flawed one. Recently in the case of Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath, 2023(1) ESC 1 (SC), the Court has held vide paragraph 16 & 17 thus: 16. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 , a two Judge Bench of this Court held as below: ''7. It is now well-settled that the Courts will not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 ). [Emphasis laid] 17. In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569 , a two Judge Bench of this Court referred to several precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality of the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that: ''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. 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.'' 20. Testing the facts on the above principles of law, I see that delinquent employee instead of orally questioning the departmental witnesses on the CCTV footage, was more inclined in tendering apology for his conduct. It is further very surprising that while admitting to have had heated verbal exchanges in his reply during inquiry, now before this Court he has pleaded that no such heated exchange of verbal conversations took place. It was, of course, a matter of understanding of enquiry officer during oral examination of witnesses to evaluate, appreciate and answer as to what was the degree of heated exchanges that had definite shades of misdemeanour that was sufficient enough to be taken as a case of insubordination and resultant gross misconduct. Video visuals without audio voice could have been a case of a little doubt but once corroborated by oral statement of witnesses and in the absence of cross-examination on the point to elicit further any point as to the truth claimed by the delinquent employee, it could be taken sufficient to bring home the charge. The enquiry officer was in a better position to appreciate CCTV footages to arrive at a conclusion to be a correct one in his wisdom. No amount of arguments raised before this Court in above facts and circumstances place the Court in a position of enquiry officer to arrive at a different finding to hold inquiry report to be based on wrongful appreciation of evidence. 21. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this petition. 22. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.