JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No.8967 of 2012, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi and others vs. State Bank of India and others, having been filed by predecessor-in- interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), laying therein challenge to order dated 31.03.2011 passed by Reviewing Committee, thereby rejecting the revision/ appeal having been filed against order dated 26.02.2010, passed by Appellate Authority, confirming order of Disciplinary Authority, thereby imposing punishment of dismissal from service, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned judgment. 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Tej Ram Banger joined the services of the respondent-bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 20.07.1977 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Manager Scale-I, Middle Management Scale-II and Middle Management scale-III in the years 1988, 1996 and 2002, respectively. Vide communication dated 27.04.2007, delinquent officer, named hereinabove, came to be placed under suspension on account of his having misused/permitted misuse of NALCA and DD purchase accounts. Vide communication dated 28.09.2007, delinquent officer was informed by the bank with regard to initiation of Disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty on the basis of following Articles of charges:- “Charge No.1: You negotiated local cheques of M/s R.S. Enterprises by debit to National Local Clearing Account without any sanctioned limit. Charge No.2: You permitted overdrawing in current and cash credit accounts of M/s R.S. Enterprises. Charge No.3: You sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 10.00 lacs to M/s D’N’D Enterprises where no assets were created. You by your above acts have violated the provisions of Rule No.50(4) of State Bank of India Officer’s Service Rules.” 3. Pursuant to aforesaid communication dated 28.09.2007, delinquent officer, named hereinabove, filed written statement, thereby denying all the charges framed against him. However, fact remains that Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation rendered on record, appointed Inquiry officer to hold inquiry in the Disciplinary proceedings, so initiated against the delinquent officer. Vide inquiry report dated 08.05.2008, Inquiry Officer reported charge Nos.1 and 3 to be fully proved, whereas charge No.2 was reported to be partly proved. However, fact remains that Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation rendered on record, appointed Inquiry officer to hold inquiry in the Disciplinary proceedings, so initiated against the delinquent officer. Vide inquiry report dated 08.05.2008, Inquiry Officer reported charge Nos.1 and 3 to be fully proved, whereas charge No.2 was reported to be partly proved. Vide communication dated 25.05.2008 (Annexure P-4), respondents forwarded the Inquiry report to the delinquent officer, enabling him to file response, if any, to the same. Vide representation dated 08.07.2008, delinquent officer object to the Inquiry report (Annexure P-5) on various grounds, however, Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the grounds raised in the representation, imposed penalty of dismissal under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Services Rules upon the delinquent officer with further directions that his suspension period be treated as such and nothing will be payable to him other than already paid. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid imposition of major penalty of dismissal, delinquent officer, preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, but same was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 26.02.2010 passed by Appellate Authority, delinquent officer filed revision/appeal before the Chairman of the respondent-bank, but same was also rejected vide order dated 31.03.2011. In the aforesaid background, delinquent officer approached writ court by way of CWP, as detailed hereinabove, praying therein to set aside the order of imposition of major penalty of dismissal. Since during pendency of writ petition, delinquent officer/ original petitioner died, his LRs were brought on record and thereafter, writ having been filed by the delinquent officer was pursued by them. Instant appeal has been filed by the legal representative of the delinquent officer. 5. Learned Single Judge, having taken note of the pleadings as well as record made available to him, found no reason to agree with the contention raised on behalf of delinquent officer that during disciplinary proceedings, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him and thereafter, Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority also failed to take note of grounds raised in the appeal as well as review petition and as such, dismissed the writ petition. While passing impugned judgment, learned Single Judge categorically recorded the findings that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that statutory regulations were violated or that order passed by Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate/Reviewing Authority is either arbitrary or capricious or is the result of malafide or is based on extraneous considerations. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid findings returned by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, having been filed by the delinquent officer, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to set aside the impugned judgment being contrary to the facts and law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Having heard submissions made by learned counsel representing both the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, we are not persuaded to agree with Mr. Adarsh.K.Vashishta, learned counsel for the appellants that judgment rendered by learned Single Judge is not based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law, rather this Court finds that learned Single Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference. 8. Before ascertaining the correctness of findings retuned in the impugned judgment, it would be apt to elaborate upon the scope and competence of writ court to re-appreciate the evidence led in domestic enquiry while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, writ court while examining the correctness and legality of order passed in disciplinary proceedings cannot act as an Appellate Court, if writ court finds that inquiry is fairly and properly held and findings are based on evidence, a question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of the same shall not be a ground for interfering with the findings in departmental inquiries. 9. By now it is well settled that courts will neither act as an appellate Court and re-assess the evidence led in domestic inquiry nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of material on record. Court can interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations are violated or order passed on the face of it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations. 10. Court can interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations are violated or order passed on the face of it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations. 10. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court State Bank of India and others vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde,(2006)7 Supreme Court Cases 212. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of an employee of the bank categorically held that re-appreciation of evidence considered by enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is wholly impermissible. Relevant para Nos. 6 and 9 of aforesaid judgment are as under:- “6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. (See Govt. of A.P. and Ors.v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373 . 9. It is impermissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence which had been considered by the Inquiry Officer, a Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court, on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record. 11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Ramana vs. A.P. SRTC and others, (2005)7 Supreme Court Cases 338, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the “Wednesbury principles” held that punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court/tribunal, cannot be subjected to judicial review. Relevant para No.6 of aforesaid judgment is as under:- “12. To put 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. Relevant para No.6 of aforesaid judgment is as under:- “12. To put 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.” 12. Reliance is also placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Bikaner Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, 2011(4)SCC 584, which has been otherwise taken note by learned Single Judge while passing impugned judgment. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held that courts can only interfere with the findings in Disciplinary matters, if the principles of natural justice or statutory regulations are violated or if order on the face it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations. 13. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment, it can be easily concluded that scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. While exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, courts cannot reassess the evidence like the appellate court and it can be only interfered, if it founds violation of principles of natural justice and statutory regulations. Apart from aforesaid two grounds, order passed in disciplinary proceedings can also be interfered, if it is shown to be perverse. To ascertain perversity, if any, court is to examine whether order laid challenge could have been passed by Tribunal acting reasonably. Now being guided by the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court would make an endeavour to ascertain correctness and genuineness of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants vis-à-vis impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 14. Careful perusal of material adduced on record by both the parties clearly reveals that Disciplinary Authority afforded due opportunity of being heard or representation to the delinquent officer before initiation of inquiry as well as during inquiry. All the charges, as detailed hereinabove, were duly proved against the delinquent officer. 14. Careful perusal of material adduced on record by both the parties clearly reveals that Disciplinary Authority afforded due opportunity of being heard or representation to the delinquent officer before initiation of inquiry as well as during inquiry. All the charges, as detailed hereinabove, were duly proved against the delinquent officer. Perusal of inquiry report clearly reveals that department successfully proved charge No.1 against the delinquent officer that he negotiated local cheques of M/s R.S. Enterprises by debt to National Local Clearing Account without any sanctioned limit. Only defence ever came to be put forth qua the aforesaid allegations on behalf of delinquent officer was that he was not aware of the instructions regarding sanctioned limit, which defence otherwise could not have been taken by delinquent officer being an employee of bank, especially when it is not in dispute that he had been working in the respondent-bank since 1997. Similarly, second charge with regard to non-maintenance of Demand Liability Register was also successfully proved against delinquent officer. Interestingly, cheques negotiated on behalf of M/s R.S. Enterprises were reflected in its cash credit and current Accounts notwithstanding the fact that some of the said cheques were frequently returned unpaid. If such cheques were frequently returned unpaid, it is not understood how same could be reflected in its cash credit and current account. Allegation with regard to re- purchasing a cheque which was actually received unpaid was also proved against the employee. Respondent successfully proved on record that cheques, which were received back unpaid were repurchased to accommodate M/s R.S. Enterprises, as a result thereof, party was permitted to withdraw shadow balances against cheques in collection. 15. Allegation with regard to non-submission of periodical irregularity reports in respect of current and cash credit accounts of M/s R.S. Enterprises on account of overdrawing permitted for confirmation by the appropriate authority was admitted by the delinquent official. Similarly, allegation with regard to purchase of cheques simply to regularize the borrower’s account resulting in concealing of irregularities in the accounts in the annual returns was also successfully proved by the respondent-bank. Delinquent officer failed to disprove that he had not sanctioned a terms loan of Rs. 10.00 lacs on 23.01.2006 in favour of D’N’D Enterprises on the basis of agreement to sell without obtaining agreement to mortgage at the time of disbursement of full amount to borrower. 16. Delinquent officer failed to disprove that he had not sanctioned a terms loan of Rs. 10.00 lacs on 23.01.2006 in favour of D’N’D Enterprises on the basis of agreement to sell without obtaining agreement to mortgage at the time of disbursement of full amount to borrower. 16. Other allegation of not ensuring the compliance of the Bank’s laid down instructions regarding referring of clearing cheques returned unpaid in “Cheques Referred & Returned Register” were also proved against the delinquent officer. Though, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners vehemently argued that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the delinquent officer and evidence led on record was not appreciated in its right perspective, but having perused record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Vashista, vehemently argued that learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that all the allegations in the present matters related to non-performing account of M/s R.S. Enterprises, which was taken over by the respondent- bank from Punjab & Sind Bank Branch, Shoghi and in the above said account the taking over of the account was done by one Sh. R.C. Satija, Assistant General Manager and the said customer was given an enhanced limit by Sh. P.K. Jain, the then Assistant General Manager and the decisions with respect to grant of limit and handling of the said account was taken at annual General Manager level. However, this Court after perusal of record finds that aforesaid ground setup in the appeal and canvassed by Mr. Vashista, learned counsel for the appellants was neither raised before the Appellate Authority nor was proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 17. Though, Mr. Vashishta, argued that charges in question relate to the official functioning of the delinquent officer, which were performed strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the superior officers and under their close supervision and as such, on account of omission, if any, on his part as far as compliance of procedural instructions, as detailed hereinabove, harshest possible penalty of dismissal from service could not have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that the respondents have not issued the prior notice of contemplated penalty to the petitioner and the penalty of dismissal of services has been imposed without affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to him. He submitted that the respondents have not issued the prior notice of contemplated penalty to the petitioner and the penalty of dismissal of services has been imposed without affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to him. However, aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants are not borne from the record, rather totally being contrary to the record deserves outright rejection. 18. This Court finds from the record that Inquiry officer before submission of inquiry report, afforded due opportunity of being heard to the delinquent officer and thereafter, Disciplinary Authority after having received inquiry report afforded time to delinquent officer to submit representation, if any, against the proposed penalty. Similarly, orders passed by Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority, thereby confirming order of dismissal imposed by Appellate Authority dealt with all the grounds taken by the delinquent officer in his appeal and representation. 19. Though, learned Single Judge after having perused record has specifically returned finding that counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out procedural irregularity or illegality committed by the Inquiry officer during the course of inquiry proceedings or by the Disciplinary authority/Appellate Authority, but yet this Court with a view to do substantial justice, afforded full opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioner to point out perversity, if any, in the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. No fresh grounds other than grounds raised before learned Single Judge were raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Record clearly reveals that inquiry was conducted by Inquiry officer as per prevailing rules and by following the principle of natural justice and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for learned Single Judge to exercise power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Though, in terms of judgments, as taken note hereinabove, Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot assess the evidence led in inquiry, but yet learned Single Judge with a view to do complete justice dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. Conclusion arrived by Disciplinary authority and thereafter Appellate Authority are based upon proper appreciation of material available on record and as such, learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere in the findings returned by the aforesaid authorities. 20. Conclusion arrived by Disciplinary authority and thereafter Appellate Authority are based upon proper appreciation of material available on record and as such, learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere in the findings returned by the aforesaid authorities. 20. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer,(R.K.Rai), Allahabad Bank and others, (2003)9 Supreme Court Cases 480 and Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and others vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 84, vehemently argued that Court can always interfere with the punishment, if it found the same to be so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscious. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that penalty of dismissal imposed upon the delinquent officer does not commensurate with the alleged charges made against the delinquent officer and as such, same being highly excessive and disproportionate deserves to be reduced by this Court while exercising power of judicial review. 21. Before dealing with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellants, it would be apt to take note of aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. In Kailash Nath Gupta’s case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited, but when relevant factors having direct bearing on the quantum of punishment are not taken note of, Court can direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. In the aforesaid case, High Court did not go into the question as to whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was grossly disproportionate and as such, Hon'ble Apex Court remanded the case back and as such, Hon'ble Apex Court directed the High Court to consider the matter again with regard to quantum of punishment. Relevant para Nos. 6, 11 and 12 of aforesaid judgment are as under:- “6. We have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The High Court did not go into the question as to whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was grossly disproportionate in view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Samerendra Kishore Endow & Anr. (supra). 11. The High Court did not go into the question as to whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was grossly disproportionate in view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Samerendra Kishore Endow & Anr. (supra). 11. In the background or what has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been caused to the bank (which he quantifies at about Rs.46,000/-) that can be recovered from the appellant. As the reading of the various articles of charges go to show, at the most there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 12. These aspects do not appear to have been considered by the High Court in the proper perspective. In the fitness of things, therefore, the High Court should examine these aspects afresh. The consideration shall be limited only to the quantum of punishment and not to any other question. As the appellant would have superannuated in the normal course in the year 1994, and the matter is pending for a long time, the High Court is requested to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed by us as to what would be the appropriate punishment. In this view, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is remitted to the High Court for disposal in the light of what is stated above.” 22. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed by us as to what would be the appropriate punishment. In this view, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is remitted to the High Court for disposal in the light of what is stated above.” 22. In Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that court’s interference with the punishment is called for only when it is so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while taking the view that punishment awarded by Disciplinary authority was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, court must record its reasons therefor. Relevant para Nos. 14 to 20 of aforesaid judgment are as under:- “14. 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 the Wednesbury's case (supra) 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 to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- making process and not the decision. 15. To put 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. 16. In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. 17. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. 16. In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. 17. 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 v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik ( 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. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. 18. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance. 19. These aspects were highlighted in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others v. P.C. Kakkar ( 2003 (4) SCC 364 ). 20. In the case at hand, the High Court's judgment is full of ifs and buts. There is no definite finding recorded that the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. No basis has been indicated to direct re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that the respondent had miserably failed to prove bonafides. Though he took the stand that he had informed the head office about the withdrawal, no material was placed before any of the authorities to prove it. It is to be noted that on the basis of material on record, it was concluded that the withdrawal was on 6.5.1992 and not on 9.5.1992 as was claimed. The respondent-employee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the account of bank with the State Bank of India on 6.5.1992 and had withdrawn a further sum of Rs.5,000/- from the cash.” 23. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that court’s can only interfere with the punishment in only one circumstance when it found the same to be so disproportionate as to shock judicial conscience. Though, an employee of any organization or department is expected to honest, careful and diligent while performing his duties but a bank official is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity while discharging his duties because he deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Though, an employee of any organization or department is expected to honest, careful and diligent while performing his duties but a bank official is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity while discharging his duties because he deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Any omission or carelessness on the part of bank employee may not only cause serious prejudice to customer of the bank but it may cause huge loss to the public exchequer. 24. In the instant case, charges levelled against the delinquent officer are very serious. He has not only failed to abide by the statutory procedure as provided in the bank regulations but also extended undue benefit to a defaulter. Charges levelled against the delinquent officer are not only serious but speaks about his callous and negligent attitude towards his onerous duty. Mere ground that no financial loss was caused to the bank cannot be a ground for Disciplinary authority to take a lenient view, especially when it is proved on record that delinquent officer attempted to extend undue benefit to an individual in sheer violation of regulations of bank. 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 because acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is misconduct. Charges levelled in the case against employee are not casual in nature, rather are very serious, and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Disciplinary authority while imposing penalty of dismissal from service. 25. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge and as such, same is upheld. The present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.