ORDER : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal is filed against the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11193/2020, whereunder the writ petition filed by the present appellant seeking quashment of the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 15.02.2020 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.09.2020, was dismissed. By such impugned orders the appellant was found guilty for the two-counts of charges by the Disciplinary Authority and ordered to be removed from the service, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The background of the facts leading to the present proceedings are that the appellant while working as a Branch Manager of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch Manpur in District Sirohi allegedly involved in financial embezzlement and violation of procedural requirement in disbursement of the benefits under the Social Security Schemes of the Government. The first count of charge was that the appellant diverted Rs.7,700/- and Rs.10,000/- from inoperative accounts of the beneficiaries of Social Security Schemes i.e. Accident Claims/Pension Schemes to his personal account on 14.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 respectively. Subsequently, Rs.10,000/- was re-credited on 31.10.2018 and Rs.7,700/- was re-credited on 31.12.2018. The second count of charge was that the appellant disbursed the pension of 5 dead persons to their nominees in violation of procedural requirement for disbursement of such amounts of deceased under the Social Security Scheme. 3. Initially, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 19.12.2018 and a reply was submitted on 04.01.2019 whereunder the plea of the appellant was that the amounts were credited to his account erroneously and not intentionally. A preliminary enquiry was ordered and thereafter, a charge was framed under the memorandum of chargesheet dated 01.04.2019 for the above two counts of charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the enquiry, the Bank has examined three witnesses and relied upon 28 documents. During the course of enquiry, the appellant made admission of the two counts of charges and basing on such admissions and evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer found both the counts of charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and sought comments on the eqnuiry report for the proposed punishment of dismissal. The appellant offered his comments on the enquiry report as well as the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and sought comments on the eqnuiry report for the proposed punishment of dismissal. The appellant offered his comments on the enquiry report as well as the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the enquiry report and taking into account the background of the evidence, imposed the punishment of removal of the appellant from service. 4. The appellant aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After scrutinizing the evidence on record and taking into account the grounds set up by the appellant, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. That is why the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The writ court dis-inclined to disturb the findings on charge and punishment; and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the grounds he has raised assailing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in the background of the procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority had not properly given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Management/Bank and also not extended the help of representative to represent his case. The appellant being new to the system, he could not properly defend himself and he should have been given the representative help so as to place his case in proper way. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority failed to consider the procedural requirement in an enquiry, which requires fair play on the part of the Management, which is lacking in this case. The entire enquiry was one sided and pre-determined, and the admission of the guilt was under influence and coercion. These aspects were not considered by the learned Single Judge resulting great injustice to the appellant. 7. The entire enquiry was one sided and pre-determined, and the admission of the guilt was under influence and coercion. These aspects were not considered by the learned Single Judge resulting great injustice to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also contended that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the facts that the appellant immediately after noticing the erroneous deposit, re-deposited Rs.10,000/- within two days of such deposit and the remaining amount were also re-deposited later. There was no financial loss. The Disciplinary Authority had also not considered the past record of the appellant in imposing the punishment. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority is shockingly disproportionate. This has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, therefore, he sought intervention in the appeal. 8. Learned counsel representing the management submitted that entire case of the management rests upon the documentary evidence and in fact, all through the proceedings there is a clear admission that the amounts lying in the account of beneficiaries under the Social Security Scheme, which were inoperative, were diverted to the personal account of the appellant and this fact was never under challenge. The only defence set up by the appellant was that the amounts were not belonging to the Bank and in fact, they were belonging to the Government and hence, there is no misappropriation of any amount of Bank. It is also the defence of the appellant that the amounts were erroneously and mistakenly transferred to his personal account and those amounts were immediately re-credited, and there is no loss to the Bank. 9. It is also his further defence relating to the second count of charge that there is practice in the banking sectors that amount lying to the deceased account-holder was required to be paid to the nominee. As per the said banking practice and norms, the amounts were disbursed to the nominees of the deceased account-holders. Such procedure cannot be said to be in violation of any banking norms. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has contended that the appellant was working in the Banking Sector and he was incharge of the Branch. He was a trustee of not only to the management and depositors, but also of the entire public money. Such procedure cannot be said to be in violation of any banking norms. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has contended that the appellant was working in the Banking Sector and he was incharge of the Branch. He was a trustee of not only to the management and depositors, but also of the entire public money. Utmost trustworthiness and honesty is required in a position, in which, the appellant was placed when the financial embezzlement was made. Admittedly, in the present case, even though there was no loss to the Bank, but there is clear act of temporary misappropriation. Such an act demolished the trust imposed by the Management on the appellant in putting him as Incharge of the Branch and placing at its disposal the finances of the various account-holders. Since the appellant was the Branch Manager, he was required to be a role model for other employees in the Branch in discharge of his duties honestly and truthfully to the allegiance of Bank and customers. This has been breached and such a person cannot be said to be fit to be re-employed. Taking lenient view, the punishment imposed was proportionate and not required to be interfered, and rightly dis-inclined to interfere in the punishment by the learned Single Judge, which do not require intervention of the Appellate Court. 11. It is also contended by the counsel for the Management that absolutely, there is no material placed on record to show that how error occurred in transferring the amounts from the inoperative account-holders of Social Security Beneficiaries to the personal account of appellant. Further, the amounts which are paid to the nominees of the deceased beneficiaries under the Pension Scheme is to be looked into different facet with that of the normal account-holders. The amounts are paid to the beneficiaries during their life time since such a pension scheme is not extendable to the nominees. This is the parameters enunciated in the Social Security Scheme. Thus, in violation of such Scheme, the appellant deposited amount in the accounts of beneficiaries to be paid to the nominees though they were not entitled to claim such amount. 12. It is further contended that the Enquiry Officer after extending fair play on the basis of documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the charges of two counts have been established. 12. It is further contended that the Enquiry Officer after extending fair play on the basis of documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the charges of two counts have been established. Apart from such a documentary evidence, there is a clear material before the Enquiry Officer in the form of voluntary admission on the part of appellant, which resulted definite findings of proved charges. Basing on such findings, enquiry report was submitted and the same was rightly accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. 13. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant was misplaced and infact in all stages the fair play was extended and procedural requirement in conducting the enquiry had been scrupulously followed. There is no violation of any procedure. The appellant was well educated and he was in the rank of officer. He cannot set up a plea that he has no acquaintance of the procedure and infact at any point of time, he can seek cross-examination of the witnesses even though he was physically present, he has not requested to extend any help of representative to render assistance to him in the inquiry process. Infact, he voluntary admitted the charges. The admissions also clearly seen from the various grounds raised before the Appellate Authority as well as before this Court, which clearly demonstrate that the appellant admittedly diverted the funds of inoperative account-holders of the beneficiaries of Social Security Schemes of Government to his personal account. The diversion of funds from such inoperative accounts to personal account itself cannot be said to be any mistaken act. The way in which the amount was diverted clearly indicative of intentional act on the part of the appellant and it cannot be said to be erroneously. The defence set up by the appellant that the amounts were subsequently deposited has no help to him. There is a clear case of misappropriation. The management was sympathetic in not initiating criminal case in the bank ground of the young age and future of the appellant. According to him, there is no violation of any principles of natural justice and fair play in conducting the enquiry. The order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority requires no intervention by the writ court. 14. According to him, there is no violation of any principles of natural justice and fair play in conducting the enquiry. The order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority requires no intervention by the writ court. 14. Before delving into the findings of the learned Single Judge, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matter in H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, reported in 1992 Supp.(2) SCC 312, which reads hereunder:- "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court, Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.” 15. It is also relevant to refer the decision of Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, reported in 2021(2) SCC 612 , wherein it was held as follows:- “25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.” “29. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides 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 those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 16. A close scrutiny of the above two decisions would clinchly establishes that the intervention of High Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and such intervention is only confined to the decision making process and not to the decision. Under the judicial review, the Court is not required to examine the correctness or reasonableness of decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual all through the proceedings must be given fair treatment and not to ensure that in spite of giving fair treatment, the Disciplinary Authority reaches to a conclusion, which is correct in the eye of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal so as to, re-appreciate the evidence on record basing on which findings of facts, are arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Judicial review is not an appeal so as to, re-appreciate the evidence on record basing on which findings of facts, are arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The writ court interferes only when there is violation of principles of natural justice and fairness in treatment; and not fairness of conclusion. The writ court can also interfere where conclusion of findings is reached by the Disciplinary Authority based on no evidence or any evidence, which is inadmissible and basing on such evidence no reasonable person would have ever reached such conclusion upon consideration of evidence before the Disciplinary Authority. 17. In the present case, the only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant was not given fair treatment in allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses of the Management and he was not given opportunity to take representative assistance in conducting the enquiry proceedings. There is nothing on record which show that the appellant made any request for cross-examination or he made a request to allow him to engage the representative to assist him in the enquiry proceedings. He was physically present and the enquiry was conducted in his presence. In fact, the appellant before the Enquiry Officer instead of subjecting the witnesses to the cross-examination had chosen to accept the charges. In the said background of facts, the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion with regard to establishment of charges against the appellant. 18. The claim of undue influence and coercion in obtaining admission has to be seen in the back drop of the grounds before the Appellate Authority as well as before this Authority in the comments to the enquiry report, whereunder, it is not claimed that the appellant had not transferred the amounts indicated in the first count of charge to his personal account. His entire grievance was that the amount was transferred erroneously and later, they were re-transferred to the respective accounts and there was no loss. When the appellant admits the transfer of such amount to his personal account, it is for him to establish by proper evidence as to how such amounts he could transfer from the account-holders of his branch to his personal account. How such a mistake had occurred. Such things could be proved by way of his own evidence. Such a fact is within the special knowledge of appellant. How such a mistake had occurred. Such things could be proved by way of his own evidence. Such a fact is within the special knowledge of appellant. He has to prove such fact how error has occurred. This evidence was not produced by him. It is not the case of the appellant that when he offered to place evidence, the Enquiry Officer had not chosen to accept his defence. 19. The claim that no loss had occurred on account of re-deposit of such amount has no legs to stand. Admittedly, the amounts of inoperative account-holders were transferred to the appellant’s personal account. Even though they were re-deposited, there is clear case of temporary misappropriation. Further, all these aspects are within the realm of sufficiency of evidence before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, which are fact findings. In such fact findings, the writ court cannot interfere. 20. The violation of principles of natural justice is intended to achieve the ends of justice and the justice means justice between both the parties. The interest of justice equally demand, the guilty should be punished and the technicalities and irregularities shall not give rise to failure of justice. It is not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. The principals of natural justice cannot be put in straitjacket formula. The evidence before the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority clearly show that there is clear diversion of amounts from the account of beneficiaries of Social Security Schemes to the personal account of the appellant. 21. It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 , wherein it was held as follows:- “The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 22. From a reading of the above decision, it is clear that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The appellate authority is also having co-extensive power to re-appreciate evidence or nature of punishment. The strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are unknown to the disciplinary authority. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the writ court. The intervention of writ court is required only when such findings arrived by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority suffer from perversity or patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all. In the present case, such circumstances are not made out. In fact, the evidence, not only before the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority but also before the writ court and this Court clearly show that there is no dispute with regard to transfer of amounts from the beneficiaries account to personal account of the appellant. There is no evidence to corroborate the defence of appellant. 23. Dealing with the second charge, there is a clear concurrent finding from both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority that the Social Security Scheme was implemented by the Government through the banks. Such benefits are extended to the living persons and when such a person had died, the benefits which are deposited has to be remitted back to the treasury and the beneficiaries should not be treated at par with the normal account-holders in the bank. The extension of the banking practice are only applicable to the cases where the death of a normal account-holder and not the account-holder, under the Social Security Scheme who stands differently and purpose is different. The extension of the banking practice are only applicable to the cases where the death of a normal account-holder and not the account-holder, under the Social Security Scheme who stands differently and purpose is different. 24. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had allowed the amounts to be drawn, which are deposited in the deceased beneficiaries accounts to the nominees, which is against the policy of the Scheme under which the Bank is the implementing authority. It is not the contention of the appellant that there is no such a regulation under the Scheme and his only defence was that the normal practice indicates the payments of the amounts of the deceased to the nominee. This stand would apply in dealing with the normal account-holder. In the present case, the beneficiaries are the account-holder in the Social Security Schemes. They stand differently and the scheme is intended to give benefit to the living beneficiaries and not to the legal heirs of died beneficiaries. Therefore, there is a clear violation which was also rightly appreciated. 25. This Court finds that there is no violation of any statutory rule or fair play or natural justice so as to intervene. This Court also finds that the findings are based on the documentary evidence and the own admissions of the appellant all through the proceedings and such findings cannot be said to be either perverse or suffer from patent error or without any evidence. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dis-inclined to intervene in regard to the findings of fact arrived by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 26. So far as the contention with regard to the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, the appellant was the Branch Manager of the Bank. He was solely incharge of the Bank. There were many employees working under him. He is required to adhere to the Code of Conduct scrupulously. He was a trustee of the public and their money. He was supposed to perform his duties faithfully, honestly and trustworthly. He was solely incharge of the Bank. There were many employees working under him. He is required to adhere to the Code of Conduct scrupulously. He was a trustee of the public and their money. He was supposed to perform his duties faithfully, honestly and trustworthly. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of Pearce v. Foster, (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 536, wherein the learned Single Judge Lopes, L.J. referring to the effect of misconduct on the relation of master and servant made the following observations:- "If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duties in the service, it is misconduct which justifies immediate dismissal. That misconduct, according to my view, need not be misconduct in the carrying on of the service or the business. It is sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or to the reputation of the master, and the master will be justified, not only if he discovers it at the time, but also if he discovers it afterwards, in dismissing that servant." In the same case, the Lord Esher, M.R. also observed as follows: “The rule of law is that where a person has entered into the position of servant, if he does anything incompatible with the due or faithful discharge of his duty to his master, the latter has a right to dismiss him. The relation of master and servant implies necessarily that the servant shall be in a position to perform his duty duly and faithfully, and if by his own act he prevents himself from doing so, the master may dismiss him. What circumstances will put a servant into the position of not being able to perform, in a due manner, his duties, or of not being able to perform his duty in a faithful manner, it is impossible to enumerate. Innumerable circumstances have actually occurred which fall within that proposition and innumerable other circumstances which never have yet occurred, will occur, which also will fall within the proposition. Innumerable circumstances have actually occurred which fall within that proposition and innumerable other circumstances which never have yet occurred, will occur, which also will fall within the proposition. But if a servant is guilty of such a crime outside his service as to make it unsafe for a master to keep him in his employ, the servant may be dismissed by his master; and if the servant’s conduct is so grossly immoral that all reasonable men would say that he cannot be trusted the master may dismiss him.” 27. A reading of the above comments from the Lords of English Court reveals that when the servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duties in service, his conduct amounts to misconduct and such conduct justifies for immediate dismissal of such servant. When such a conduct is likely to prejudicial to the interest or reputation of the master, then the master is justified in dismissal of such servant. The servant is expected to discharge his duties faithfully and honestly. If he did not adhere to such expectation, the master is entitled to dismiss such servant. 28. The intervention of the writ court in the punishment is only in cases where such a punishment has been imposed mala fidely or suffer from shockingly disproportionate. The concept of shockingly disproportionate was familiar to industrial jurisprudence. The words ‘shockingly’ and ‘disproportionately’ are the key words. Something would be shocking only if he drastically deviates from the accepted norms of behavior. The punishment would suffer from shockingly disproportionate, if the facts which are reasonably required to be considered by the normal employer have been disregarded. This means while imposing the punishment, the employer disregards certain facts, which prudent employer would take into account in imposing punishment then such a punishment is said to be shockingly disproportionate. 29. The Apex Court in the case of Hindi Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, reported in 1965 (I) LLJ 462 held that the courts are not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment whether it is excessive or too severe, and the court intervention is only required when the punishment suffers from mala fides or shockingly disproportionate. The Apex Court in the case of Hindi Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, reported in 1965 (I) LLJ 462 held that the courts are not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment whether it is excessive or too severe, and the court intervention is only required when the punishment suffers from mala fides or shockingly disproportionate. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had taken into account the rank of the appellant in the Bank and that he was incharge of public money of entire Branch and many employees were working under him. There is a clear case of transfer of beneficiary’s money from their inoperative accounts to the appellant’s account. The first amount of Rs.10,000/- was remitted after two days and Rs.7,700/- was remitted after show-cause notice was issued. When the appellant was Incharge of public money of the entire Branch, his professional obligation requires strict adherence to the trust and honesty. Such requirement was disregarded. Though no loss has been caused to the Bank but the fact remains that there is temporary misappropriation. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the age of the appellant, misappropriation of amount and the expectation from the appellant being the trustee of the public money had rightly imposed the punishment of removal instead of dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority was also very sympathetic in not initiating criminal proceedings. 30. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we are also of the opinion that the punishment is not attributable to the mala fides or do not suffer from shockingly disproportionate so as to require the intervention of this Court. 31. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.