JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for quashing / setting aside the order of punishment as contained in memo no.JRGB:HO:IR:2020-21:269 dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-4), passed by the General Manager-cum-Competent Authority (Respondent no.2), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded hte major penalty of ’Dismissal’ from Bank’s service. b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for quashing / setting aside the Appellate Order as contained in memo no.JRGB:HO:AA:2020-21:05 dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-6), passed by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority (Respondent no.1), Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, confirming the order of the General Manager-cum-Competent Authority. AND c) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions commanding upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service along with all the consequential benefits. AND d) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions commanding upon the respondents to release unpaid salary of the petitioner during his suspension and during the period when the petitioner was dismissed till the date of re-instatement or as the case may be." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of Appellate Authority affirming the order of penalty is unsustainable. He further submits that there was no misconduct on part of the petitioner and no financial loss was caused to the Bank or the Bank’s customers. He submits that the enquiry report is perverse, thus, the petitioner may be exonerated from the charges. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has been rightly awarded with the punishment of dismissal as he has misused his position in committing serious misconduct and violated the Banking norms. He further submits that there is no perversity in reaching to the guilt of the petitioner, as the charges levelled against him has been proved and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an employee of the Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank on 16.01.2013 and at the relevant point of time, he was serving as an Staff-Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in the Kiriburu Branch, Region-II, Singhbhum. 6. On 03.12.2018, the petitioner was suspended and show cause was issued to him. 5. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an employee of the Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank on 16.01.2013 and at the relevant point of time, he was serving as an Staff-Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in the Kiriburu Branch, Region-II, Singhbhum. 6. On 03.12.2018, the petitioner was suspended and show cause was issued to him. He denied his guilt in his reply. Thereafter, the Articles of Charge bearing Ref. No.JRGB:HO:VIG:2019-20:171 dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), was issued against the petitioner. In the said Articles of Charge, the allegation against the petitioner is that while holding the post of Office Assistant at Kiriburu Branch, Region-II, Singhbhum, he has committed serious misconduct including violation of Bank’s norms, by (i) not providing the DBD certificate to one customer in spite of the fact that he had submitted a withdrawal slip of Rs.1,00,000/- for creation of Term Deposit Receipt (DBD), (ii) not crediting Rs.25,000/- in the account of the customers in spite of receipt of counterfoil duly signed by the petitioner and (iii) debiting the Bank Account of a customer twice for Rs.10,000/- on the strength of single withdrawal slip. It was further observed that if the allegation against petitioner stands proved, he would also be held accountable for breach of Regulation Nos.18 and 20 of the Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2019, and will be accordingly liable for punishment under Regulation 39 of the said Regulations. 7. In pursuance of the aforesaid Articles of Charge, a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted its report bearing Ref. No.JGB:HO:IP:2020-21:190 dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The Enquiry Officer on the basis of enquiry findings dated 18.08.2020 (Annexure-2/1 to the writ petition) conducted against the petitioner, came to a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been conclusively proved. The Disciplinary Authority granted opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply on the enquiry findings. 8. In reply to the enquiry findings, the petitioner submitted his Objection. He denied all the allegations and stated that the enquiry findings is perverse, thus, the proceeding may be dropped and he may be exonerated from the charges. 9. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied by the petitioner’s response / objection and issued a penalty order bearing Ref. 8. In reply to the enquiry findings, the petitioner submitted his Objection. He denied all the allegations and stated that the enquiry findings is perverse, thus, the proceeding may be dropped and he may be exonerated from the charges. 9. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied by the petitioner’s response / objection and issued a penalty order bearing Ref. No.JRGB:HO:IR:2020-21:269 dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), imposing penalty of "Dismissal" from Bank’s service under Regulation No.39.2(b)(vi) of Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2019. 10. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid penalty order, the petitioner filed an Appeal dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), asserting therein that the charges levelled against him are baseless and illegal as the same has not been corroborated by any evidence. 11. The matter was placed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order bearing Ref. No.JRGB:HO:AA:2020-21:05 dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), while affirming the order of penalty, observed that the appeal submitted by the petitioner has got no merit and hence not acceptable. 12. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is challenging his order of penalty. The modus operandi of the petitioner in the Gramin Bank has been seriously questioned. He was charged for hoodwinking the customers, which not only amounts to breach of public trust but also is in violation of Banking norms of the Institution under which he was discharging his duties. A departmental proceeding has been conducted against him. In the said proceeding, the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and he was dismissed from service by an order of penalty. He challenged his dismissal by filing an appeal but the Appellate Authority also affirmed the said order of penalty holding "No change" in the penalty order of Competent Authority, for the acts of misconduct as enumerated in the Articles of Charge. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 (para-12), has held as hereunder:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. This extract is taken from Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 917 at page 617 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 14. From perusal of the impugned order of penalty, I find that the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with each and every fact, by considering the documentary evidences, after examining the documents properly and hearing both the sides. 15. From perusal of the impugned order of penalty, I find that the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with each and every fact, by considering the documentary evidences, after examining the documents properly and hearing both the sides. 15. This is not an Appellate Court, as it is not the function of the High Court to warrant interference with the punishment imposed, if it is proportionate. The punishment is a prerogative of the employer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. K. Hanumantha Rao, (2017) 2 SCC 528 (para-7.2), has held as hereunder:- “7.2. Even otherwise, the aforesaid reason could not be a valid reason for interfering with the punishment imposed. It is trite that courts, while exercising their power of judicial review over such matters, do not sit as the appellate authority. Decision qua the nature and quantum is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. It is not the function of the High Court to decide the same. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where it is found that the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority/employer is wholly disproportionate, that too to an extent that it shakes the conscience of the court, that the court steps in and interferes.” 16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 , while dealing with a case of Bank employee, at para-22 has held as hereunder:- “22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank’s regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank’s Regulations required that every officer of the Bank at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case.” 17. As an upshot of the discussions hereinabove and the preposition settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ petition stands dismissed . The impugned order of penalty bearing Ref. No.JRGB:HO:IR:2020-21:269 dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and order of the Appellate Authority bearing Ref. No.JRGB:HO:AA:2020-21:05 dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), are hereby affirmed.