JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the respondent-Bank whereby, while dismissing the review petition filed by Shri Mishrilal Meena-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (for brevity “the delinquent employee”), the order dated 04.09.2000 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the delinquent employee against the order of punishment dated 22.04.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the Bank, has been upheld. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the delinquent employee was served upon with a charge-sheet dated 25.02.1999 alongwith statement of allegations wherein, it was alleged, inter alia, that while working as an Accountant at the Sawai Madhopur Branch of the Bank, he, misusing his authority on 18.05.1998, when the Branch Manager was on leave, opened a current account in the name and style of M/s. Anil Garments, a proprietary concern of Shri Anil Kumar, with the cash amount of Rs. 1,100/- with no introduction obtained. It was further alleged that signature on the account opening form as well as specimen signature card were verified by the delinquent employee; while opening the current account, he did not obtain photographs of the proprietor, stamp of the firm was not affixed, identity of the proprietor of the firm and the genuineness of the address of the firm were also not verified. Further, on that very day, the delinquent employee issued a cheque book in the name of account-holder, passed a cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/-, made cash payment and thereby, he allowed an overdraft of Rs. 1,58,900/- on the date of opening of the account itself abusing his authority. One of the charges also pertained to assaulting another officer on 04.02.1999 with a paper weight resulting into profuse bleeding. After holding a regular departmental inquiry, the delinquent employee was found guilty of all the charges by the inquiry officer vide his report dated 14.02.2000. After taking into consideration the material on record, the disciplinary authority inflicted the major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services vide order dated 22.04.2000 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the delinquent employee before the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, as stated hereinabove. 3. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the delinquent employee is with regard to quantum of punishment. 3. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the delinquent employee is with regard to quantum of punishment. Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the reply filed by him to the charge-sheet, he would submit that taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances mentioned therein, imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement is too harsh. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms that the respondents be directed to convert the major penalty of compulsory retirement into a lesser penalty. 4. Per contra, opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the gravity of charges found to be proved against the delinquent employee, the imposition of the major penalty cannot be reckoned as disproportionate. He, in support of his submission, relies upon the following judgments:- 1. Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 2. State Bank of India and Others vs. T.J. Paul, (1999) 4 SCC 759 3. Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84 4. Noharlal Verma vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445 5. Heard. Considered. 6. As already observed, on finding all the four charges levelled against the delinquent employee to be proved on the strength of evidence available on record, the major penalty of “compulsory retirement from Bank services” was imposed upon the delinquent employee. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the aforesaid penalty being too harsh, does not merit acceptance in view of the gravity of charges levelled against him. As already observed, as per the statement of allegations, the delinquent employee opened a current bank account in the name of a fictitious person with a sum of Rs. 1,100/- without completion of any of the mandatory formalities requisite for its opening and drawn a cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- on the same day, made cash payment misusing his authority and thereby, allowed an overdraft of Rs. 1,58,900/- on the day of opening of the account. 1,100/- without completion of any of the mandatory formalities requisite for its opening and drawn a cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- on the same day, made cash payment misusing his authority and thereby, allowed an overdraft of Rs. 1,58,900/- on the day of opening of the account. The further allegation against him has been that at about 2:00 PM on 18.05.1998 itself when he opened the subject bank account, he asked for scroll register from Shri Sabeer Ahmed, another employee of the Bank, by which time, there was neither any deposit nor, cash cheque entries of the M/s. Anil Garments in the cash scroll. After 2:00 PM, the delinquent employee entered the pay-in-slip of Rs. 1,100/- and the cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- in his own handwriting and after lunch, the delinquent employee himself wrote the cash related books and signed the cash balance book and kept the cash inside the safe till about 4:20 PM without informing the Head Cashier thereby, deliberately keeping away the Head Cashier from attending the cash transaction throughout the day. Another limb of the statement of allegations is that the delinquent employee himself wrote the supplementary and the day book of that day, opened the account in the ledger in his own handwriting, posted the voucher and cheque in the ledger book thereby, keeping the other staff members in complete dark about the whole transaction. It is also alleged that on 04.02.1999, at about 11:15 AM, without any provocation, he started hitting with paper weight on the head of another employee-Shri Rakesh Kumar Panwar from behind leading to profuse bleeding. However, Shri Panwar was saved from major head injury on account of timely intervention by other officers. 7. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the delinquent employee was found guilty of the charges of unbecoming of an officer, failure to keep all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank, failing to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, rather, acting otherwise than in his best judgment and failed to maintain good conduct and discipline. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the charges found to be proved against the delinquent employee, this Court does not find the punishment imposed upon him to be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court so as to warrant interference in it under the writ jurisdiction. 8. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the charges found to be proved against the delinquent employee, this Court does not find the punishment imposed upon him to be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court so as to warrant interference in it under the writ jurisdiction. 8. In the judgments relied upon by the leaned counsel for the respondents, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if a Bank employee acts beyond his authority or does an act prejudicial to the interests of the bank or commits an act of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss or unauthorizedly withdraws money from the bank and even if the money is subsequently deposited with interest by him, the maximum penalty is warranted. 9. It has further been held in the case of Noharlal Verma (supra) that a writ Court would not substitute its own decision so far as quantum of penalty/punishment is concerned, for the decision of the disciplinary authority unless the penalty imposed shocks conscience of the Court or no reasonable man would impose such punishment. In that case, it was further held that removal from services of the Manager of the Bank for financial irregularities, was not improper. 10. As already held in this case, in view of the nature of charges found to be proved against the delinquent employee, the punishment of compulsory retirement is not found to be disproportionate by this Court. 11. So far as the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner based on the plea raised in his defense is concerned, suffice it to say that he has miserably failed to prove the same during the course of the inquiry. Even otherwise, subsequent deposition of the embezzled amount would not absolve him from the misconduct already incurred. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of punishment. 13. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.