ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.11.2013 and 16.06.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the punishment of forfeiture of the total leave encashment amount has been passed and the order dated 16.06.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Briefly noted facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner while working in the respondent-Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.03.2012 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1958’) and in pursuance of the charge-sheet, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, following two charges were framed against the petitioner:- 4. After holding the enquiry, the charge No.1 was found to be not proved, however, the charge No.2 was found to be proved against the petitioner. Taking note of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.11.2013 has imposed the punishment of forfeiture of the petitioner’s leave encashment amount. 5. Against the order dated 28.11.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Governing Board and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2014. 6. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 16.06.2014, the petitioner also preferred the second appeal before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, however, the same was too dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2015. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been exonerated from the first charge as the Bank has not been put to any loss and despite the charge No.1 having been not proved, the respondents have proceeded to impose the penalty of forfeiture of entire leave encashment amount. He further submits that the charge No.2 has been proved, which is of very trivial nature that the petitioner has not performed her duties with utmost satisfaction, therefore, for the petty charge, such a harsh punishment could not have been imposed by the respondents. He further submits that the respondents have imposed excessive punishment of the charge, which has been allegedly proved against the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.11.2013 and 16.06.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority may be quashed and set aside. 8. He further submits that the respondents have imposed excessive punishment of the charge, which has been allegedly proved against the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.11.2013 and 16.06.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has given loan to a person without verifying the credentials of that person and even the requisite documents, which were required from the person to whom the loan facility was given have not taken on record of the respondent-bank. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer has in detail inquired into the matter and come to the conclusion that charge No.2 is proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the charge No.1 was not found to be proved on account of the fact that immediately after the fraud was intercepted by the respondent-Bank, an FIR was registered and, therefore, the petitioner was able to get deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through the person to whom the loan facility was extended. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles her from seeking any relief as the petitioner has tried to extend the loan facility to a person fraudulently for causing loss to the Bank. However, the respondent-Bank had lodged an FIR and, therefore, the loan amount, which was disbursed to one Kanta Purohit were got recovered. She further submits that the procedure adopted by the petitioner for extending the loan facility to Smt. Kanta Purohit was clearly in dereliction of her duties and, therefore, charge No.2 has rightly been proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment imposed is absolutely proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner and, therefore, both the appellate authorities have rightly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the present case. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. It is an admitted fact that while working as an Assistant in the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet wherein aforesaid two charges were leveled against her. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. It is an admitted fact that while working as an Assistant in the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet wherein aforesaid two charges were leveled against her. Thereafter, the detailed enquiry was conducted, wherein the charge No.1 was not found to be proved on account of the fact that the amount disbursed to Smt. Kanta Purohit was got deposited and, therefore, no loss to the exchequer of the Bank was committed. As far as, the charge No.2 is concerned, it is categorically come to record that the petitioner has not checked the credentials of Smt. Kanta Purohit in accordance with the norms of the Bank and without ascertaining the veracity of the person, the loan facility has been provided to her. It has also come on record that no advance cheques and the requisite documents have been taken from her before extending the loan facility to the person concerned. Therefore, it is clear case of negligence and dereliction of her duty. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the cases of mis-appropriation of funds, the delinquent officer is required to be dealt with iron hands without extending any leniency in the matter. Further, in the matters of financial irregularity, the respondents are required to be very strict and, therefore, the punishment awarded in the present case is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the punishment on account of misconduct committed by the petitioner. 12. In somewhat circumstances of the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (05.01.2021 - SC) : (2021) 2 SCC 612 in para no.43 held as under: “43. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the Respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.” 13. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority. Further both the appellate authorities have considered the submissions and have rightly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioner. 14. In view of the discussion made above, I find no merit in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed.