JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is assailing, inter alia, the order of major penalty dated 29.11.2019 and the appellate order dated 01.06.2020. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while serving as MMGS-II (Deputy Manager) at the Regional Business Office, Guwahati (Rural) in the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the “SBI”), was placed under suspension, and after holding disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was awarded with the penalty of dismissal from service by final order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority; however, the same was rejected by order dated 01.06.2020. Aggrieved by the impugned order of penalty and the appellate authority’s order of upholding the penalty of dismissal, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that two other employees of the respondent bank were also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner for the same incident; however, lesser punishment was awarded to the other two delinquents. He further submits that the allegations leveled against the three delinquents, including the petitioner, were identical and similar; however, stringent and maximum punishment of dismissal from service was awarded in respect of the petitioner, while lesser punishment was awarded against the other two delinquent employees. He accordingly submits that the respondents have treated the case of the petitioner in a discriminatory manner for which the impugned order of penalty requires to be interfered with. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: - (i) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Pd. Singh and another , reported in (2001) 10 SCC 530 (ii) Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India and Ors. , reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786 (iii) State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., v. Raj Pal Singh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783 4.1. He further submits that the findings of the disciplinary authority are also perverse inasmuch as, in respect of some of the allegations, there was no evidence, and further relevant evidence was also not taken into account by the disciplinary authority. 5. He further submits that the findings of the disciplinary authority are also perverse inasmuch as, in respect of some of the allegations, there was no evidence, and further relevant evidence was also not taken into account by the disciplinary authority. 5. Per contra, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that though the allegations relate to the same incident, there is a material distinction in the case of the alleged irregularities against the petitioner as compared to the other two employees. He further submits that the allegation in respect of the petitioner being more serious than that of the other two employees, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the gravamen of the charges and therefore warrants no interference from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: - (i) Union of India and Ors., v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2014) 13 S.C.R. 1312. (ii) State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., v. M. Mangayarkarasi and etc. , reported in ( 2018) 14 S.C.R. 427 6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have also carefully perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 7. It appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 16.10.2018, whereafter a show cause notice dated 28.12.2018 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against the petitioner in connection with serious irregularities relating to KCC loan accounts while he was posted as Field Officer at Dadara Branch of the SBI during the period from October 2017 to August 2018. The show-cause notice dated 28.12.2018 reads as under: - “State Bank of India AGM/R-IV-Guw/1122 Date: 28/12/2018 (Private & Confidential) To Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, MMGS-II (U/S) P.F. Index No- 1943596 District Central Jail (under judicial custody) Guwahati Dear Sir, BRANCH: DADARA (7390) SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES KCC LOAN ACCOUNTS EXPLANATION It has come to our notice that while working as Field Officer at our Dadara Branch, you had committed certain serious irregularities in discharging your duties in total disregards to Bank's systems & procedures. It is reported that proceeds 968 KCC loans were disbursed at the Branch during the period from October 2017 to August 2018 without following the extant guidelines of the Bank in regard to KCC loans. The allegations leveled against you in this regard are as under: i. Out of 968 KCC loans, 927 loans were disbursed in cash by using SB withdrawal slips instead of KCC Rupay Cards during the period from October 2017 to August 2018 violating extant instructions of the Bank. (List enclosed as Annexure-l.) ii. Signatures of the holder of PAN card obtained or in S6 accounts of the customers do not match with the signatures obtained in the KCC loan documents in respect of the account numbers e.g. Account Numbers: 37272258683, 37307076990, 37272256652, 37328089688, 37449051009 and 37451025609. iii. Only one document obtained for ID & address proof viz. Voter ID instead of two documents as per Revised KCC Master Circular No. NBG/ABU/PDM-KCC/65/2016-17 dated 09.03.2017. iv. Out of 968 KCC loans, 65 loans were not controlled by the Appropriate Authority. You did not take any initiative for control of the same. (List enclosed as Annexure-2) v. Out of 968 KCC loans, 102 loans were not recommended for sanction, sanctioned or controlled but the proceeds were disbursed to third party. You have allowed disbursing the proceeds of the said KCC loans to third party with an ulterior motive of gaining money wrongfully. (List enclosed as Annexure-3) vi. In respect of 31 KCC loans, disbursed during the period from October 2017 to August 2018, first disbursement includes cost of post harvest/consumption and farm maintenance & insurance as per Assessment made by you. vii. You have closed 35 Mudra loan accounts from the proceeds of KCC loans, in contravention to Bank's extant instructions. (List enclosed as Annexure-4) viii. You have debited your account No. 10055613271 for Rs. 3,00,000.00 and Rs. 78,000.00 on 06.09.2018 and 15.06.2018 respectively and credited the proceed to account No. 20203144319 of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent of the Branch, without any bonafide reason. ix. You have debited your account No. 10055704533 for Rs. 25,000.00 on 08.06.2018 and credited the proceed to account No. 20203144319 of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent of the Branch, without any bonafide reason. x. You have allowed Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, to handle loan documents, application forms etc. violating extant instructions of the Bank. xi. ix. You have debited your account No. 10055704533 for Rs. 25,000.00 on 08.06.2018 and credited the proceed to account No. 20203144319 of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent of the Branch, without any bonafide reason. x. You have allowed Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, to handle loan documents, application forms etc. violating extant instructions of the Bank. xi. You have renewed 96 KCC loans during June 2018 without post sanction inspection and without obtaining borrowers' consent. (List enclosed as Annexure-5) xii. You have recommended for payment of commission as recovery account of AUCA to Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, though actual AUCA recovery was not made but proceeds of KCC disbursement was used as AUCA recovery. xiii. You have not done Pre-sanction survey in respect of KCC loans to ascertain undisputed cultivation rights over the land, skill experience and capabilities of the applicant before recommending the applications for sanction, xiv. You have obtained Identity Card from Gaon Panchyat without signature of the Village Headman and failed to discharge your duties with due diligence in pre-sanction process of the KCC loans. xv. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and your such acts have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. Due to your dishonest activities, the Bank is exposed to suffer a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 205.31 lakhs. 2. You are, therefore, advised to submit your explanation within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this letter as to why disciplinary action will not be initiated against you. In case you fail to submit your explanation within the stipulated time, it will be construed that either you have no explanation to offer or you do not intend to submit your explanation. Accordingly the matter will be dealt with as per SBI Officers Service Rules. Meanwhile, please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly acknowledged by you with date and full signature in token of your having received the original. Yours faithfully Assistant General Manager RBO, Region-IV, Guwahati.” 8. Accordingly the matter will be dealt with as per SBI Officers Service Rules. Meanwhile, please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly acknowledged by you with date and full signature in token of your having received the original. Yours faithfully Assistant General Manager RBO, Region-IV, Guwahati.” 8. Pursuant to the reply submitted by the petitioner on 17.01.2019, explaining the 15 allegations contained in the show cause notice, the respondent authorities, upon due consideration of the same, having not been satisfied, were pleased to frame 16 charges against the petitioner, vide charge-sheet dated 11.02.2019, for his alleged lapses while he was posted as Field Officer at the Dadara Branch of the SBI during the period in question. The statement of imputation of lapses annexed to the said charge-sheet reads as under: - “ STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF LAPSES ALLEGED AGAINST SHRI SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA, MMGS-II, IN RELATION TO THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM WHILE HE WAS POSTED AS FIELD OFFICER AT OUR DADARA BRANCH FROM OCTOBER 2017 TO AUGUST 2018 Allegation No.-1 It is reported that 968 KCC loans were sanctioned at the Branch on your recommendation during the period from October 2017 to August 2018. Out of 968 KCC loans, 927 loans (List enclosed as Annexure-1) were disbursed in cash by using withdrawal slips. As per circular, KCC borrowers shall be issued an ATM enabled KCC Rupay cards to enable them to conduct their banking business. You have recommended proposals without obtaining the required application forms for issuance of KCC card resulting in disbursement of the proceeds of the loans in cash Allegation No. -II You have obtained Voter ID card from many applicants and recommended the proposals for sanction without verifying and confirming the genuineness of ID of the applicants. (As example, list of 27 such applications are enclosed as Annexure-2) Allegation No. -III Signatures on PAN cards and in SB account Opening Forms of the customers do not match with the signatures obtained in the KCC loan documents in respect of the account numbers e.g. Account Numbers: 37272258683, 37307076990, 37272256652, 37328089688, 37449051009 and 37451025609. Allegation No. -IV Only one document obtained for ID & address proof viz. Voter ID instead of two documents as per Revised KCC Master Circular No. NBG/ABU/PDM-KCC/65/2016-17 dated 09.03.2017. Allegation No. -V Out of 968 KCC loans, 65 loans were not controlled by the Appropriate Authority. Allegation No. -IV Only one document obtained for ID & address proof viz. Voter ID instead of two documents as per Revised KCC Master Circular No. NBG/ABU/PDM-KCC/65/2016-17 dated 09.03.2017. Allegation No. -V Out of 968 KCC loans, 65 loans were not controlled by the Appropriate Authority. You did not take any initiative for control of the same. (List enclosed as Annexure-3) Allegation No. -VI You have allowed disbursement of many KCC loan amount to third parties other than borrowers. (As example, list of 71 such KCC loan accounts are enclosed as Annexure-4 with CBS timings Allegation No.-VII In respect of 35 KCC loans, disbursed during the period from October 2017 to August 2018, first disbursement includes cost of post harvest/consumption and farm maintenance & Insurance as per Assessment made by you violating extant Instructions of the Bank regarding disbursement of KCC loan component. (List enclosed as Annexure-5) Allegation No. -VIII You have allowed recovery of AUCA from the proceeds of many KCC loans. (As example, list of 20 such KCC loan accounts are enclosed as Annexure-6 with CBS timings). Allegation No. -IX Out of 968 KCC loans, 102 loans were not recommended for sanction, sanctioned or controlled but the proceeds were disbursed to third party. You have allowed disbursing the proceeds of the said KCC loans to third party other than borrowers. (List enclosed as Annexure-7) Allegation No. -X You have closed 35 Mudra loan accounts from the proceeds of KCC loans, in contravention to Bank's extant instructions. (List enclosed as Annexure-8) Allegation No.-XI You have debited Rs. 3,00,000.00 and Rs. 78,000.00 on 06.09.2018 and 15.06.2018 from your account No. 10055613271 and again Rs. 25,000/- from your account No. 10055704533 on 08.06.2018 and credited the proceeds to account No. 20203144319 of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent of the Branch, without any bonafide reason. Allegation No.-XII In connivance with Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, you allowed him to handle loan documents, application forms etc. as evident from CCTV footage dated 19.04.2018, 16.05.2018, 17.05.2018, 22.06.2018, 31.07.2018, 01.08.2018 and 02.08.2018. Allegation No. -XIII You have renewed 96 KCC loans during June 2018 without physical verification and without obtaining borrowers consent. Allegation No.-XII In connivance with Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, you allowed him to handle loan documents, application forms etc. as evident from CCTV footage dated 19.04.2018, 16.05.2018, 17.05.2018, 22.06.2018, 31.07.2018, 01.08.2018 and 02.08.2018. Allegation No. -XIII You have renewed 96 KCC loans during June 2018 without physical verification and without obtaining borrowers consent. (List enclosed as Annexure-9) Allegation No. -XIV You have recommended for payment of commission on recovery amount of AUCA to Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, though actual AUCA recovery was not made but proceeds of KCC disbursement was used as AUCA recovery. (Few examples are given as per Annexure-10) Allegation No. -XV You have not done Pre-sanction survey in respect of KCC loans to ascertain undisputed cultivation rights over the land, skill experience and capabilities of the applicants before recommending the applications for sanction. Allegation No. -XVI Thus, you did not discharge your duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and your such acts have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. Due to your dishonest activities, the Bank is exposed to suffer a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 205.31 lakhs.” 9. Reading the aforesaid 16 allegations/charges as contained in the statement of imputation of lapses alleged against the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been alleged to have committed irregularities while performing his duties as Field Officer for which the respondent bank has allegedly suffered a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.205.31 lakhs, besides reputational loss. Upon appointing an Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was held against the petitioner, wherein admittedly all requisite opportunities as required were afforded to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of the same, submitted its enquiry report on 03.09.2019. Perusal of the said enquiry report, it is apparent that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, by letter dated 18.09.2019, furnished a copy of the aforesaid enquiry report to the petitioner, calling for his comments against the aforesaid enquiry report. The petitioner thereafter, furnished his response by letter dated 26.09.2019. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority upon perusing the reply of the petitioner by letter dated 13.11.2019 called upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities on 19.11.2019 for personal hearing and/or make submissions as to why the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of his gratuity shall not be imposed on him. 10. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority upon perusing the reply of the petitioner by letter dated 13.11.2019 called upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities on 19.11.2019 for personal hearing and/or make submissions as to why the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of his gratuity shall not be imposed on him. 10. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the final order on 29.11.2019, which was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 09.12.2019. A perusal of the same, it appears that the disciplinary authority was pleased to impose the following punishments against the petitioner: (i) 'Dismissal' in terms of rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rule, 1992. His suspension period will be treated as 'Not on duty'. (ii) 'Forfeiture of his gratuity in full' as per sec 4(6) (a) of Gratuity act, 1972 against the loss of Rs. 205.31 lakh attributable to the official. 11. Pertinent that along with the petitioner, two other employees, i.e., Ashapurna Singh (Controlling Authority) and Bhaskar Dutta (Sanctioning Authority) were also separately charged for the same incident and the disciplinary authority by two separate orders of the same date, i.e., 30.07.2020 imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year with further direction that the officers will not earn increment to pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of their pay in terms of Rule No. 67 (f) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rule, 1992 (updated as on 18.06.2021), (hereinafter referred to as the “ Existing Service Rules , 1992) to both the aforesaid two delinquent employees respectively. 12. The primary ground urged in the instant writ petition is that stringent and maximum punishment of dismissal from service is awarded to the petitioner when lesser punishments are awarded to the other two delinquent employees for the same incident. 13. The short question is thus whether the impugned penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner is discriminatory on the ground that a lesser penalty has been awarded to similarly situated co-delinquent employees for the same incident. 14. Pertinently, the petitioner, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, retired from service on 28.02.2019. 15. 13. The short question is thus whether the impugned penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner is discriminatory on the ground that a lesser penalty has been awarded to similarly situated co-delinquent employees for the same incident. 14. Pertinently, the petitioner, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, retired from service on 28.02.2019. 15. Apt now to refer to Rule 19 (3) of the Existing Service Rules , 1992, which read as under: 19. (3) In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of service have been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said rules or the provisions of these rules, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the competent authority, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said rules as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. Explanation: An officer shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of 60 years provided that the officer whose date of birth is 1st of month, shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month.” 16. It appears that after the retirement of the petitioner as per Rule 19 (3) of the Existing Service Rules , 1992, the disciplinary proceedings that was initiated against the petitioner continued, and ultimately by the impugned order referred to above, the penalty of dismissal from service has been awarded to the petitioner. 17. It further appears that the petitioner has been charged for violation of Rule 50 (4) of the Existing Service Rules , 1992. 18. Apt at this juncture to refer to Rule 50 (4) of the Existing Service Rules , 1992, which read as under: - “50 (4) Every officer shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer.” 19. The list of penalties to be imposed on any employee of the respondent bank for an act of misconduct under Rule 50 of the Existing Service Rules , 1992, is provided under Rule 67 of the Existing Service Rules , 1992, which reads as under: - “Penalties 67. Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in these rules, any one or more of the following penalties may be imposed on an officer, for on act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing: Minor penalties (a) Censure: (b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect: (c) withholding of promotion: (d) (i) Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. (ii) Imposition of fine or monetary penalty. (e) reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the officer's pension: Major penalties (f) save as provided for in (e) above reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the officer will earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (g) reduction to a lower grade or post; (h) compulsory retirement; (i) removal from service; (j) dismissal. Explanations : The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule: (i) withholding of one or more increments of an officer on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post which he holds: (ii) stoppage of increments of an officer of the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the grounds of his unfitness to cross the bar: (iii) not giving an officiating assignment or non promotion of an officer to a higher grade or post for which he may be eligible for consideration but for which he is found unsuitable offer consideration of his case: (iv) reserving or postponing the promotion of an officer for reasons like completion of certain requirements of promotion or pendency of disciplinary proceedings: (v) reversion to a lower grade or post of an officer officiatina in a higher grade or post, on the ground that he is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct; (vi) reversion to the previous grade or post, of an officer appointed on probation to another grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or rules or orders governing such probation; (vii) reversion of an officer to his parent organisation in case he had come on deputation; (viii) termination of service of an officer; (a) appointed on probation in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 16(3) (a); (b) appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment; (c) appointed under a contract or agreement, in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement; and (d) as part of retrenchment. (ix) termination of service of an officer in terms of sub rule 3 of rule 20: (x) retirement of an officer in terms of rule 19.” 20. (ix) termination of service of an officer in terms of sub rule 3 of rule 20: (x) retirement of an officer in terms of rule 19.” 20. Reading the aforesaid Rule 67, it appears that the petitioner was awarded the major penalty of dismissal, which is provided as Clause (j) of the list of major penalties prescribed under Rule 67, whereas the other two delinquent employees were awarded reduction of rank under Clause (f) of the major penalties stipulated under the said Rule 67 for their proved misconduct respectively under Rule 50 (4) of the Existing Service Rules , 1992. Hence, it is clear that though major penalties have been awarded to the petitioner as well as to both the delinquent employees, the maximum major penalty, i.e., dismissal from service, has been awarded in respect of the petitioner. 21. The order impugned in the writ petition being the impugned penalty order awarded by the disciplinary authority, I am mindful that this court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not embark upon the enquiry nor shall act as an appellate court and shall also not re-appreciate the materials available before the enquiry officer. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant paragraph of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra) which reads as under: - “13. 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 no. 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. 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 Article 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. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i): re-appreciate 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 the conscience.” 22. Reading the aforesaid authority, it is apparent that the writ court shall not re-appreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law and/or go into the adequacy of the evidence and/or go into the reliability of the evidence and/or interfere if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based and/or correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be and/or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience. Additionally, once the charges have been held to be established and punishment is awarded, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere with the quantum of punishment; however, when the charges are the same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment would be discriminatory. 23. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Mangayarkarasi (supra) , which reads as under: - “13. There are several reasons, in our view, why the approach of the High Court in the present case cannot be accepted. 14. First, in seeking to apply the principle of parity of treatment, the High Court has manifestly failed to notice that the gravity of misconduct which was established against the appellants was distinct from and of a more serious nature than what was found against the other employees. This ex-facie emerges from a perusal of the chart which has been extracted above. The nature and extent of a dereliction of duty and the consequences of the dereliction are significant matters which can legitimately be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority. 15. Second, while noticing that such a submission was in fact made before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench proceeded to apply the yardstick of parity. Parity could not be applied for the simple reason that there is a material distinction in the case of the misconduct alleged against the appellants as compared to the other employees. While the language of the charge may be similar in other cases that does not detract from the fact that the amount involved and the extent of the lack of verification in the case of the respondents is of a much higher order. The Division Bench having noticed that in a matter of this nature, the principle of parity cannot be attracted, nonetheless affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge. This is evidently erroneous.” 24. Reference is also made to the relevant paragraph of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (supra) , which reads as under: - 6. This is evidently erroneous.” 24. Reference is also made to the relevant paragraph of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (supra) , which reads as under: - 6. There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been Succinctly summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as under: (Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank case, SCC p. 382, para 19) ‘19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.’” 25. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.’” 25. Reading the aforesaid authorities, it is apparent that though limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court and/or the same is discriminatory, the penalty can be interfered with. In short, though it is open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and, once charges are established, to award appropriate punishment, when the charges are the same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, the same would undoubtedly be discriminatory. Therefore, the test is to compare the charges and examine whether there is a material distinction in the case of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner as compared to the other two delinquents. 26. Keeping in mind the aforesaid test, let me now examine the issue of parity of punishment/penalty awarded to the petitioner vis-à-vis the other two delinquent employees. It appears that 16 allegations have been leveled against the petitioner for committing serious lapses in performing his job as a Field Officer. It further appears that 12 allegations have been leveled against the co- delinquent, i.e., Ashapurna Singha, for committing serious lapses in performing his job as Chief Manager at the Dadara Branch of the SBI for the period in question. It further appears that 9 allegations have been leveled against the co-delinquent, i.e., Bhaskar Dutta, for committing serious lapses in performing his job as Assistant Branch Managar at the Dadar Branch of the SBI for the period in question. 27. Apt at this juncture to refer to the comparative chart submitted at the bar in order to compare the charges leveled against the petitioner and the other two delinquent employees to adjudicate the issue of parity of punishment awarded to the three delinquents, including the petitioner, which reads as under: - Allegation No. Allegations against Sunil Kumar Mishra Allegations Against Bhaskar Dutta Allegations Against Ashapurna Singha Proved/Not proved 1 . It is reported that 968 KCC loans were sanctioned at the Branch on your recommendation during the period from October 2017 to August 2018. Out of 968 KCC loans, 927 loans (List enclosed as Annexure-1) were disbursed in cash by using withdrawal slips. As per Circular, KCC borrowers shall be issued an ATM enabled KCC Rupay Cards to enable them to conduct their banking business. It is noticed that 968 KCC loans were sanctioned at the Branch during the period from October 2017 to August 2018 in contravention to Circular instructions meant for KCC loans. It is alleged that you have sanctioned 759 KCC loans in CBS during the period from January 2018 to August 2018 to the Borrowers without ascertaining that the borrowers were issued ATM enabled KCC Rupay It is noticed that 968 KCC loans were sanctioned at the Branch during the period from October 2017 to August 2018 in contravention to Circular instructions meant for KCC loans. It is alleged that you have controlled the said without ascertaining that the borrowers were issued ATM enabled KCC Rupay Cards to enable them to conduct their banking business as per Circular instructions. B A S.K. Mishra – Proved haskar Dutta- Proved shapurna Singh- Proved 2 . You have obtained Voter ID card from many applicants and recommended the proposals for sanction without verifying and confirming the genuineness of ID of the applicants. KYC documents were not obtained as per extant guidelines of the Bank and only one document obtained for ID & address proof, viz., Voter ID instead of two documents as per Revised KCC Master Circular No.NBG/ABU/PD M KCC/65/2016- 17 dated 09.03.2017 You sanctioned the loans, as mentioned in Allegation No.I, though full KYC formalities were not observed in sanctioned process. KYC documents were not obtained as per extant guidelines of the bank. You controlled the loans, as mentioned in Allegation No. 1, though full KYC formalities were not observed in S.K. Mishra – Proved Bhaskar Dutta- Proved Ashapurna Singh- Proved 3 . Signatures on PAN cards and in SB account opening forms of the customers do not match with the signatures obtained in the KCC loan documents in respect of the account numbers e.g., Account Numbers : 37272258683,37 307076990, 37272256652,37 328089688, 37449051009,37 451025609. Though vehicle is provided for follow- up/monitoring of loans, pre-sanction survey was not conducted as per extant guidelines of the Bank. Though vehicle is provided for follow- up/monitoring of loans, pre-sanction survey was not conducted as per extant guidelines of the Bank. You have sanctioned the loans, as mentioned in Allegation No.I , without ensuring meaningful conduct of pre- sanction survey. Though vehicle is provided for follow- up/monitoring of loans, pre-sanction survey was not conducted as per extant guidelines of the bank. You have controlled the loans, as mentioned in Allegation 1, without meaningful conduct of pre sanction survey. S.K. Mishra– Partially proved Bhaskar Dutta - Partially proved Ashapurna Singh - Proved 4 . Only one document obtained for ID & address proof viz., Voter ID instead of two documents as per Revised KCC Master Circular No.NBG/ABU/PD M- KCC/65/2016- 17 dated 09.03.2017. Out of 968 KCC loans, 56 loans were not controlled by the Appropriate Authority. You did not take any initiative for control of the same From the proceeds of KCC loans, 35 Mudra loan accounts, of which 25 loans were NPA, were closed in contravention to Bank’s extant instructions. You as a Branch Head, failed to notice such serious irregularities or allowed such irregular activities S.K. Mishra –Not proved Bhaskar Dutta- Not proved Ashapurna Singh- Proved 5 . Out of 968 KCC loans, 65 loans were not controlled by the Appropriate Authority. You did not take any initiative for control of the same. Out of 968 KCC loans, you have sanctioned 93 loans in CBS but not sanctioned in Memorandum for sanction and also without recommending Official and allowed for disbursement of the proceeds of the loans to third party. You have allowed disbursement of many KCC loan amount to third parties other than borrowers. B S.K. Mishra –Not proved haskar Dutta- Partially proved. Ashapurna Singh- Not Proved 6 . You have allowed disbursement of many KCC loan amount to third parties other than borrowers. You have allowed disbursement of many KCC loan amount to third parties other than borrowers You have allowed Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, to involve in processing of KCC loans as evident from CCTV footage, e.g., date: 18.04.2018, 19.04.2018, 11.05.2018, 16.05.2018, 17.05.2018, 22.06.2018, 31.07.2018, 01.08.2018 & 02.08.2018 in contravention to Bank’s extant guidelines. B S.K. Mishra - Proved haskar Not Dutta– proved Ashapurna Singh- Proved 7 . Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, to involve in processing of KCC loans as evident from CCTV footage, e.g., date: 18.04.2018, 19.04.2018, 11.05.2018, 16.05.2018, 17.05.2018, 22.06.2018, 31.07.2018, 01.08.2018 & 02.08.2018 in contravention to Bank’s extant guidelines. B S.K. Mishra - Proved haskar Not Dutta– proved Ashapurna Singh- Proved 7 . In respect of 35 KCC loans, disbursed during the period from October 2017 to August 2018, first disbursement includes cost of harvest/consum ption and farm maintenance & insurance as per Assessment made by you violating extant instructions of the Bank regarding 2 disbursement of KCC loan component. You have allowed Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent to handle loan documents, application forms etc. violating extant instructions of the Bank. You have allowed unusual/undesirab le involvement of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent and Shri Sunil Kumar Misra, the Field Officer, at the Branch and failed to stop their activities resulting in perpetration of frauds. B S.K. Mishra - Proved haskar Not Dutta– proved Ashapurna Singh- Not Proved 8 . You have allowed recovery of AUCA from the proceeds of many KCC loans. Knowing well that some unethical practices are going on at the Branch you did not take any initiative to stop such practices. Knowing well that some unethical practices are going on at the Branch you did not take any initiative to stop such practices. B S.K. Mishra –Not proved haskar Dutta- Partially proved. Ashapurna Singh- Not Proved 9 . Out of 968 KCC loans, 102 loans were not recommended for sanction, sanctioned or controlled but the proceeds were disbursed to third party. You have allowed disbursing the proceeds of the said KCC loans to third party other than borrowers. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. Due to your such activities, the bank is exposed to suffer a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.205.31 Lakhs. You, as the Branch Head, failed to Control/Monitor Advance portfolio of the Branch effectively and failed to protect the interest of the Bank. S.K. Mishra - Proved Bhaskar Dutta- Proved Ashapurna Singh- Not Proved 10. You have closed 35 Mudra loan accounts from the proceeds of KCC loans in contravention to Bank’s extant instructions. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. S.K. Mishra - Proved Bhaskar Dutta- Proved Ashapurna Singh- Not Proved 10. You have closed 35 Mudra loan accounts from the proceeds of KCC loans in contravention to Bank’s extant instructions. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. Due to your such activities, the bank is exposed to suffer a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.205.31 Lakhs. S.K. Mishra - Proved Ashapurna Singh- Proved 11. You have debited Rs.3,00,000/= and Rs.78,000/= on 06.09.2018 and 15.06.2018 from your account No.10055613271 and again Rs.25,000/= from your account No.10055704533 on 08.06.2018 and credited the proceeds to account No.20203144319 of Mr. Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent of the Branch without any bonafide reasons. S .K. Mishra – Proved 12. In connivance with Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent , you allowed him to handle loan documents, application forms etc. as evident from CCTV footage dated 19.04.2018, 16.05.2018, 17.05,2018, 22.06.2018, 31.07.2018. 01.08.2018 and 02.08.2018. S.K. Mishra - Proved 13. You have renewed 96 KCC loans during June 2018 without physical verification and without obtaining borrower consent. S.K. Mishra - Proved 14. You have recommended for payment of commission on recovery amount of AUCA to Shri Saddam Hussain, the Recovery Agent, though actual AUCA recovery was not made but proceeds of KCC disbursement was used as AUCA recovery. -S.K. Mishra - Proved 15. You have not done pre- sanction survey in respect of KCC loans to ascertain undisputed cultivation rights over the land, skill experience and capabilities of the applicants before recommending the applications for sanction. S.K. Mishra - Proved 16. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and your acts have jeopardized the interest of the Bank. Due to your dishonest activities, the bank is exposed to suffer a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.205.31 Lacs. S.K. Mishra - Proved 28. Reading the aforesaid chart, it appears that out of the 16 irregularities alleged against the petitioner vide the subject charge-sheet, 12 charges have been proved. It further appears that out of the 10 irregularities alleged against the co-delinquent, i.e., Ashapurna Singha, 6 charges have been proved. It further appears that out of the 9 irregularities alleged against the other co-delinquent, i.e., Bhaskar Dutta, 3 charges have been proved. It further appears that out of the 10 irregularities alleged against the co-delinquent, i.e., Ashapurna Singha, 6 charges have been proved. It further appears that out of the 9 irregularities alleged against the other co-delinquent, i.e., Bhaskar Dutta, 3 charges have been proved. It further appears that though the incident in relation to which the aforesaid charges have been leveled against the petitioner and the other two co-delinquents is same, there appears to be a material distinction in the case of the irregularities alleged against the petitioner as compared to the other co- delinquents. I cannot also be unmindful of the extent of the lack of verification in the case of the petitioner, which is of a much higher standard considering the nature of his job as a Field Officer at the relevant point in time compared to the other two delinquent employees. That apart, it is apparent from the above comparative statement that the gravity of charges leveled and established against the petitioner is much more serious and grave compared with the other two delinquents. Hence, the charges leveled against the petitioners and the other two co-delinquents cannot be said to be the same and identical. That being so, the principles of parity cannot, in the facts of the instant case, be attracted. I am thus of the unhesitant view that there has been no discrimination meted out to the case of the writ petitioner, and the penalty imposed upon the writ petitioner appears to be proportionate to the gravamen of the charges established. 29. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the impugned enquiry is perverse, the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence, and the adequacy of the same cannot be gone into by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In view of the foregoing, I see no infirmity with the impugned penalty order dated 29.11.2019, requiring my interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the writ petition is bereft of any merit whatsoever. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.