JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.08.2017 in W.P. (C) No.17930 of 2011 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C) and respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P. (C). 2. While working as an officer in the cadre of Manager Grade III in the respondent Bank, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for the alleged failure in duty as Branch Manager at Kaloor Branch during the period 11.11.2005 to 24.05.2006. He was issued with Ext.P1 charge memo along with a statement of allegation of misconduct. He preferred Ext.P4 reply before the Inquiry officer, and in the inquiry that followed, the inquiring authority filed Ext.P5 report dated 24.04.2010 finding that out of the six charges levelled against the petitioner, three charges stood proved while three charges were not proved. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Ext.P6 reply to the findings of the inquiring authority. However, without considering the same, the disciplinary authority vide Ext.P7 order dated 26.10.2010 imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Ext.P8 appeal was preferred by the petitioner, alleging that there had been a gross violation of principles of natural justice in the appeal. However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal vide Ext.P9 order dated 05.04.2011. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P1, P5, P7 and P9. A counter affidavit was filed by the Bank, producing Ext.R1(a), which was a copy of the communication issued by the disciplinary authority, along with tabular analysis of the inquiry authority report made by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner, along with an affidavit, produced additional documents marked as Exts.P10 (a) to P15 to substantiate his contentions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the W.P. (C) inter alia holding that there was no reason to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner and that laches and lapses in discharging duty cannot be visited with any consequence other than ordering compulsory retirement from service. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. Heard, Sri. V.A. Muhammed, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Amal George Advocate for the respondent Bank. 4. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. Heard, Sri. V.A. Muhammed, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Amal George Advocate for the respondent Bank. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not sustainable at all. The said charges were in regard to duties and failure of duties of other officials, for which the petitioner had been made a scapegoat. In spite of the fact that the charges are not per se maintainable, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was conducted. Though these aspects were duly pointed out in the reply to the notice of the inquiry officer and to the appellate authorities, the same were not considered. This had led to the imposition of punishment, which is wholly unwarranted and illegal. It was contended that the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner is riddled with various illegalities and irregularities. There had been a patent violation of all principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry are perverse and not supported by any materials. The inquiry had been concluded without any basis of law and thoroughly vitiated, thereby warranting interference of this Court. A second show cause notice before imposition of a major penalty ought to have been issued to the petitioner, and the said requirement was not complied with. Failure to comply with the same is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The intention of the enquiry, along with the fact that he had been charge- sheeted for another set of charges, was only to make him a scapegoat for extraneous reasons. The learned Single Judge had overlooked the above aspects while rendering the impugned judgment and hence the learned counsel prayed that the Writ Appeal may be allowed. 5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank contended that punishment was awarded to the petitioner after a detailed domestic inquiry and after complying with all principles of natural justice and affording him ample opportunities to establish his innocence. Disciplinary action had been taken against the petitioner under the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (SBIOSR) and punishment was awarded under Rule 67 (h) of the same for proven dereliction of duty/irregularities/lapses and misconduct under Rule 54 of the SBIOSR. Disciplinary action had been taken against the petitioner under the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (SBIOSR) and punishment was awarded under Rule 67 (h) of the same for proven dereliction of duty/irregularities/lapses and misconduct under Rule 54 of the SBIOSR. Proper memo of charges and statement of imputations had been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had failed to obtain the required encumbrance certificate prior to documentation and the issuance of a Bank guarantee, and this resulted in the Bank financing on the security of a property on which there was already an attachment order. This had caused severe loss and prejudice to the respondent Bank. Petitioner, as the Branch Manager, was absolutely duty-bound to see that all the required certificates to establish the perfect title to the security and its non- encumbrance are obtained and verified before execution of the loan documents. The petitioner has not given any valid explanation for the incident of dereliction of duty and misconduct specifically referred to in the statement of imputation. The reply explanation given was found thoroughly unsatisfactory and unacceptable, and hence, the respondent Bank decided to proceed with disciplinary action. It is the contention of the respondent Bank that due to the lapses on the part of the petitioner a total loss of Rs.32,34,172/- had been occasioned to the Bank, without considering the legal and other expenses incurred by the Bank. There has been no illegality or irregularity in any of the proceedings conducted by the respondent, warranting interference of this Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the disciplinary action involved in the present writ petition is not the first disciplinary action against the petitioner and that he had been subjected to a major penalty proceedings in terms of Rule 68 in respect of irregularities/lapses committed during his tenure as branch manager at Pattambi branch of the State Bank of India. Disciplinary proceedings had been taken against the petitioner under the rules awarding a punishment under Rule 67F of SBIOSR for proved dereliction of duty, oblique irregularities, oblique lapses and misconduct under Rule 54. The learned senior counsel for the Bank prayed that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and may hence be dismissed. 6. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. The learned senior counsel for the Bank prayed that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and may hence be dismissed. 6. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. The scope and ambit of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 has reiterated that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. It has been held therein that 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. It is trite that in matters of disciplinary proceedings, 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 its conscience.” In State Bank of India and others v. B.R. Saini, (2018) 11 SCC 83 while considering Rule 68 (3) of the SBIOSR, it has been inter alia held that once sufficient opportunity to respond to the report of the inquiring authority and to the findings of the disciplinary authority has been provided, then the employee is not entitled to any further notice before imposition of a penalty. 7. Having thus reminded ourselves of the contours of our jurisdiction, we have examined the contentions raised. It is noted that of the six charges levelled against the petitioner, charges Nos.1, 3, and 5 in Ext.P1 memo of charges were purportedly found proved by the inquiry officer vide Ext.P5 inquiry report. The same were as follows: Charge No.1 was that the signature of the guarantor was not obtained in the arrangement letter pertaining to the Sri Krishna Gold Manufacturing Unit. There was thus a failure to ensure that the documents obtained are complete in all respects. Charge No.3, which was proved against the petitioner concerned the title investigation report of the relevant property offered as collateral security. It was the duty of the petitioner to ensure that an encumbrance certificate for the relevant period was obtained with respect to the relevant property. Petitioner failed to obtain the encumbrance certificate, resulting in the Bank financing on the security of a property on which there was already an attachment. Had the encumbrance certificate been obtained prior to documentation, information regarding the attachment order would have been brought to the Bank's notice at the appropriate time. Charge No.5 proved against the petitioner concerned the petitioner's failure to note the qualification mentioned in the location sketch issued by the Village Officer. If the petitioner had taken note of the remarks in the location sketch and verified further, a correct decision could have been taken regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the property offered as collateral security. 8. We note that nothing tenable has been placed before the learned Single Judge or before us in this appeal by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the inquiry that was conducted was violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. We note that nothing tenable has been placed before the learned Single Judge or before us in this appeal by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the inquiry that was conducted was violative of the principles of natural justice. Nothing has been placed to show that the enquiry is vitiated or could be termed as perverse for any reason that can be sustained in law. The contention of the Bank that the disciplinary authority had concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and hence there was no question of recording reason for differing from the report of the inquiry officer remains uncontroverted. As regards the contention that the findings in the inquiry are perverse and not supported by any materials the said contention has not been substantiated in any manner acceptable in law. No violation of the mandates of SBIOSR has been tenable pointed out. The learned Single Judge has correctly concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. As regards the contention based on proportionality, the finding of the learned Single Judge that laches and lapses in discharging duty cannot be visited with any other consequence other than ordering compulsory retirement from service is valid. We see no valid or tenable reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.