JUDGMENT : MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the punishment of “discharge from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment,” challenges Ext.P13 Enquiry Report, Ext.P17 order issued by the 4 th respondent dated 18.11.2021, and Ext.P19 appellate order dated 11.03.2022 of the 3 rd respondent and forwarded by the 4 th respondent, whereby the said punishment has been confirmed. 2. The petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her, despite having served the respondent bank for eight years, on the allegation of taking a gold packet from the branch strong room. During a routine cash and gold verification conducted on 02.07.2020, it was reported that one gold packet could not be traced or produced for verification. On 08.07.2020, one Renjith, a recently promoted branch officer, contacted the CHM and requested a visit to the branch on the same day. During the search, along with other staff members, the missing packet was found in the parking area, which was not under CCTV coverage. 3. It was further reported that Mr. Anoop informed the Branch Manager that Mr. Janeesh had told him that the petitioner had committed the theft and had confessed the same to Janeesh. On this basis, the petitioner was suspected, and the Branch Manager asked her to write down a confession, which she refused. Subsequently, in an attempt to “settle the matter,” the petitioner was allegedly compelled to sign two blank papers. These papers were later converted into a confession statement attributed to the petitioner, which was submitted as Ext.P1 letter to the Regional Manager dated 13.07.2020 and as Ext. P2 letter dated 16.07.2020 to the investigating official. 4. Later, it was informed that disciplinary action has been initiated and Ext. P4 notice was issued, and the following allegations were made: "1) You have unauthorisedly carried the high-value gold loan packet of Shri K.K.Sasidharan Nair out of the branch premises on 30.6.2020 as per your confession letter dated 13.07.2020 to Regional Manager and also as per your confession letter dated 16.07.2020 to Shri Alwin Twinkle, Investigating Official, thus violating Bank's laid down instructions. 2) You have failed to obtain Administrative clearance from the appropriate authority before receiving the following high value credits from friends and relatives in your savings bank account No.67301161801, thus violating the extant instructions of the Bank. 2) You have failed to obtain Administrative clearance from the appropriate authority before receiving the following high value credits from friends and relatives in your savings bank account No.67301161801, thus violating the extant instructions of the Bank. 3) You have failed to obtain Administrative clearance from the appropriate authority before availing the following gold loans in the name of your husband Shri Jayan Balachandran, who is an NRI, thus violating the extent instructions of the Bank. 4) You have failed to inform the Branch Manager about the gold packet carried with you, at the time of leaving the branch premises on 30.06.2020, thereby violating the laid down instructions of the Bank. 5) You have confessed incorrect Information of leaving the branch premises Immediately on 30.06.2020 upon hearing the news of your father's ill-health to take him to hospital(as per your confession letter dated 13.07.2020), whereas as CCTV footage, your were present in the branch upto 7 p.m." 5. The petitioner submitted her objections as Ext. P5 dated 02.02.2021. On 30.01.2021, she was suspended from service and Ext. P7 charge sheet dated 09.03.2021 was issued. She submitted her reply as Ext. P8 dated 19.03.2021. The 3 rd respondent appointed the Chief Manager as Enquiry Officer, and written submissions were made by the Presenting Officer and Defence Representative. Ext.P13 enquiry report found her guilty of charges 1 and 2, and charges 3 and 4 were partially proved. The petitioner submitted objections as Ext. P14 dated 21.10.2021. Pursuant to this, the 4 th respondent issued Ext.P15 dated 11.11.2021 and informed her of the proposal to discharge her from service with superannuation benefits, and she was called for a personal hearing. Without duly considering her contentions, the 4 th respondent confirmed the punishment via Ext.P17 and modified the Enquiry Officer’s finding regarding charge No.4 from ‘partially proved’ to ‘proved’. 6. The petitioner submits that the first charge, that she had taken a high-value gold loan packet without permission on 30.06.2020, allegedly confessed through letters dated 13.07.2020 and 16.07.2020, is wholly unsustainable. It is pointed out that she had never authored such letters and had only, under compulsion, signed blank papers later converted into purported confessions. Neither the Regional Manager nor the Investigating Officer, to whom these alleged letters were addressed, was examined in the enquiry, nor was the handwriting compared with that of the petitioner. Thus, reliance on such disputed documents is illegal. Neither the Regional Manager nor the Investigating Officer, to whom these alleged letters were addressed, was examined in the enquiry, nor was the handwriting compared with that of the petitioner. Thus, reliance on such disputed documents is illegal. The petitioner further contends that the enquiry revealed only CCTV footage of the strong room, which merely showed her presence there with other staff during verification, but never showed her taking any packet. No witness testified to having seen her remove the packet, and even the Manager’s claim that she was holding something was not corroborated by the CCTV footage. As her entry into the strong room was under the instruction of superiors for verification purposes, mere presence cannot constitute proof of guilt. Accordingly, the finding of guilt on Charge No.1 is baseless and unsustainable. 7. The petitioner contends that the second charge of receiving funds without sanction is baseless as they were genuine assistance from her father, father-in-law and close friends for construction of her house, which the Enquiry Officer ignored; the third charge regarding gold loans in her husband’s name is unsustainable as the duty to obtain clearance lay solely with the sanctioning authority, not her; and the fourth charge that she carried the gold packet without informing the Branch Manager is untenable since she had only visited the Regional Business Office under the explicit instructions of the Regional Manager, a fact admitted even in the enquiry. 8. The petitioner submits that though she filed an appeal against Ext.P17 order dated 18.11.2021, raising specific grounds to establish her innocence, the appellate authority, by Ext.P19 dated 11.03.2022, rejected it without properly appreciating her contentions and mechanically confirmed the punishment. Her review petition was likewise dismissed vide Ext.P21 order dated 11.07.2022, and ignored the merits of her submissions and reiterated the earlier findings without proper application of mind. 9. The petitioner submits that all the allegations are fabricated, baseless, and without any substance. The Enquiry Officer, relying solely on surmises and conjectures, found the petitioner guilty of the charges despite there being no evidence against her, making this a clear case of “no evidence.” The petitioner relies on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [ (2021) 2 SCC 612 ] , which outlines the circumstances under which the Court can interfere with the findings of an Enquiry Officer. 10. 10. It is further contended that, although strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiry proceedings, the law requires that allegations against a delinquent employee must be established by evidence sufficient for a reasonable and objective person to uphold the gravity of the charge. A perusal of the enquiry report demonstrates that the petitioner was found guilty without any supporting evidence. The petitioner also relies on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors [ ( 2009) 2 SCC 570] to contend that the finding of guilt was illegal, as no evidence was produced to prove misconduct except the alleged confession letter. 11. In the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that the writ petition is not maintainable in law or on the facts. Being an award staff, the petitioner should have approached the Industrial Tribunal, as writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available where an efficacious alternative remedy exists. The petition is asserted to have been filed experimentally, and without stating correct facts, and has omitted to produce relevant documents. It is therefore submitted as a brief narration of facts that on 30.06.2020, due to a heavy rush in the Adoor Branch, the petitioner was permitted to assist the Joint Custodians with gold loan packets. CCTV footage at 16:11 hours shows her entering the strong room, opening the almirah, and leaving with suspicious conduct, left hand bent as if hiding something under a dupatta. On 02.07.2020 and 03.07.2020, during inspection, one gold packet (GL A/c 39351191348) was found missing. On 08.07.2020, the packet was found concealed in a plastic cover near the car parking area, which was not under CCTYV surveillance. Petitioner absented herself on 09.07.2020 and later applied for leave, citing the containment zone. 12. Petitioner confessed telephonically to colleague Janeesh about the theft of a gold packet, which was reported to the Branch Manager. On 13.07.2020, she gave Ext.P1 confession letter to the Regional Manager. Again, on 16.07.2020, she admitted her misdeeds to the Chief Manager through Ext. P2 letter. In both letters, the petitioner acknowledged and admitted her lapses in what transpired on that day. The incident was reported to higher authorities, declared as “fraud”, and an FIR was lodged on 28.01.2021. After enquiry, punishment of discharge with superannuation benefits was imposed vide Ext. P17 order. Appeal and review were rightly rejected by Exts. P19 and P21. 13. In both letters, the petitioner acknowledged and admitted her lapses in what transpired on that day. The incident was reported to higher authorities, declared as “fraud”, and an FIR was lodged on 28.01.2021. After enquiry, punishment of discharge with superannuation benefits was imposed vide Ext. P17 order. Appeal and review were rightly rejected by Exts. P19 and P21. 13. After the missing gold packet was retrieved, the Chief Manager of Adoor Branch, by Ext.R1(A) letter dated 13.07.2020, had himself requested a thorough official enquiry, including registration of an FIR. It is significant to note that in her Ext. R1(B) reply letter to the Chief Manager, the petitioner only denied that Ext. P2 was not written by her, but did not deny the genuineness of Ext.P1 or dispute the handwriting contained therein. Likewise, in her subsequent Ext.P5 letter to the Regional Manager, she stated that both Exts. P1 and P2 were not written by her, but again stopped short of alleging coercion or compulsion to sign on the blank papers by the superior officers. Importantly, at no stage in Exhibits R1(B) or P5 did the petitioner ever allege that she had been forced by any superior officer to sign on blank papers. The belated story of being forced to sign blank papers is false and was made for the sake of argument, as she has neither preferred any police complaint nor any complaint to the higher authorities, nor arrayed the alleged superior officers who pressured her to sign. Further, Ext.P12 itself admits that she signed Ext.P2 after it was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which completely undermines her present plea of coercion. It is submitted that the petitioner, for the first time, alleged coercion regarding blank papers only during the regular enquiry on 23.06.2021, and the enquiry concluded on 12.07.2021 with witness testimonies through Ext.R1(C) proceedings, and it corroborates and proves that the petitioner has committed the theft of the gold packet. 14. In Ext. P13 enquiry report, charges 1 and 2 were proved, charges 3 and 4 partially proved, and charge 5 not proved; after considering the petitioner’s Ext. P14 and P16 objections, the 4th respondent by Ext. P17 confirmed the punishment and treated charge 4 as proven. Ext. P17 suffers from no infirmity, as all contentions and evidence were duly considered before imposing the penalty. P14 and P16 objections, the 4th respondent by Ext. P17 confirmed the punishment and treated charge 4 as proven. Ext. P17 suffers from no infirmity, as all contentions and evidence were duly considered before imposing the penalty. It is further contended that the non-examination of the Regional Manager and Investigating Officials does not vitiate the proceedings. The CCTV footage dated 30/06/2020 clearly shows the petitioner entering the strong room, opening the almirah, concealing something under her dupatta while leaving, and looking around cautiously, for which she has offered no explanation. She was also seen in the car parking area before the recovery of the missing gold. Exts.P1 and P2 confession letters, the corroborative evidence in the enquiry, and contradictions in her version all establish her guilt beyond doubt. 15. It is further contended that claiming ignorance or lack of awareness regarding the requirement of prior permission to receive high- value credits before sanctioning a gold loan to her husband is highly improbable and amounts to gross misconduct in handling public funds. The petitioner’s Defence Representative, in Ext. R1(C) proceedings, admitted the second charge and requested it to be treated as minor misconduct. The allegations of bias, fabrication, or lack of evidence are meritless, as the findings are based on confession letters, CCTV footage, and corroborative witness evidence. 16. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner, reiterating the contentions in the writ petition, further argues that the State Bank of India, being an Indian multinational public sector bank and a statutory financial services body falling under Article 12 , renders the writ petition maintainable. 17. The petitioner further contends that she was deliberately trapped for reasons known only to the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer failed to verify the handwriting in the alleged confession letter, and there are significant anomalies in its preparation. There was no substantial evidence on the part of the respondents to justify the extreme punishment imposed. The fact that other staff members were also allowed to enter the strong room was ignored, and while the clerk, a joint custodian, received only minor punishment, the petitioner was discharged from service. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, apart from reiterating the pleadings, argued that the entire disciplinary proceedings proceeded based on the confession allegedly made by the petitioner, as seen from Ext.P1 letter. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, apart from reiterating the pleadings, argued that the entire disciplinary proceedings proceeded based on the confession allegedly made by the petitioner, as seen from Ext.P1 letter. Since the same contains no admission of guilt, the same could not have been relied on for taking action against the petitioner. It is also argued that the disciplinary authority, in the instant case, modified the finding of the Enquiry Officer without notice to the petitioner. It is also contended that, though five charges were raised, only two were proved. It is also argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the gold was taken out of the bank by the petitioner or as to who has placed the same in the parking area, and, in the absence of that, the entire allegation against the petitioner should fall to the ground. The allegation of the missing gold packet kept in the safe custody of the bank locker was held to be proved without there being any direct evidence for the same. Thus, this is a case where there is no evidence against the petitioner to hold that any misconduct was committed by the petitioner. It is also argued that the confession itself was created on the signed papers taken from the petitioner by the superior officers who have higher bargaining power, and the petitioner had to succumb to their dictates. 19. The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments: L.I.C. of India and Another v. Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others [1995 KHC 923 SC], Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 570 ], Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [2021 KHC 6006 SC], S. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Secretary to Government and another [ 2007 (3) KHC 660 ] and Somarajan C.G. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others [ 2009 (3) KHC 304 ], to support his contentions. 20. The learned Senior counsel for the bank, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, instructed by Sri. Amal George contends that a reading of Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(B) would show that the petitioner had confessed to the acts done, and they were on different dates. 20. The learned Senior counsel for the bank, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, instructed by Sri. Amal George contends that a reading of Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(B) would show that the petitioner had confessed to the acts done, and they were on different dates. Likewise, a mere look at Exts.P1 and P2 also would show that the contention of the superior officers’ taking of blank papers is also wrong, as her signature appears in different places in the said documents. It is also argued that CCTV footage clearly shows the petitioner taking the gold packet, and the entire record would clearly prove that the charges that are proved are based on satisfactory evidence. Despite the charges being proved, the petitioner was discharged, and the applicable service benefits were also granted without disqualification from future employment. It is argued that the impugned orders suffer from no legal infirmity, and they were passed based on evidence. 21. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Union of India v. Subrata Nath [SCR-2022-18-605: SCALE-2022-16-828] to contend that it is the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the employee, and that given the seriousness of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, this is not a fit case where any interference is warranted. It is also argued that there is no contention that the enquiry was not held according to the procedure or that the conclusions arrived at were so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at them. As regards the contention that the disciplinary authority did not give notice before modifying the findings of the Enquiry Authority, it is submitted that no such ground has been taken till this stage and not even in the writ petition, and therefore, the same cannot be considered. 22. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the records, it cannot be said that the impugned orders suffer from any infirmity. The presence of the petitioner at the spot where the gold ornaments were found missing is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner did take the gold ornaments is also conceded. Though an explanation was sought to be given in Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(B), the evidence, including the CCTV footage, proved otherwise. The presence of the petitioner at the spot where the gold ornaments were found missing is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner did take the gold ornaments is also conceded. Though an explanation was sought to be given in Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(B), the evidence, including the CCTV footage, proved otherwise. Under such circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated for lack of evidence or any other reason. Equally, there is no material to show that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. It is also to be seen that though the petitioner was discharged from service, the service benefits were granted, and that there is no disqualification from future employment. 23. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Personnel Syndicate Bank v. B.S.N. Prasad [ (2025) 3 SCC 601 ] , Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munn Lal Jain [ (2005) 10 SCC 84 ], State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde [ (2006) 7 SCC 212 ] , and Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [ (1996) 9 SCC 69 ] , bank officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, discipline, and devotion. They deal with the money of depositors and customers, and are bound to protect the interests of the bank by discharging their duties with utmost diligence and propriety. Acting beyond one’s authority itself constitutes misconduct, regardless of whether any financial loss or gain has resulted, since the very discipline of a bank depends on officers acting strictly within their allotted sphere. A bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements, and any deviation undermines public confidence. Therefore, when misconduct is committed by a bank officer for personal ends and against the interest of the bank and its depositors, it must be dealt with firmly and not with leniency. 24. Given the fact that the petitioner was working in a bank that calls for utmost devotion to prove the full trust of the employee, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. As rightly argued by the learned counsel, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the contention that disciplinary authority varied the orders of the Enquiry Officer without notice also appears to be unsubstantiated, and at any rate, was never raised earlier at any stage. As rightly argued by the learned counsel, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the contention that disciplinary authority varied the orders of the Enquiry Officer without notice also appears to be unsubstantiated, and at any rate, was never raised earlier at any stage. Therefore, the same cannot be raised for the first time in this writ petition. Given the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same will stand dismissed.