JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Mr. S. Banik, and Mr. G. Khandalia, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, State Bank of India(SBI), appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)302/2014, dismissing the same by refusing to interfere with the order of penalty of “Removal from Service” as imposed upon the appellant on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him. 3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under: During the tenure of the appellant as the Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch of State Bank of India(SBI), certain allegations having been levelled against him pertaining to the manner of sanction and disbursal of the Housing Loans; a charge sheet came to be issued to him on 08.02.2010, instituting a disciplinary proceeding against him. In the said charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010; 3(three) allegations came to be so levelled against the appellant, herein, and basing on the said allegations, the appellant was charged of not having discharged his duties with utmost devotion, diligence and of violating the provisions of Rule 68(2) (iv) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules . The appellant, herein, submitted his written statement in the matter on 02.03.2010, and denied the allegations so levelled against him. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation as set-out in the written statement so submitted by the appellant, herein; directed for holding of an inquiry in the matter. On conclusion of the inquiry; the Inquiring Authority submitted his inquiry report and therein, held the allegations No. 1 & 3, so levelled against the appellant, herein, to have been not proved while the allegation No. 2 so levelled against him, was held to be proved. The disciplinary authority while forwarding to the appellant, herein, the inquiry Report, vide communication, dated 03.01.2011, had also forwarded a disagreement note with regard to the conclusions reached by the Inquiring Authority in respect of allegation No. 3. In terms of the said disagreement note, the allegation No. 3 was held to be proved against the appellant, herein. The disciplinary authority while forwarding to the appellant, herein, the inquiry Report, vide communication, dated 03.01.2011, had also forwarded a disagreement note with regard to the conclusions reached by the Inquiring Authority in respect of allegation No. 3. In terms of the said disagreement note, the allegation No. 3 was held to be proved against the appellant, herein. The appellant, on 08.02.2011, submitted a representation against the inquiry report as well as the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority pertaining to the allegation No. 3. In the representation, dated 08.02.2011, the appellant, herein, had not dealt with the conclusions of the Inquiring Authority pertaining to the allegation No.2. The appointing authority, thereafter, vide communication, dated 06.05.2011, proposed to impose a major penalty of “Removal from Service” upon the appellant, herein, and accordingly, required him to appear before the appointing authority on 17.05.2011, for a personal hearing and/or to make submissions, if any. The appellant, herein, on 17.05.2011, while appearing before the appointing authority, submitted a representation, and therein; had prayed to not impose upon him, the penalty of “Removal from Service”. The appointing authority, thereafter, on consideration of the inquiry report as well as the representation so submitted by the appellant, herein, in the matter; was pleased vide order, dated 21.05.2011, to impose upon the appellant, herein, the penalty of “Removal from Service” under the provisions of Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules . The appeal so preferred by the appellant, herein, against the order, dated 21.05.2011, was, on consideration, rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 08.09.2011. The appellant, thereafter, approached the reviewing authority, praying for review of the orders passed by the appointing authority and the appellate authority. The said review petition was, however, returned by the reviewing authority to the appellant, herein, as not being maintainable. Thereafter, the appellant approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)302/2014, assailing the order, dated 21.05.2011, passed by the appointing authority, as well as the order, dated 08.09.2011, passed by the appellate authority. The appellant, herein, in the said writ petition, had also presented a challenge to the inquiry report of the inquiring authority, dated 15.12.2010, as well as the communication, dated 15.10.2013, by which the review petition so preferred by the appellant, was returned to him. The appellant, herein, in the said writ petition, had also presented a challenge to the inquiry report of the inquiring authority, dated 15.12.2010, as well as the communication, dated 15.10.2013, by which the review petition so preferred by the appellant, was returned to him. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took-up the matter for final consideration and on such consideration, being made; proceeded, vide order, dated 21.01.2022, to dismiss the said writ petition being WP(c)302/2014, by holding that no grant for interference with the order, dated 21.05.2011, was made-out and accordingly, the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present intra-Court appeal before this Court. 4. The challenge, herein, being made to the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)302/2014; the operative part thereof, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 14. The petitioner in paragraph No. 18 (b) of the writ petition has stated as follows:- “ For that on 09.09.2010, in course of hearing in the disciplinary proceedings, after the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses were over, the Inquiring Authority permitted re-examination of those witnesses by the Presenting Officer, thereby intending to nullify the very purpose for which the cross-examination was conducted. Hence, the Inquiring Authority acted in a biased manner in allowing re-examination by terming such re-examination as cross-examination of PWs. No. 1 to 5”. The above clearly shows that the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses. 15. The petitioner’s written statement of defence dated 02.03.2010 states as follows:- “ Dear Sir, STAFF SUPERVISING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS With a reference to your letter GM(NW-II)/VIG/2009-10/1709 dt. 08.02.2010, I am to state that: a) I do accept that the five Housing Loans were sanctioned without conducting pre-sanction survey as their residence was about 50/60 kms from the Branch. As the applicants were government employees with good social standing, we have full faith in their integrity and distance from the branch does not permit us to carry out inspections. I am extremely sorry for this lapse on my part and request you to kindly condone me for this. b) Regarding non issue of sanction letter to the borrowers, I have signed the sanction letters in duplicate and the borrowers should obtain/collect the sanction letter from the dealing assistant/clerk or FO. I am extremely sorry for this lapse on my part and request you to kindly condone me for this. b) Regarding non issue of sanction letter to the borrowers, I have signed the sanction letters in duplicate and the borrowers should obtain/collect the sanction letter from the dealing assistant/clerk or FO. Delivering of sanction letters by the BM or sanctioning authority is not normally done in the Bank. c) I deny the allegation that I have forced them to join Herbalife. The complainants had joined Herbalife, on their own will. They were mature and sane gentlemen who have the capacity to take their own decisions. At no point of time in my career in the institution, I have asked customers to part with money for my benefit or otherwise. Therefore, I request you to kindly condone me of the allegations”. 16. A perusal of the above clearly shows that there is no denial by the petitioner that he is doing the business of HERBALIFE and that the complainants had joined in the business of HERBALIFE. However, it is not understood as to why all the 5 (five) complainants/loanees would have suddenly joined the business of HERBALIFE after they were sanctioned housing loans amounting to Rs. 5 to 6.9 Lakhs. In any event, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority, as its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedures leading to manifest injustice or violation of the principles of natural justice. As held by the Apex Court in Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank &Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 583 and B.C Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India &Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749 , a Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and that the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. 17. With respect to the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel that there was no friend of the 5 (five) complainants/loanees, who was examined or who gave Rs. 86,000/- per head to the petitioner, on behalf of the complainants/loanees, a reading of the complaint shows that the complainants/loanees have used the term “friends” to mean each other, i.e., the complainants/loanees themselves. The 2nd& 3rd paragraphs of their complaint are reproduced below:- “ That Sir, We the undersigned of Government High School Staff Mualthuam (N) and Government Middle School staff, Sekhum Village, in Lunglei District, Mizoram, applied for Housing Loan to the Manager, Mr. The 2nd& 3rd paragraphs of their complaint are reproduced below:- “ That Sir, We the undersigned of Government High School Staff Mualthuam (N) and Government Middle School staff, Sekhum Village, in Lunglei District, Mizoram, applied for Housing Loan to the Manager, Mr. K. Suanthang, SBI, Lunglei Branch and we are given us by him for Rs. 500000 and Rs. 600000 and so on. But unexpectedly/unfortunately when the Loan was released on Dated 10 th Nov, 2006, the said Manager compelled us to submit/deposit to him a big amount of Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees eighty six thousand) only per head which is for payment of the delivery of the HERBALIFE goods. “Otherwise the loan given us by him will be cancelled/ forfeited” said he. So that after drawing certain amount of money from the cashier, he (the said Manager) led two of us, Mr. V. Challawma and Mr. Engzawna at his residence at about 1:00 – 2:30 pm at lunch break and here the total amount of Rs. 344000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty four thousand) only for four of us i.e. Rs. 86000/- per head was taken by him from our friends under compulsion. But, at the same time, he did not want to give us any receipt. We really surprised at his attitude. Before this one of our friend P.C. Lalzarmawia, W/E Teacher has already submitted Rs. 86000/- to him for the same reason.” In view of the above extract of the complaint submitted by the 5 (five) complainants/loanees, it is clear that the use of the words “friends” and “friend”, when referring even to one amongst them, i.e., P.C Lalzarmawia, W/E Teacher, clearly shows that the used of the words “friends”/”friend” is to denote each other. As such, there was no question of any other person other than the 5 (five) complainants/loanees being examined in the departmental proceeding. 18. On considering the fact that the irregularities and actions of the petitioner are serious in nature, as it is made out that he has taken advantage of his position, while sanctioning loans and making the loanees invest in business, which was not the primary reason for taking out the loans, this Court is of the view that no grounds for leniency has made out. Further, in the case of State of U.P Vs. Further, in the case of State of U.P Vs. J.P. Saraswat, the Apex Court has held that judicial review is permissible in very rare cases, where punishment is so disproportionate to the established charge, that it would appear unconscionable and actuated by malice. In the present case, this Court does not find the punishment to be unconscionable or actuated by malice. 19. In view of the reasons stated above and there being no procedural irregularities, this Court is of the view that no ground for interfering with the impugned Order dated 21.05.2011 has been made out.” 5. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)302/2014, has submitted that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the materials coming on record in the inquiry; had proceeded to hold that the appellant, herein, was guilty of the misconduct as alleged against him vide the charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010. 6. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, by referring to the allegation No. 1, so levelled against the appellant, herein, vide the charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010; which alleges that the appellant had not ensured delivery of the sanction-cum-arrangement letters to the loanees after the sanction of their respective loans was so done, and, by referring to the conclusions in the inquiry report of the inquiring authority, has submitted that in the inquiry; the said allegation was found to have not been established, in-as- much as, the beneficiaries of the Housing Loans who were also the complainants and witnesses in the matter, had received their respective sanction-cum-arrangement letters, pursuant to the sanction of the loans with due acknowledgment. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conduct of the complainants in resorting to falsehood, having come to the forefront; the other allegations levelled against the appellant, herein, was also required to be so examined by the Inquiring Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority, by keeping in mind, the same, in-as-much as, all the allegations so levelled against the appellant, emanated from the same transaction. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, with regard to the allegation No. 2 so levelled against the appellant, vide the charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010; has submitted that the said charge, on the face of it, would not be sustainable, in-as-much as, the appellant as the Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch, State Bank of India(SBI), was not required to carry-out the pre- sanction surveys as well as the post-disbursal inspections in respect of the Housing Loans so sanctioned and involved in the matter. 8. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, by referring to the written statement submitted by the appellant, herein, on 02.03.2010, has submitted that although the appellant had accepted that 5(five) Housing Loans came to be sanctioned, without conducting pre-sanction surveys, it was clarified by the appellant that the same was on account of the fact that the residences of the loanees were about 50/60 kms. from the Branch. The learned counsel has further submitted that the loans involved, having not turned Non- Performing Asset(NPA); the said allegation No. 2, ought not to have been so levelled against the appellant, herein. 9. With regard to the allegation No. 3, Mr. Banik, learned counsel, has submitted that the same is on the face of it, perverse and the Inquiring Authority in the inquiry report; had arrived at the correct conclusion that the said allegation which pertains to the appellant having forced the 5(five) loanees who were sanctioned the Housing Loans, to part with an amount of Rs. 86,000/-, each, for buying HERBALIFE products and for joining the memberships of HERBALIFE for procuring their products on an on-going basis was not established in the inquiry due to non-availability of documentary evidence and eye-witness. 10. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, has further submitted that the disciplinary authority vide communication, dated 03.01.2011, for the purpose of disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the Inquiring Authority with regard to the allegation No. 3, had not recorded any cogent ground in his disagreement note and the ground so assigned, was vague. Accordingly, it is submitted that the disagreement note came to be issued by the disciplinary authority without a proper appreciation of the materials coming on record. 11. Mr. Accordingly, it is submitted that the disagreement note came to be issued by the disciplinary authority without a proper appreciation of the materials coming on record. 11. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, in WP(c)302/2014, erred in arriving at a conclusion to the effect that the appellant, herein, had taken advantage of his position while sanctioning the loans and had made the loanees to invest in the business of HERBALIFE which was not the primary reasons for taking the loans. It is submitted that materials on record do not support such conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. It was further submitted that even, in the event, it is construed that the appellant, herein, was involved in the business of selling the products of HERBALIFE, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the same having no connection with the discharge of his duties; the same could not have been a reason for imposition of such a major penalty upon the appellant, herein. 12. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, has submitted that given the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant, herein, and the manner in which the same were so proved, even, if it is held that the appellant was guilty of the allegations so levelled against him, more particularly, the allegations No. 2 & 3; the same would not mandate the imposition of the penalty of “Removal from Service”. The learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that the penalty of “Removal from Service” so imposed upon the appellant, herein, was clearly disproportionate to the allegations so levelled against and proved against him in the proceedings, so held. 13. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, has, accordingly, submitted that this Court would be pleased to interfere with the penalty of “Removal from Service” as imposed upon the appellant, herein, and require the respondent State Bank of India(SBI) to impose a lesser punishment which would facilitate the appellant to receive his pensionary benefits. The learned counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings so instituted by the appellant, herein, before this Court; the appellant had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation. 14. Per contra, Mr. The learned counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings so instituted by the appellant, herein, before this Court; the appellant had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation. 14. Per contra, Mr. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, State Bank of India(SBI), has submitted that the allegations so levelled against the appellant, herein, more particularly, the allegations No. 2 & 3, have been established in the inquiry and accordingly, the penalty as imposed upon the appellant, would not call for an interference. 15. Mr. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, has further submitted that allegations so levelled against the appellant, herein, reflects the manner, in which, he was discharging his duties. The authorities of the respondent Bank on account of the misconduct committed by the appellant, herein, having lost confidence upon him; the penalty as imposed upon the appellant, herein, who was holding at the relevant point of time, the post of Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch, State Bank of India(SBI), cannot be termed to be disproportionate. Mr. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, has, accordingly, submitted that once a loss of confidence had occasioned, the penalty of “Removal from Service” so imposed upon the appellant, herein; would not mandate any interference by this Court. 16. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 17. The article of charges so framed against the appellant, herein, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI KHAM SUANTHANG, MMGS-III, FOR ALLEGED LAPSES (DETAILED IN ANNEXURE-II) WHILE SHRI SUANTHANG WAS WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, LUNGLEI BRANCH, DURING THE PERIOD 28.07.2004 TO 25.02.2008. While you were posted and working as Branch Manager at State Bank of India, Lunglei Branch, during the period 28.07.2004 to 25.02.2008, it is alleged that you had committed some gross irregularities in pre sanction survey, disbursement and post disbursement follow up in respect of five Housing loans sanctioned by you in a very negligent manner by flouting Bank's extant Rules and regulations in this regard. You have not ensured delivery of the sanction cum arrangement letters to the borrowers after sanction of the loans. You have also forced the borrowers to part with Rs. 86,000/- each for buying HERBALIFE products and join membership of HERBALIFE for procuring their products on an ongoing basis. You have not ensured delivery of the sanction cum arrangement letters to the borrowers after sanction of the loans. You have also forced the borrowers to part with Rs. 86,000/- each for buying HERBALIFE products and join membership of HERBALIFE for procuring their products on an ongoing basis. Thus, you did not discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence as expected. Thus you have violated Rule 50(4) of SBI Officers Service Rules, which is applicable to you. Imputations of lapses on the basis of which the charges are based are shown in Annexure -II and the list of evidences / witnesses are given in Annexure-III.” 18. The appellant, herein, was levelled 3(three) allegations in the statement of imputation of lapses annexed to the charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010, as Annexure-II. The allegations so levelled against the appellant, herein, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF LAPSES AGAINST SHRI KHAM SUANTHANG, MMGS-III, FOR ALLEGED LAPSES, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES OF CHARGE AGAINST HIM (VIDE ANNEXURE-I) WHILE SHRI KHAM SUANTHANG WAS WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, LUNGLEI BRANCH, DURING THE PERIOD 28.07.2004 TO 25.02.2008. Allegation No:1 It is alleged that you had not ensured delivery of the sanction cum arrangement letters to the following loan borrowers after sanctioning of loans to the borrowers. (i) Shri Lalhnuna Sailo Rs. 6,00,000/- (ii) Shri R. Lalchangliana Rs. 5,00,000/- (iii) Shri V. Challawma Rs. 5,90,000/- (iv) Shri P.C. Lalzarmawli Rs. 5,90,000/- (v) Shri Engzawma Rs. 6,90,000/- Allegation No:2 It is also alleged that pre sanction surveys and Post disbursal inspections in respect of above housing loans were not conducted by you. Allegation No:3. It is also alleged that you forced the above 5 (five) customers, who had availed housing loans sanctioned by you, to part with Rs. 86,000/- each for buying HERBALIFE products and join membership of HERBALIFE for procuring their products on an on going basis.” 19. The appellant, herein, in his written statement, dated 02.03.2010, with regard to the allegation No. 1, had stated that he had signed the sanction letters in duplicate and the loanees were required to take/collect the sanction letter from the dealing assistant/clerk, or, F.O. of Lunglei Branch, State Bank of India(SBI). It was further stated that the delivery of the sanction letters by the Branch Manager, or, sanctioning authority, was not normally done in the respondent Bank. It was further stated that the delivery of the sanction letters by the Branch Manager, or, sanctioning authority, was not normally done in the respondent Bank. With regard to the allegation No. 2; the appellant, herein, had accepted the same and had contended that the Housing Loans involved, were sanctioned without conducting pre- sanction surveys and post-disbursal inspections as the residences of the loanees were about 50/60 KMs. from the Bank, in question. It was further pointed-out that the loanees were government servants with good social standing. The appellant, herein, had apologized for the lapses on his part and prayed for being condoned, therein. 20. With regard to the allegation No. 3; the appellant, herein, contended that he had not forced anyone to join HERBALIFE and the loanees involved, had joined the HERBALIFE business on their own volition. The appellant, herein, had further denied of requiring any customer to part money for his benefit or otherwise. The inquiring authority, on conclusion of the inquiry; proceeded to submit his report and therein, held the allegations No. 1 & 3, so levelled against the appellant, herein, vide the charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010, to have not been proved. With regard to the allegation No. 2, the Inquiring Authority had held the same, to be proved. 21. The disciplinary authority while forwarding the inquiry report to the appellant, herein, had also forwarded a disagreement note pertaining to the conclusions of the Inquiring Authority in respect of allegation No. 3. The disciplinary authority in his disagreement note, had stated that the statement of the loanees in the inquiry, points to the fact that the amounts claimed, were paid by them and basing thereon; the said charge was held to be proved against the appellant, herein. The appellant, thereafter, submitted a representation on 08.02.2011, against the inquiry report as well as the disagreement note submitted by the disciplinary authority. In the representation so submitted, the appellant did not deal with the conclusions and findings of the Inquiring Authority in the inquiry report pertaining to allegation No. 2. 22. With regard to the allegation No. 3; the appellant, herein, had stated that in the complaints made by the loanees, there is a reference to their friends who had also purportedly paid a sum of Rs. 86,000/-. 22. With regard to the allegation No. 3; the appellant, herein, had stated that in the complaints made by the loanees, there is a reference to their friends who had also purportedly paid a sum of Rs. 86,000/-. However, such friends of the loanees were not produced in the inquiry and accordingly, the appellant, herein, was denied of an opportunity to cross-examine them. 23. As noticed hereinabove, the matter being further processed; the appointing authority vide order, dated 21.05.2011, imposed upon the appellant, herein, the penalty of “Removal from Service”. The said order of penalty was upheld by the appellate authority and the review petition so preferred, was returned by the reviewing authority to the appellant, herein. 24. Having noticed the manner in which the Disciplinary proceeding had proceeded against the appellant, herein; it would now be required to examine the allegations so levelled against him, in the light of the materials coming on record in the inquiry. As the allegation No. 1 was held to be not proved in the inquiry; a discussion thereon, would not be called for. 25. With regard to the allegation No. 2 which pertains to the inaction on the part of the appellant, herein, to carry-out the pre-sanction surveys and post-disbursal inspections in respect of the Housing Loans involved in the proceeding, sanctioned by him; the appellant, in his written statement, had admitted to the same. The admission of the appellant of the allegation No. 2, would be proof of the same being established. The Inquiring Authority basing on the materials coming on record, had recorded a finding to the effect that there was no entry in the Unit Inspection Register of Housing Loans. Accordingly, the said allegation No. 2, has to be held to have been established against the appellant, herein, in the absence of any further material being brought on record, disputing the admission made by him and the findings so recorded in the matter by the inquiring authority. 26. With regard to the allegation No. 3 which alleges that the appellant, herein, had forced 5(five) loanees to whom he had sanctioned Housing Loans to part with an amount of Rs. 26. With regard to the allegation No. 3 which alleges that the appellant, herein, had forced 5(five) loanees to whom he had sanctioned Housing Loans to part with an amount of Rs. 86,000/-, each, for buying HERBALIFE products and also for becoming the members of the HERBALIFE for procuring the products of HERBALIFE on an on-going process, the said allegation although was held to be not proved by the inquiring authority; the disciplinary authority by way of a disagreement note, had held the same to be proved basing on the materials coming on record in the inquiry. 27. The appellant, herein, in his written statement, had not disputed the fact that he had asked the loanees to buy products from HERBALIFE. The only contention of the appellant was that he had not forced the loanees to join HERBALIFE as members. 28. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of hearing of the present intra-Court appeal; has submitted that the said action on the part of the appellant, herein, does not fall within the duties required to be discharged by him as a Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch, State Bank of India(SBI). Accordingly, for steps taken by the appellant, which had got no nexus with the duties required to be discharged by him; no allegation thereon, could have been alleged against the appellant, herein. 29. As noticed hereinabove, the appellant had not denied the fact that at his instance, the loanees had joined HERBALIFE by parting with an amount of the loan so sanctioned to them. The materials brought on record does not reflect that the appellant, herein, had categorically denied the allegation No. 3 so levelled against him. What is revealed is that the appellant had only contended that he had not forced the loanees to join HERBALIFE. The learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, in WP(c)302/2014, had considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, in the matter, and had recorded a conclusion to the effect that there was no denial by the appellant that he was involved in the business of HERBALIFE and the loanees had also joined the business of HERBALIFE after the loans were sanctioned to them by the appellant, herein. 30. 30. The stand of the loanees in the complaint so made by them as well as in the inquiry, was to the effect that they had joined HERBALIFE only at the instance of the appellant, herein. It was further projected that the appellant had compelled the loanees to part with an amount of Rs. 86,000/-, each, and join the membership of HERBALIFE. Accordingly, the conclusion reached in the matter by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had misused his position, cannot be held to be erroneous. 31. In view of the above position, the allegation No. 3 so levelled against the appellant, herein, has to be held to have been established in the inquiry. 32. The above discussions have been so made with regard to the allegations only to consider the contention so raised by Mr. Banik, learned counsel, that the penalty so imposed upon the appellant, herein, was disproportionate to the allegations so levelled and proved in the departmental proceeding instituted against him. 33. Having noticed the above position, it is to be noted that the appellant, herein, being in the banking sector; he was required to observe absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty, and if this is not so observed; the confidence of the public/depositors upon the Bank, would be impaired. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , had noted that a Bank Officer/employee is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this connection had proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “ 14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik( 1996 (9) SCC 69 ). It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik( 1996 (9) SCC 69 ). It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.” 35. In the case on hand; it is seen that the manner in which the appellant, herein, had discharged his duties as evident from the allegations so levelled against him in the charge-sheet, in question; it is seen that the Bank had lost confidence on him and the materials that had come on record in the inquiry as well as the findings of the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary authority in the matter had affirmed such loss of confidence upon him. In this connection; a reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M. G. Vittal Rao , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 . The conclusions in this connection pertaining to loss of confidence on the employee by the employer, is extracted hereinbelow: “ Loss of confidence. 25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. 26. In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. 26. In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. 32 this Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (SCC p. 614, para 9) (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits an act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved. 27. In SBI v. Bela Bagchi this Court repelled the contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon its earlier judgment in Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik. 28. An employer is not bound to keep an employee in service with whom relations have reached the point of complete loss of confidence/faith between the two. 29. In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, while dealing with the similar issue this Court held that: (SCC p. 90, para 56) "56. ...loss of confidence cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be alleged and proved." 30. In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. (Vide A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad 43.) 31. The instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition and keeping in view that judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. More so, it is a settled legal proposition that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal may be appropriate.” 36. More so, it is a settled legal proposition that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal may be appropriate.” 36. It is also required to take notice of a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bijoy Rajkhowa v. State Bank of India & ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 6 wherein, in a matter pertaining to a misconduct committed by a Bank employee, this Court had recorded the following conclusion: “ 24. Conduct of a bank employee must be above board. He is required to maintain absolute integrity, which is of paramount consideration. On his conduct rests the confidence of the customers of the bank. Compromise with doubtful integrity will not only erode the faith of the people using the bank's facilities but also in the functioning of the bank itself. In such matters, quantum of misappropriation is immaterial the factum of misappropriation itself would justify the disciplinary action taken. Considering the above, in the present case, we do not find any good and sufficient ground to interfere with the punishment imposed.” 37. In view of the position of law as brought to light by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court as noticed hereinabove; it has to be held that the appellant, herein, had lost the confidence of his employer on account of the misconduct as committed by him in the matter and accordingly, the penalty of “Removal from Service” as imposed upon the appellant, would not warrant an interference. 38. Having noticed the above position and the manner in which a Bank employee is required to conduct himself; the contention of Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, that the penalty so imposed upon the appellant, is grossly disproportionate to the allegations so levelled against him, is being considered. 39. In this context, we would like to again refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. C. Kakkar (supra) wherein in this connection, the following conclusions were drawn by the Court: “ 15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All E.R. 1148] observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.” 40. The allegations as levelled against the appellant, herein, on being established in the inquiry held and the same having demonstrated a misconduct being committed in the matter by the appellant who admittedly was a responsible employee of the respondent Bank; it is to be noted that the appellant, herein, cannot, in any manner, be extended with any sympathy. The allegations as levelled against the appellant, herein, on being established in the inquiry held and the same having demonstrated a misconduct being committed in the matter by the appellant who admittedly was a responsible employee of the respondent Bank; it is to be noted that the appellant, herein, cannot, in any manner, be extended with any sympathy. The allegations levelled against the appellant having been held to have been established and the misconduct as committed by him, being apparent, the penalty as imposed upon him, cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. It is a settled position of law that the penalty that is to be imposed upon the appellant, herein, is the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of factors go into the decision making process while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the establishment where he so works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any. Accordingly, the penalty as imposed upon the appellant, herein, in the case in hand, in the considered view of this Court; is proportionate to the allegations levelled against him and established in the inquiry. In the present proceeding, we have also not found any special circumstance warranting interference with the penalty as imposed upon the appellant, herein. 41. In view of the settled position of law; it is clear that it is not for the writ Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which is a matter within the domain and the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. If the Bank has lost its confidence on the appellant, herein, it is within its competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty as it may consider adequate commensurating to the misconduct attributed and proved. It is not for the writ Court to prescribe another penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. If the Bank has lost its confidence on the appellant, herein, it is within its competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty as it may consider adequate commensurating to the misconduct attributed and proved. It is not for the writ Court to prescribe another penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. It will have to be borne in mind that the job entrusted to the appellant, herein, being of a responsible employee, in a financial institution like a Bank is that of faith and confidence and once it is lost, it is for the bank to decide what penalty is to be imposed. The amount involved is immaterial, what matters much, is tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eyes of the valued customers and public. The appellant, herein, being a Bank employee ought to have maintained utmost integrity, devotion, diligence and honesty, which, he admittedly, has failed to do so. 42. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, in WP(c)302/2014, being so drawn basing on the materials available on record; would not call for any interference. 43. In view of the foregoing discussions; we are of the considered view that this writ appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.