WA 366/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR RS GARG HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) RS GARG,CJ. The petitioner, a bank employee, being aggrieved by the disciplinar y action and the punishment imposed, came to this Court in WP(C ) No.2879/2003 with a submission that the punishment awarded to him was shockingly disproportio nate and the disciplinary proceedings were not in accordance with law and there fore, the High Court is required to interfere in the matter and set aside the o rder of termination. 2. The short facts which are now undisputed are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk and later on was promoted to the clerical cadre vide orde r dated 1.12.1997. It also appears that after getting married the petitioner sta rted feeling financial stringency , therefore, he approached the Bank Manager fo r extension of loan facility. Undisputedly, the Bank Manager refused to extend t he said facility. 3. The petitioner thereafter had started removing bank’s money and used the same for his own purposes. After defalcations were found, the petitioner wa s issued notices. The petitioner admitted his guilt, but, however, submitted tha t he was authorized by the Bank Manager to use the money and repay the same in the bank coffer. The further submission was that he had withdrawn money under such direction and after it was found that he committed a wrong, he deposited t he entire amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- and also deposited an amount of Rs.9,872/- ch arged as interest @ 18% on the said defalcated amount. It appears from the reco rd that after the entire amount was recovered, the Bank issued charge-sheet to t he petitioner/appellant and on completion of the enquiry, after appropriate noti ces, terminated him. 4. The petitioner has come to this Court with a submission that th e punishment was shockingly disproportionate and the court was required to inte rfere in the matter. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and rely ing upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others, (2003) 4 SCC 364, came to the co nclusion that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standard of hones ty and integrity and if he is involved himself in such a nefarious activity, th en the bank is entitled to remove him. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner/appellant is before us. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and as there was a bi-partite settl ement between the bank and the employees, in cases of temporary embezzlement, pu nishment of removal could not be awarded. 6. In so far as the bi-partite settlement is concerned, undisput edly, no question was raised before the learned Single Judge and even in this ap peal, the copy of such agreement has not been filed . In absence of foundation, one cannot build a castle and show to the court that he would be entitled to a particular relief. In so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is allowed to enter into the bank as an employee then, not only the bank’s working would be adversely affec ted but even the customers may lose their confidence in bank. If a bank cannot bank upon its employees because of embezzlement/defalcation, then the only pu nishment would be to show him the exit. 7. After going through the entire material, we are unable to hold that the appellant has made out a case for interference. The appeal is dismissed. N o costs. 8. Misc case No.3713/2007 in view of the final disposal of the appea l, is also dismissed.