IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.81 of 2009 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PD.SRIVASTAVA son of Rajeshwar Prasad Srivastava, resident of Gandhi Ashram(Dighikala), Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur( Sadar), District Vaishali … … Appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Banking and Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Bhikhaji Cama Place, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi 3. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Integrated Zonal Office, Chanakya Complex, ‘R’ Block, Patna 4. The Sr. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Integrated Zonal Office,Chankya Complex, ‘R’ Block, Patna … … Respondents For the appellant: Mr.Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh , For the respondents:Mr.NilaambarPd.Verma ---------------------- 4. 3.3.2009 I.A. No. 414 of 2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in this application, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. This application stands allowed. The writ petitoner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9625 of 2006 dismissing the writ application, 2 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The Writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) was an employee of the Punjab National Bank posted at its Bikramganj Branch. A memo of charges containing four charges was served on him. The sum and substance of the charges are that a customer deposited Rs. 80,000/- but two fdrs of the same amount in the name of the customer was prepared illegally by the petitioner having two different serial numbers and loans were procured on the basis of those fdrs. The Enquiry Officer on consideration of the material found all the allegations to have been proved. The disciplinary authority after following the procedure prescribed by law, inflicted the punishment of removal from service. However, the petitioner was not denied his superannuation benefits. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the gravity 3 of allegations. We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel. It is well settled that the punishment is a managerial function and this Court interferes with the same only when the punishment inflicted is shocking to the conscience of the Court or in other words the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the allegation. Here, in the present case, the petitioner who happens to be the employee of the Bank manipulated two FDRs and on that basis loans were procured. The petitioner held the office of trust which he betrayed and, therefore, in our opinion, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of allegations. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Kanth ( C.K.Prasad, A.C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)