IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5070 of 2007 JAGARNATH PRASAD, aged about 55 years son of late Radha Mohan Lal, r/o Gola Road, West Bailey Road, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA through its Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Patna, Post Box No. 103, Patna-800001. 2. The Chief General Manager (Appeal and Review Department), S.B.I., Local Head Office, Post Box No. 103, Patna-1. 3. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna. 4. The Chief Manager (Internal Inquiry ), State Bank of India, 3rd Floor, Local Head Office,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Dixit Mrs. Kalpana. For State Bank of India: M/s Kaushlenda Kumar Sinha and Sunil Kumar Singh - --- 4 23.6.09 The writ petitioner, who is an employee of the State Bank of India, being Manager of a particular Branch for certain dereliction, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and five charges were framed against him. After due enquiry, the disciplinary authority found that four charges were conclusively proved against him and one was partly proved. The disciplinary authority held that integrity is not in question. Considering the finding of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has been compulsory retired by the order of General Manager. This order was not interfered by the Chief General Manager- the appellate authority. Hence this writ petition. In my view there is little scope of interference in the present matter. Judicial Review is available particularly on two grounds- procedural infirmity or perversity of the order. None is available in the present case. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding of fact. The charges having been proved, it was within the discretion of the authority to impose punishment . 2 Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the charges the punishment , as meted out, is disproportionately hard. It is submitted that there is a clear finding of the disciplinary authority that there is no doubt with regard to integrity or honestly of the petitioner. In my view, considering that the petitioner was at the fag of his career the disciplinary authority may reconsider the punishment, which could be harsed. I therefore direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment afresh within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the disciplinary authority and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction , this writ petition stands disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)