A.D. Padhey of Mumbai Indian vs State Bank of India

The   petitioner   was   working   as   Assistant   General Manager with the respondent­bank and was heading Personal Banking Division. The petitioner is challenging the order dated th March, 2000 compulsorily retiring the petitioner pursuant to the Departmental Inquiry held against him in respect of the transactions relating  to  the  Securities Scam  of  1991­92.  The transactions   in   question   were   carried   out   by   the   Securities Division, Mumbai Main Branch of the respondent­bank and the bank alleges that the same resulted in loss of Rs.812 crores to the bank which may be very difficult to recover. The petitioner was served with a charge­sheet dated 23rd  November, 1993 as regards   irregularities   and   malpractices   at   Securities   Division, Mumbai Main Branch, Mumbai. The petitioner while working as Assistant General Manager of PBD has committed certain serious irregularities in discharge of his duties which as per the Articles of Charge are as under :­ ARTICLE-I

Shri Harshad S. Mehta, a broker was maintaining his personal   account   Current   A/c.No.4/87/10   in   the   Personal Banking Division of Bombay Main Branch. Debit/Credit vouchers emanating from the Investment Cell of the Securities Division of the Branch were allowed to be put through the aforesaid account maintained   in   the   Division   of   Sh.   A.D.   Padhye   despite   the following unsatisfactory features :

(a)   If Shri H.S. Mehta or his firm was/were to sell or purchase securities and transactions were to be routed through his current account, for purchases, his account was to be debited and full particulars should have been noted/written on the vouchers and similarly   for   sales.   The   relative   Bankers   cheques   were   to   be issued or received and these were to be dealt with by the Section of the Securities Department at Bombay Main Branch who were dealing with the sale and purchase transactions for the Bank''s customers. Instead, debit/credit vouchers with incomplete details originated   by   the   Bank''s   Investment   Cell   in   the   Securities Division (who were to deal with Bank''s own purchase and sale of securities) representing payments made to counterparty Banks on account of purchase of securities from them or receipts from counterparty Banks on account of sale of securities to them were freely allowed to be routed through the said account. A few instances of such transactions are given in Annexure ''A'' of the charge­sheet.

(b)  The vouchers referred to above which were passed by Shri R. Sitaraman, Officer JMGS I (now under suspension) at the Investment Cell for debit of the said account maintained in his Division   were   put   through   without   any   verification   and/or scrutiny by his Division.

(c)   Shri R. Sitaraman, Officer JMGS I who was posted in the Investment   Cell   of   the   Securities   Division   was   vested   with passing   powers   upto   Rs.25,000/­   only.   Sh.   Padhye,   however, allowed the debits passed by Shri Sitaraman, an official from another   Department,   much   in   excess   of   the   passing   powers delegated to him, to be debited to the Current Account of Shri H.S. Mehta, maintained in his Division. He thus abdicated the control   expected   to   be   exercised   by   him   as   Manager   of   P.B. Division over the transactions passing through his Department and he had allowed Shri R. Sitaraman to continue his nefarious activities without any check. A few instances of such transactions are given in Annexure ''A'' of the charge­sheet.

ARTICLE­2

He failed to scrutinise daily the vouchers his Division as required in terms of paragraph 47 of Chapter II of the   Bank''s   Book   of   Instructions,   Vol.I.   Had   he   done   this,   as expected of him, the fraudulent transactions put through by Shri R. Sitaraman could have been detected in time.

ARTICLE­3

He recommended to the Dy. General Manager, Bombay Main Branch on the letter dated 10.1.92 (a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure ''B'' of the charge­sheet) addressed by Shri Pankaj V. Shah for Shri Harshad Mehta to the SBI Main Branch, Personal   Banking   Division   (for   attention   of   Mr.   Padhye) requesting   the   facility   of   issuing   Bankers   Cheques   against presentation by the broker of Bankers Cheques drawn in favour of SBI, as under :­

"DGM - This is one of the valued customers and the request of his is genuine. We recommend that the same may be accepted. The Co. is keeping good float funds with us. We have requested the Firm to start keeping some money in TDR with us." Initialed/­ 10.1.92. His further remarks as under with date and initials also appear on the letter.

"DGM - They have assured Rs.25 lacs in TDR this month out of which Rs.5 lacs received on 13.1.192". Initialed 14.1.92.

(a)     Before   recommending   the   proposal,   he   failed   and/or neglected to ascertain :­

(i)   How the request was considered genuine by him ?

(ii)  Why the Bankers cheques in favour of other Banks were to be issued out of Bankers Cheques issued by other Banks in favour of State Bank when the transactions and the purpose for which the Bankers cheques were issued in the name of State Bank and the Bankers cheques to be issued in the name of the other Banks was not known ? He deliberately remained silent on the point and in addition misled the DGM about the so called genuine request of the firm as it by keeping some deposit with the Bank, the grave risks were covered.

(b)  The letter dated 10.1.92 addressed to the SBI Main Branch, P.B. Division, marked for his attention, makes a reference to their earlier letter of 19.8.91. "Ignoring this letter and making no efforts to know its contents, he recommended to accede to the request of Shri Harshad S. Mehta to the detriment of bank''s interest.

(c)     He did not enquire before or after recommending to the DGM that the practice of issuing Bankers Cheques against the Bankers Cheques brought in by Shri Harshad Mehta in favour of the Bank was already going on. Had he enquired that the actual position obtaining would have been avoided. For his negligence the Bank had to pay Rs.707,56,39,000/­ to National Housing Bank and Rs.105,10,75,000/­ to SBI Capital Market Ltd. These amounts are doubtful of recovery and the Bank may have to ultimately incur the loss.

He, therefore, displayed gross negligence throwing the safety of Bank''s interest and its funds to the winds and also made recommendations  to  the  DGM  in order that  Shri  Harshad  S. Mehta derived undue benefit at the cost of the Bank. One or more of the charges listed in items 1 to 3 above or a part   of   one   or   more   of   the   aforesaid   charges   would   amply demonstrate that he failed to act with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank   official.   He   also   failed   to   protect   the   Bank''s   interest, thereby infringing Rule no.50(4) of SBI Officers Service Rules."

The   petitioner   submitted   a   detailed   written statement of defence to the charge­sheet on 16th February, 1994. He denied the charges levelled against him. During the course of inquiry,   the   Presenting   Officer   introduced   five   prosecution documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.S1 to   Exh.S5.   The   petitioner   introduced   twenty   five   defence documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.D­1 to D­25. The Presenting Officer did not examine any prosecution witness. The petitioner examined one defence witness whose evidence   is   recorded   as   DW­1.   The   petitioner   was   generally examined as he was not examined as a witness. The Presenting Officer submitted his written submission on 21st December, 1994 and that of the petitioner was submitted on 19th January, 1995.

The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held that the charges levelled in the Articles of Charge are proved. The   Disciplinary   Authority   upon   considering   the   material   on record and the inquiry report recommended that the petitioner failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence, thereby infringing Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The Appointing Authority therefore imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 67(h) on the petitioner.

The   petitioner   filed   an   Appeal   against   the   order passed by the Appointing Authority. The Appellate Committee by the order dated 10th  April, 2001 for reasons recorded rejected the Appeal. The petitioner filed a Review Petition dated 30th July, 2001   before   the   Reviewing   Committee.   The   Reviewing Committee by an order dated 5th  July, 2002 for the reasons recorded rejected the Review Petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders. In his submission the petitioner   was   In­charge   of   the   Personal   Banking   Division. According to him, all the transactions pertained to the Securities Division   of   the   Mumbai   Main  Branch.  In   his  submission  the charge against the petitioner is based on the vouchers and bare perusal of the vouchers would reveal that the same originated from the ''SDI'' Section of the Securities Division. The petitioner has no connection with the Securities Division nor with the Bank Investment Cell and other Sections of Securities Division and thus   the   question   of   the   petitioner   being   liable   to   verify   or scrutinize the said vouchers does not arise. In the submission of the learned Counsel the charge­sheet itself has been framed on an incorrect premise. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further by Mr. R. Sitaraman of the Securities Division was not passed by Mr. R. Sitaraman as the   account   of   Shri   H.S.   Mehta   was   maintained   in   Personal Banking Division and he has no access to the ledger. It is the submission that the said vouchers were passed by Mr. Vijapurkar an Accountant in Personal Banking Division who had initialed the   debit   vouchers   as   well   as   in   the   ledger   and   the   said Vijapurkar enjoyed full powers to pass the said debit vouchers and he was not required to refer individual debit vouchers to the petitioner in respect of accounts having adequate balance. In the submission   of   the   learned   Counsel   the   charge   against   the petitioner that he failed in his duty to detect excessive use of powers by the said R. Sitaraman is baseless.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the customer Shri   H.S.Mehta   has   sought   a   facility   by   a   letter   dated   10th January,   1992   for   single   point   clearance   involving   issue   of bankers cheques by debit to his Current account and crediting bankers cheques to his account by Securities Division instead of Personal Banking Division. It is pointed out that as the facility was running satisfactorily and the dealings of Mr. H.S. Mehta were good, the petitioner recommended the same to Deputy General   Manager,   Mumbai   Main   Branch   his   higher   authority who did not approve it in writing and thus the said facility was not granted. The petitioner had in fact recommended to the Deputy General Manager that the customer was having large float funds in his account. Learned Counsel therefore contends that as Harshad Mehta was then prime broker and prominent client,   recommendation   was   made   by   the   petitioner   in   his favour.   In   the   submission   of   the   petitioner,   therefore,   the petitioner has exercised all due diligence in the exercise of his duty.

It is further contended that there were large number of vouchers which the petitioner had to scrutinize on every given date approximately 3000 to 4000 in numbers. The petitioner had   to   pass   them   in   normal   course   unless   some   serious irregularities   were   noticed.   The   petitioner   did   not   take   any voucher posted in the accounts of customers during random scrutiny of such vouchers while dealing with correspondence of the customers.

Learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioner,   therefore, contends that the transactions in question had initiated from the Securities Division of the respondent­bank and the petitioner was employed with the Personal Banking Division and not with the Securities Division of the bank. In his submission there was no negligence or violation of his duties on his part. Learned Counsel also brought to our notice the Annual Report of 2002­ 03 pointing out the entire amount of Rs.812 crores was later recovered and no loss was caused to the bank.

Learned Counsel would further contend that as the petitioner is acquitted in criminal proceedings he would stand absolved of his liability in departmental proceedings.

Learned   Counsel   for   the   respondent­bank   on   the other   hand   supported   the   order   passed   by   the   Appointing Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. In his submission, the Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings of fact while holding that the charges are proved. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the course of the inquiry. The inquiry has been conducted in due observance of the principles of natural justice. In the submission of the learned Counsel   for   the   respondent   there   is   adequate   material   and evidence on record on the basis of which the charges against the petitioner   are   held   to   be   proved.   Learned   Counsel   for   the respondent invited our attention to the Inquiry Officer''s report and the analysis of the evidence to contend that if the Inquiry Officer''s findings are based on some evidence which reasonably supports   the   conclusion   that   the   petitioner   is   guilty   of   the charge,   it   is   not   the   function   of   High   Court   to   review   the evidence   and   to   arrive   at   an   independent   finding.   In   his submission   even   the   Appellate   Authority   and   Reviewing Authority have confirmed the order passed by the Appointing Authority   and   therefore   also   as   there   are   concurrent findings recorded by fact finding authorities, no interference is warranted.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The Inquiry Officer has found that there was no scrutiny of said transactions/vouchers emanating   from   the   Bank   Investment   Cell   (BIC)   to   be   put through   the   personal   account   of   Shri   Harshad   S.   Mehta maintained   in   the   Personal   Banking   Division   of   which   the petitioner was In­charge.  The vouchers were all for the amount exceeding Rs.25,000/­ had been passed by Shri R. Sitaraman, JMGS­I beyond his powers. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the indiscriminate manner in which the transactions have been permitted in the personal account at PBD indicates that the petitioner has abdicated the responsibility of monitoring the   transactions   put   through   in   the   current   account   of   Shri Harshad   S.   Mehta   thereby   facilitating   the   perpetuation   of   a massive fraud.

The Inquiry Officer has also taken into consideration the evidence in the form of vouchers on record while returning the finding that charges are proved. The document at Exh.S­3 is a credit voucher for Rs.40,76,39,000/­ while other three are debit   vouchers   representing   debits   to   the   account   of   Shri Harshad   Mehta   maintained   at   PBD.   The   Inquiry   Officer   has found that all the vouchers have emanated from the BIC in the Securities   Division   and   they   have   been   passed   by   Shri   R. Sitaraman, JMGS­I. The Inquiry Officer found that the narration on the vouchers is very sketchy. In his view an ordinary glance at the vouchers would raise doubts in the mind of the Manager as to why should a voucher raising debit to a customer''s account in the PBD emanate from the Securities Division and that too from the BIC which deals exclusively with the bank''s own investment operations. It is further observed that when a debit is raised to a personal account of a customer, it is always backed by some authority and such authority is invariably quoted in the voucher itself.   Thus,   in   the   opinion   of   the   Inquiry   Officer   suspicion should have aroused in the mind of the Manager as to how the vouchers for these large amounts have been passed by an officer in JMGS­I who had no authority to pass such vouchers.

Before the Inquiry Officer the petitioner submitted that   Shri   Harshad   Mehta   was   a   leading   broker/dealer   in securities,   his   account   used   to   be   debited   for   the   cost   of securities sold to him by the bank as it involved recovery of legitimate dues payable to the bank and therefore, it was not possible for him as a Manager of Personal Banking Division to know that the debits/credits in the account of Shri Harshad Mehta represented purchase/sale of securities done in BIC. This plea was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner has permitted routing of the transactions done in BIC through the current account of Shri   Harshad   Mehta   in   PBD   without   any   justification whatsoever. He further found that when the transactions were routed through the PBD, it was the prime responsibility of the PBD   Manager   to   scrutinise/clear   the   vouchers   before debits/credits were allowed to be made in the current account of Shri   Harshad   Mehta.   The   Inquiry   Officer   noticed   that   the personal   account   of   Shri   Harshad   Mehta   was   allowed   to   be debited without any authority. The plea of the petitioner that Mumbai Main Branch consisted of three divisions and eleven sections which were working independent of each other and therefore it was not possible for the PBD to know the persons and the power structure in each division, was duly considered by the   Inquiry   Officer.   Inquiry   Officer   found   that   in   the   PBD Division   the   accountant   has   full   passing   powers   and   he   has passed all the vouchers in the ledger (Exh.D­7). It is observed that   inter­divisional   transactions   were   done   through   the divisional heads, the PBD Manager should have ensured that they were reflected in the relevant account only and not in the personal account of the broker. The Inquiry Officer based on the materials on record has recorded a finding that the petitioner was himself to be faulted for allowing Shri Sitaraman, JMGS­I to route   the   transactions   through   the   personal   account   of   Shri Harshad Mehta in PBD without any question and without even bringing this fact to the notice of Manager/Deputy Manager of the Securities Division who failed to supervise and control the working in BIC. In our opinion, we do not find any perversity in the  finding  recorded  by  the  Inquiry  Officer holding  the  first charges as proved.

The Inquiry Officer''s findings while considering the second charge can be summed up as under :­ That   it   was   incumbent   on   the   part   of   the   PBD Manager   to   know   what   exactly   was   the   nature   of   the transactions passing through his division. Shri Harshad Mehta''s account was being monitored at highest level and it was thus expected that the head of the PBD Division would personally monitor   the   transactions   routed   through   the   account   of   this particular broker. The letter dated 10/1/1992 written by Shri Pankaj Shah on behalf of Shri Harshad Mehta was addressed to the PBD Manager where a request was made for availing facility of issuance of banker''s cheques against bankers cheques of some other banks brought by him. This itself was an unusual request which should have aroused suspicion in the mind of the PBD Manager (petitioner) who should have taken immediate action to personally look into the individual transactions in the account of the broker. The petitioner treated the matter casually as can be   seen   from   his   remarks   on   this   letter   recommending   this facility to the broker. The plea of the petitioner that he had delegated the work of scrutiny of current account vouchers to his Deputy Manager was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that as head of a very important division of the bank''s  business  and  being   well  aware   that   this   account   was being   monitored   at   top   most   level,   it   amounted   to   total abdication of responsibility on his part in not giving personal attention to the scrutiny of the vouchers put through the account of   the   broker.   It   is   held  that   primarily   the   responsibility  for scrutiny of the vouchers lies with the Manager and had the petitioner been cautious and vigilant, the fraudulent nature of the transactions would have come to light well within time. The petitioner''s contention is that a new account is monitored for large value credits for six months only. In this case however regular report was sent to the DGM every month. Although the petitioner himself has agreed that in this particular case monthly reporting   was   being   done   but   it   did   not   occur   to   him   to scrutinise the vouchers though large sums were being credited and   debited   to   the   account   on   daily   basis   without   proper authorisation.   We  do   not  find  any   perversity   in  the  findings recorded.

In so far as the third charge is concerned the Inquiry Officer   has   found   that   there   was   substantial   increase   in   the amounts   deposited   in   the   account   of   the   broker   from   Rs.43 crores from August, 1990 to March 1991 to Rs.2989 crores from April, 1991 to March, 1992, while the float funds had remained in the range of a few lacs/thousands only. The Inquiry Officer duly considered the letter written by Shri Pankaj Shah on behalf of Shri Harshad Mehta containing a recommendation made by the   petitioner   to   grant   the   facility.   The   contention   of   the petitioner that the facility was recommended to Shri Harshad Mehta   as   he   was   the   biggest   depositor  in   the   PBD   and   the facilities   were   sought   by   him   so   as   to   avail   the   facility   of withdrawal from their account on the date of the clearing, was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer. On this basis it is inferred that the facilities were recommended by the petitioner without looking into the genuineness of the request of the party and the purpose thereof though the request made was quite unusual and the specific details of the transactions were not disclosed by the broker. It is further found that the petitioner misled the DGM by furnishing selective information on deposits thereby projecting as if by a small increase in deposits, the grave risks to which bank   shall   be   exposed   will   be   covered.   The   Inquiry   Officer observed that had the petitioner examined the request of the broker properly after making necessary inquiries, he would have found out that the broker was already availing of this facility in BIC unauthorisedly. It is found that because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner in this regard, the bank had to pay a sum   of   Rs.707,56,39,000/­   to   National   Housing   Bank   and Rs.105,10,75,000/­   to   SBI   Capital   Markets   Ltd.   and   that   it would   be   ultimately   difficult   to   recover   these   amounts.   The Inquiry Officer thus found that had the petitioner been vigilant, he could have alerted the DGM, Securities Division as well as SBICAP and the fraud on the bank could have been prevented. The   money   has   been   released   to   the   broker   against   these transactions through his current account which was maintained in PBD only. It is in this view of the matter the Inquiry Officer held   that   the   petitioner   failed   to   act   with   utmost   integrity, honesty,   devotion   and   diligence.   It   was   proved   that   the petitioner acted in the manner unbecoming of a bank officer and that he failed to protect the interest of the bank and the bank has been put to the risk of huge loss of nearly Rs.812 crores.

We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned   Counsel   that   merely   because   the   amount   of   Rs.812 crores was later recovered and no loss was caused to the bank would absolve the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. This defence is not available to the petitioner. In this context we may usefully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce [(2006) 10 SCC 572). In para 13 & 14 has observed thus :­ "13.  In Disciplinary Authority­cum­Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik: (1996) 9 SCC 69, this Court held  that   a   bank   officer''s   acting   beyond   his   authority constituted   misconduct   and   no   further   proof   of   loss   is necessary.

In the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC. vs. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, this Court held in paragraph 10 at scc p.614 as under:

If the charged employee  holds a position of trust where   honesty   and   integrity   are   inbuilt requirements   of   functioning,   it   would   not   be proper   to   deal   with   the   matter   leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and   trust­worthiness   is   a   must   and unexceptionable.   Judged   in   that   background, conclusions   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal". 14.   In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364,   this   Court  said   in   paragraph   14   at   scc   p.376   as under:

"A   Bank   officer   is   required   to   exercise   higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to project 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   Authority­cum­Regional   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".

On   the   basis   of   the   Inquiry   Officer''s   report,   the Appointing Authority dismissed the petitioner from the service by an order dated 8th  March, 2000. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner resulted in his acquittal by the judgment and order passed by the Special Court on 12th April, 2006. We also do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel that as the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal   case   he   may   be   exonerated   of   the   charges   in   the department proceedings. It is well settled that the proceedings in   criminal   case   and   departmental   proceedings   operate   in different fields. The standards of proof and evidence required in the   two   proceedings   are   also   different.   The   disciplinary proceedings are concerned with ensuring that the employees conform to the rules of conduct which are prescribed by the employer   and   maintain   discipline   in   relation   to   their employment.   The   disciplinary   proceedings   are   to   weed   out persons who are considered unworthy of being a part of the employer organization. The criminal proceedings are with an object to punish the offender. The law is well settled. Acquittal by   a   criminal   Court   would   not   debar   an   employer   from exercising disciplinary power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence   and   procedure   would   not   apply   to   departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record   the   commission   of   delinquency.   The   rule   relating   to appreciation   of   evidence   in   the   two   proceedings   is   also   not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the   prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental inquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case by the Special Court, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the   liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bank. We are, therefore, unable to uphold   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   that   since   he   was acquitted by a criminal Court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.

We   therefore   find   that   the   charges   against   the petitioner   were   not   casual   in   nature   but   were   serious.   The Disciplinary   Authority   has   taken   all   these   aspects   into consideration and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in the findings so recorded. The inquiry has been conducted in due observance   of   the   principles   of   natural   justice.   Even   the Appellate Authority has dealt with the Appeals on merits and concurred with the view of the Disciplinary Authority. In these circumstances,   therefore,   we   do   not   find   any   infirmity   or perversity with the view taken by the Authorities. We find no merit in the Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rule is discharged.