AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Two appeals have arisen from order, dated 01.08.2014, passed by the Learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 401 of 2011. L.P.A. No. 141 of 2015 has been preferred by the Bank, assailing the decision of the Learned Single Judge, who has set aside the order of punishment of dismissal of the private-respondent, who was a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Bank, posted at Sohilpatti Branch in the district of Siwan. The reason for setting aside the order of dismissal as well as the affirmance of the same by the Appellate Authority was that the order of punishment of dismissal for defalcation of a sum of Rs. 19,000 /-, coupled with the fact that the two criminal cases, instituted against the private-respondent, he was exonerated, therefore, the punishment order required to be revisited on the principle and ground of disproportionality.

3. The other L.P.A. is L.P.A. No. 1356 of 2014, which has been preferred by the employee, who stood dismissed. He is not satisfied by the decision of the Learned Single Judge, who has set aside the order of punishment of dismissal, because the Learned Single Judge left the issue open to the Bank to decide whether he should be entitled to past salary or not.

4. The main thrust of the argument of the employee, who is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 1356 of 2014, is that if the order of punishment was set aside then he is entitled for all the benefits of service, because the order will relate back to the time when the employee stood dismissed and he cannot be debarred from demanding and begetting the benefits of continuance as well as entitlements, by virtue of putting such an employee back in employment.

5. In other words, the L.P.A. of the employee is not against the rest of the findings of the Learned Single Judge in relation to the fact that Learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, well aware of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while sitting in writ jurisdiction. The scope of judicial review in matter of disciplinary proceeding is limited to review of procedural error of law. The Court would not reverse findings of Enquiry Officer on the ground that the evidence adduced is insufficient, since the Court cannot arrogate to itself role of an Appellate Authority. Reliance in this regard was placed by the Learned Single Judge on the decision of Union of India and Anr. Vs. K. G. Soni, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794 and R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 90.

6. From reading of the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 01.08.2014, it is evident that despite all the submissions and arguments, which had been made at the Bar, the Learned Single Judge was not impressed to interfere with the enquiry report as well as the findings, which emerged therefrom, which culminated into issuance of the order of punishment of dismissal by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, no arguments is required to be entertained on behalf of the employee in his appeal on that aspect.

7. Since the Learned Single Judge interfered with the order of punishment only on the ground that the order of dismissal seems to be shocking to the conscious, keeping in mind that the defalcation was only of Rs. 19,000/-, as well as the employee having been exonerated by the criminal court also, is required to be looked into a little closely.

8. So far as the two criminal cases are concerned, one was quashed by the High Court on the principle of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as there was no substantial progress in the criminal cases over a period of 7 to 8 years. In other words the High Court also never had opportunity to go into the merits of the allegation. Only for the technical reason that the accused, i.e., the employee’s right of life was being violated, because of delay in trial became the sole reason for earning reprieve against the criminal prosecution.

9. In