As per the case facts, the State Bank of India appealed against a High Court judgment that had set aside a disciplinary authority's order imposing a penalty of reduction in ... basic pay and treating a suspension period as such. The High Court had interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the decisions of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, leading to the appeal. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed, given the evidence supporting the charges. Finally, the Supreme Court held that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition and interfering with the findings and decisions of the disciplinary authorities. The Supreme Court found the penalty imposed was not disproportionate, as charges of not conducting periodical inspection and failure to complete mortgage formalities were supported by evidence. The High Court's orders were set aside, and the original penalty was reinstated.