The main legal point established is that the punishment of dismissal can only be interfered with if it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, as per the principles of proportionality and judicial review.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. As I advert to the contentions of the litigating sides, the undisputed aspects emerging from this case are as follows :-

a. The petitioner was working as a “Peon” with the respondent / Bank from 2001.

b. He was charged with committing a mis-conduct by charge-sheet dated 25/03/2008.

c. He submitted a detailed reply and while admitting the charges levelled upon him, tendered an apology and also deposited the amount said to have been misappropriated.

d. A departmental enquiry was conducted and finally the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 03/10/2008.

e. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.14/2010 before the Labour Court for challenging his dismissal.

f. By Part-I order dated 19/10/2012, the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained.

g. The Part-I order dated 19/10/2012 has not been challenged by the petitioner before any Court.

h. The Labour Court dealt with the proportionality of the punishment and by its judgment dated 21/12/2012, allowed the complaint partly by quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated 03/10/2008 and issued a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity.

i. Back wages were denied.

j. The respondent/Management preferred Revision (ULP) No.4/2013 and the petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No.6/2013 before the Industrial Court.

k. It is undisputed that the Part-I order delivered by the Labour Court dated 19/10/2012 was not subject matter of the revision.

l. By the impugned judgment dated 20/03/2013, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the one preferred by the respondent/management was allowed.

m. The judgment of the Labour Court dated 21/12/2012 was quashed and set aside and the order of punishment was upheld.

3. The petitioner has strenuously contended that the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the seriousness and gravity of the mis-conducts at issue is the only aspect which needs consideration. The petitioner had pleaded guilty which establishes his honesty. He had specifically stated that the amount of Rs.5,000/- at issue was mistakenly retained by him and which was deposited with the respondent/Bank, the moment he realized that it was an error on his part. He had his own financial difficulties. Nevertheless, the fact that he pleaded guilty and tendered an apology, would establish that he did not have the attitude and characteristic of being a dishonest employee.

4. Mr. Latange has further canvassed that charges of disobeying a superior or remaining absent are minor charges. The only charge, which appears to be serious, is with regard to creating a false record or manipulating the documents for his benefit or committing misappropriation of a small amount.

5. Mr. Latange solemnly submits that the petitioner was a “Peon”. He is neither educated to be appointed as a “Clerk” nor was he ever so appointed. The Management used to direct him to perform certain assignments which only a Clerk could perform. Since he had seen Clerks around him working in the Bank and since he could easily perform the said work, he used to obey the orders of his Superior.

6. He further submits that no doubt, he has committed a mistake with regard to Rs.5,000/- which amount was deposited with the respondent/Bank without hesitation when he realized that it was a mistake. His conduct has not caused any loss to the Bank, in as much as, it is not the case of the respondent that they have lost money due to the acts committed by the petitioner. He, therefore, prays for leniency and submits that he may even be appointed as a “Peon” by issuing a fresh order. He is in his 30's and cannot survive without an employment.

7. Mr. Sapkal, learned Advocate for the respondent/Bank has vehemently opposed the petition. He has taken me through the charges levelled upon the petitioner. He reiterates