The main legal point established is that while negligence and misconduct may warrant disciplinary action, the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct and consider the individual circumstances of the employee.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Under challenge, in these writ petitions, preferred by the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") and the workman M. K. Gupta, is an Award, dated 27th May, 2004, issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal in ID No.85/1993. The learned Tribunal, has vide the said award, declared the dismissal of the services of the workman by the Bank, w.e.f. 4th September, 1990, to be "not completely justified" and has, consequently, directed the reinstatement of the workman, w.e.f. 1st January, 2000, with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The workman has also been held, by the award, to be entitled to 50% back wages after 1st January, 2000.

2. WP(C) 18116/2004, by the Bank prays that the impugned Award be set aside and the dismissal, of the workman's services by the Bank, upheld. Per contra, WP(C) No.12759/2005, by the workman, seeks to assert his entitlement to reinstatement, abinitio, with full back wages.

3. I have heard Ms. Rachna Gupta, and Mr. Paranjay Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank and workman at length and perused the record.

4. The controversy is brief, and emanates, essentially, from charge-sheet, dated 8th August, 1983, issued to the workman by the Bank. The charge-sheet alleged that, on 11th February, 1983, the workman (who was employed as Assistant Cashier), was instructed to effect cash transfer of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from the Lajpat Nagar Branch to the Nehru Place Branch of the Bank. However, it was alleged, having taken delivery of the said cash from the Chief Cashier, the workman, instead of placing the cash in a proper steel box "as per instructions laid down", unauthorisedly placed the cash in a briefcase, which was left, by him, in the cabin of the Chief Cashier, from where it went missing. As such, the charge-sheet alleged that the workman had failed to account for the said cash of Rs. 3.5 lakhs which was entrusted to his charge. Asserting that the workman was expected to ensure the safety of the cash and to remit it securely to the Nehru Place Branch of the Bank, which, owing to his failure to comply with proper norms and laid down procedure governing of cash, could not be effected, it was alleged that the Bank had suffered serious financial loss. As a result, the charge-sheet alleged that the workman had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, and that he was guilty of gross misconduct within the meaning of 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement, governing relations between the Bank and its employees. The workman, therefore, was given an opportunity to respond thereto. It is important to note that the charge-sheet does not, expressly or impliedly, doubt the bonafides of the workman, or attribute any ulterior motive to him.

5. Prior to the issuance of the above mentioned charge-sheet, dated 8th August, 1983, FIR No. 87/83, was lodged, by the Bank, in the Police Station, on 11th February, 1983 itself, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), regarding loss of the aforementioned Rs. 3.5 lakhs, and arraying the workman as an accused.

6. Following on the charge-sheet, dated 8th August, 1983 (supra), a departmental inquiry was held, culminating in the submission of an Inquiry Report, dated 29th April, 1985, by the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as "IO"). The Inquiry Report opined, relying on the depositions of the Bank's witness V.N. Wadhawan (BW-3), Accountant of the Bank, and B.R. Midha (BW-4), to the effect that no permission had been granted, to the workman, to consign the cash, entrusted to him for transmission to the Nehru Place Branch of the Bank, to a briefcase instead of a steel box, that the act of the workman, in placing the cash in a briefcase, was contrary to the instructions given to him, and ex facie unjustified. It was further opined, by the IO, that, having been