( 1 ) IN a departmental inquiry held against a bank employee he was chargesheeted for certain misconduct. Sufficient details regarding the mis-conduct alleged was not given in the chargesheet. He confessed and admitted something which did not form part of the charge. Without there being any evidence or proof of the misconduct alleged he has been convicted and punished solely on the basis of his confession. Can this order imposing punishment be sustained ? This in short is the question which awaits answer.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the respondent which is a nationalised bank. He is serving as a clerk-cum-cashier at Amreli Branch of the Bank. He was selected as a candidate for induction course for a period commencing from June 18 1982 to July 6 1982 When the induction course was going on the petitioner was found to be irregular in his attendance and therefore he was relieved from the training course before the expiry of the training period. He was served with a memo dated July 14 1982 wherein it was inter a stated that after the petitioner was relieved from training centre he (petitioner) approached Shri R. J. Arya of Bank of Baroda Dhanlaxmi Branch Ahmedabad and made certain unwarranted complaints against Shri J. K. Shah Acting-in-charge of the Staff training Centre Ahmedabad and in turn Shri Arya threatened Shri J. K. Shah over telephone to withdraw the relieving memorandum of Shri Makwana (the petitioner) otherwise he would get Shri Shah transferred out from Ahmedabad and he would also cut of his hands. The petitioner was required to give written explanation within a period of seven days from the date of misconduct proved1 Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. 2 Doing acts subversive of discipline. 3 Disorderly behaviour with his superiors during working hours.

( 3 ) INTIMIDATION to cause physical harm to his superior. The above punishment will have consecutive effect and as such in all his next four increments will be stopped with cumulative effect which will have effect of postponing all his future increments by four years.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner was granted personal hearing with regard to the quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed upon him. After hearing the petitioner the final order imposing punishment has been passed to the following effect: receipt of the memo. The petitioner submitted written explanation. He denied the allegations made in the memo. He has further explained that there was no intention to cut the hands but the phrase was used to indicate the harassment caused by the issuance of such a written memo. At the end of the explanation the petitioner sincerely expressed his regret for the fact that the complaint was made before the union leader. The explanation was not accepted by the Bank authorities. The authority concerned informed him that it was decided to hold departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet and pursuant thereto the enquiry was held. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and thereupon it was held that the mis-conduct alleged was proved. THE enquiry officer proposed punishment as follows:proposed punishmentstoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. STOPPAGE of one increment with cumulative effect. STOPPAGE of one increment with cumulative effect. STOPPAGE of one increment with cumulative effect. SHRI N. S. Makwanas next three annual increments be and are hereby stopped with cumulative effect. As per the calculation made by the Bank the total monetary loss to the petitioner would be Rs. 2 686 But apparently this figure does not take into account the loss of interest during the period of punishment and future loss of interest loss in P. F. and other terminal benefits. Thus calculated the cumulative and effective loss to the petitioner at the end of service tenure would be to the tune of scores of thousands of rupees. Apparently the punishment looks trivial but if properly calculated even in