Direction to post the employee in any equivalent post not involving sensitive work proper.

S.R. SINGHARAVELU, J.

The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.12.2001 in W.P. No. 1313 of 1996.

2. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that the second respondent employee who was working as a Shroff, Uthamapalayam Branch of the Bank was charge sheeted for alleged misconduct within the meaning of Chapter-XI Regulation 3 Clause (I) of the Canara Bank Service Code. The crux of the charge is that the second respondent by making wrongful entries in the record, had caused cash shortage of Rs. 50,000/- and had misappropriated the said amount. The criminal complaint which was filed against him ultimately ended in acquittal by order dated 16.12.1988. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings commenced and charge memo was issued on 31.1.1989. An enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the Enquiry Officers findings and recommendations, the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the second respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, the employee raised a dispute in I.D. No. 33 of 1992. Though the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, by its order dated 19.9.1995, found that the charges were established; however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate him in service without continuity of service and without back wages and imposed a punishment of withholding four increments with cumulative effect. Hence, the bank filed the writ petition to quash the award passed by the Tribunal.

3. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner bank filed the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

5. Thesecond respondent, by name, Krishnamoorthy was working as a Shroff in the Uthamapalayam Branch of Canara Bank. He was charge sheeted for alleged misconduct. The charge is that the 2nd respondent, by making wrongful entries in the record, had caused cash shortage of Rs. 50,000/- and also had misappropriated the same. A criminal complaint filed against him in this regard ended in acquittal by order dated 16.12.1988. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings commenced and charge memo was issued on 31.1.1989. The Deputy General Manager was the disciplinary authority. He, accepting the Enquiry Officers reports and findings, had dismissed the second respondent from service.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondent employee raised a dispute in I.A. No. 33 of 1992. Though the Industrial Tribunal, by its order dated 19.9.1995 found that the charges were established, the punishment of dismissal was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate him without continuity of service and without back wages and imposed the punishment of withholding four increments with cumulative effect.

7. After sustaining the charges as proved and imposing punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect upon setting aside the order of dismissal, the order of the Tribunal was grounded on for the following charges:

(i) The delinquent belongs to Scheduled Caste;

(ii) The bank did not lose anything because he had repaid the amount;

(iii) Unemployment in our country;

(iv) The delinquent had already suffered mental torture;

(v) There will be no chance for him to get another job if he is dismissed on the ground of misappropriation;

(vi) Punishment of dismissal at a young age is very severe;

(vii) Hehad unblemished record of service prior to the incident.

8. As against the said award of the Tribunal, the employer Canara Bank has preferred W.P. No. 1313 of 1996 in order to quash the said award dated 19.9.1995.

9. The learnedsingle Judge, while dealing with the above reasons given by the Tribunal, has found that except the last ground No. (vii), all other reasons given by the Tribunal are perverse and unsustainable to justify a person, who is found guilty of misappropriation for bei