JUDGMENT : Vaze, J.—Shridhar Bapurao Gadhekar was working as a Peon (Class-IV employee) in the Punjab Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Pune from December 1969. The bank issued a charge-sheet to him on 7th September 1978 to the effect that at 6.00 p.m. on 21st February 1978, the employee Gadhekar had threatened the bank's cashier V. B. Pandit with murder. A domestic enquiry which was initiated on 10th September 1978 was completed on 3rd October 1979, and after receiving the enquiry report the employer -bank terminated the service of Gadhekar on the ground that he had committed misconduct. 2. Gadhekar applied u/s 78(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to the First Labour Court, Pune, who by his order dated 31st October 1983 held that the enquiry held was legal and proper. The Labour Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider whether the punishment was harsh and disproportionate and gave a finding on 19th May 1984, in favour of the applicant and ordered the employer-bank to reinstate Gadhekar with full back wages and continuity of service from 24th January, 1980 i.e. the date of termination till reinstatement. 3. In an appeal the Industrial Court at Pune, reversed the finding, mitigated the punishment and allowing the bank's appeal partly ordered that the employer-bank should be deemed to have retrenched the original applicant Gadhekar with effect from 1st February, 1980 and the bank should accordingly pay the consequential dues. 4. Aggrieved, Gadhekar has filed the present writ petition challenging this order. 5. According to Mr. Dharap, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry suffered from the vice of infraction of the principles of natural justice and the punishment awarded is totally disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. In the domestic enquiry, the employer examined Pandit who deposed how Gadhekar came over to him and threatened him that he would liquidate him. Pandit immediately filed a complaint to the Police and another complaint to the bank, on the next day. 6. One Balani, an account holder of the bank, who happened to be there claims that he had also come to the bank to make enquiries about his loan application but found that Gadhekar was threatening Pandit. 7. It is an astonishing feature of this case that delinquent Gadhekar did not even care to put in a written statement to deny the charge nor has he examined himself. 7. It is an astonishing feature of this case that delinquent Gadhekar did not even care to put in a written statement to deny the charge nor has he examined himself. All that he did was to examine one Jasbirsingh Dardi, an account holder of the bank, who claims that Pandit had visited him on 21st Feb. 1978 to collect his small savings collections. But in the cross-examination he admits that he cannot tell exactly the time when Pandit had visited him. This admission takes the wind out of his sails because after the alleged threat by Gadhekar, Pandit went out on his scooter for his usual collections and could have visited Dardi for that purpose. 8. Gadhekar has examined one Sehgal, who played a tape before the Enquiry Officer and claimed that he had called Balani on 8th June 1979 to ascertain why Balani is going to depose in Gadhekar's departmental enquiry but saw to it that the conversation is tape-recorded. The tape was played before the Enquiry Officer, who has recorded the transcript which forms part of the record. The transcript purports to contain Balani's admission that he was not present at the bank premises on that day. 9. The counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the authorities below should not have believed in the word of Pandit when Balani on his own showing was not a witness of truth. The interesting aspect of this tape is that though the conversation was alleged to have been recorded by Sehgal on 8th June 1979, no questions were put to Balani who was examined later on i.e. on 31st July 1979. An attempt was made to recall Balani but ultimately it was given up because the applicant himself objected to the efforts. I find that the Courts below were right in not relying on the tape recorded conversation as the questions regarding the alleged tape and Balani's admissions in the tape should have been put in the cross-examination of Balani but that has not been done. 10. Lastly, Mr. Dharap, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on number of authorities, the leading being the one reported in Rama Kant Misra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1982) 3 SCC 346 , in the dispute between Rama Kant Mishra & the State of U.P. and Ors. 10. Lastly, Mr. Dharap, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on number of authorities, the leading being the one reported in Rama Kant Misra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1982) 3 SCC 346 , in the dispute between Rama Kant Mishra & the State of U.P. and Ors. in which the Supreme Court has held that indiscreet, improper and abusive language does not merit extreme penalty of dimissal. The same trend, claims the counsel, persists in the dispute between Ved Prakash Gupta & Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. reported in Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 914 . Hence it was submitted that the extreme penalty of dismissal was not warranted. 11. A reading of the cases cited at the Bar shows that the abusive language used by the workman in these cases was a result of sudden provocation or altercation with the management and not a pre-determined concerted effort to threaten an Officer with murder as is disclosed from the evidence on record in this case. It could as well be that in view of the Union's support Gadhekar though that he would be able to have his way in the bank if he adopts brass-knuckled tactics and behaved, in the words of the Bard: "Dress'd in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he is most assur'd, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, As makes the angles weep''. Measure for Measure 2, 2, 117 12. I do not see any reason to interfere in the punishment awarded. The petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged.