Indrajeet Singh v. Dena Bank — 1988 DIGILAW 366 (PAT)

Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition inter alia prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a memorandum bearing No. CO/OER/6720/81, dated 13-11-1981 and as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition issued by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent No 1-Bank ; the order dated 7th June, 1982 passed by the General Manager of the respondent No. 1 who is the appellate authority in respect of the petitioner and as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as also the order dated 13th September, 1982 passed by the Chief Officer (Personnel) whereby and whereunder the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order of penalty dated 30-11-1981 was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner at the material times had been serving the respondent No. 1-Bank as one of its officers. According to the Petitioner while he was posted in one of the branches at Bombay, one Sri Udai Raj Singh a co-villager and an agnate of the petitioner who was also working as a watchman in one of the branches of the respondent bank at Bombay took a loan of Rs. 7000.00 from the petitioner in October, 1975 but did not refund the same. 4. According to the petitioner in the year 1980 the said Udai Raj Singh assured the petitioner that he would deposit the said amount in his Saving Bank Account of the Head Officer of the petitioner. It is stated that by that time the petitioner was transferred to Patna Branch whereas the said Udai Raj Singh had been continuing to work in one of the branches of the respondent-bank in Bombay. The petitioner alleges that on the basis of the said representation made on the part of the aforementioned Sri Udai Raj Singh he requested the Branch Manager of the respondent No. 1 (Bank) to purchase a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5000.00 in Bill Purchase (B.P.) No. 80 against his head office savings bank account bearing No. S/1673 and the said request was acceded to. 5000.00 in Bill Purchase (B.P.) No. 80 against his head office savings bank account bearing No. S/1673 and the said request was acceded to. The petitioner further alleges that the said Udai Raj Singh did not deposit the aforementioned amount in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner as a result whereof the cheque drawn by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was returned to Patna Branch Office on 10-7-1980. The petitioner thereafter obtained a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5500.00 from one M/s Vijay Syndicate Patna, drawn on Ganara Bank, Gaya and on the request of the petitioner the then Acting Branch Manager of the respondent No. 1 at Patna credited the cheque of Rs. 5500.00 in Saving Bank Account of the petitioner; out of which the aforementioned amount a sum of Rs. 5000.00 was adjusted and the remaining amount of Rs. 500.00 the interest in respect of the B.P. No. 80 was adjusted. The said cheque was also returned having been dishonoured. 5. A departmental proceeding was thence drawn up against the petitioner in respect whereof articles of charges were furnished upon him on 11-9-1980. The said chargesheet is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 6. By reason of the said memorandum of charges the petitioner was asked to submit an explanation in writing within ten days from the date of receipt of the said chargesheet. The petitioner received the chargesheet on 24-9-1980 and allegedly prayed for an adjournment to submit his explanation. 7. Thereafter in the said disciplinary proceeding initiated as against the petitioner, one Sri R.N. Buch, Assistant Regional Manager (Operation) of Regional Office, Culcutta (respondent No. 5) was appointed as an Enquiring Officer. 8. The petitioner has alleged that neither the list of documents was furnished to the petitioner nor the names of the witnesses were supplied to him. The petitioner has further alleged that he was not even allowed to inspect the documents which were used against him, nor any copy of the deposition of the witnesses or documents was furnished to him. 9. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30-10-1981 wherein he found the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The said enquiry report is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 10. It is admitted that the petitioner submitted an explanation before the Enquiry Officer. 9. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30-10-1981 wherein he found the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The said enquiry report is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 10. It is admitted that the petitioner submitted an explanation before the Enquiry Officer. It is also admitted that in the said departmental enquiry no witness was examined. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner did not dispute the basic facts but merely sought to explain the same as to how the cheque drawn up by him was dishonoured. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner therefore admitted that the cheque drawn on his own account bounced for want of sufficient balance. The Enquiry Officer, however, took into consideration the various circumstances and came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be accepted; the reasons wherefor are stated in details in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer clearly found that the very fact that the petitioner obtained the cheque from M/s. Vijay Syndicate for a sum of Rs. 5500.00 even prior to dishonour of his first cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (B.P. No. 80) conclusively proves that he knew that his first cheque would bounce back as there was no balance in his account. According to the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the petitioner had already pre-planned the whole game in order to get the financial benefit by tendering another cheque for purchase, thereof by the Bank. 11. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and by reason of an order which is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition imposed the following punishments upon the petitioner:- - Dismissal without notice from the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. 12. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who by an order dated 7-6-1982 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority in his order dealt in details the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who by an order dated 7-6-1982 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority in his order dealt in details the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The appellate authority also took notice of the fact that the Enquiry Officer mainly relied upon the admissions of fact made by the petitioner himself and rejected the explanation offered by him and as also his finding that deposit the fact that there had been no sufficient fund in his account at the material time he had wrongly assured the Branch Manager about the availability of the sufficient fund The appellate authority further took note of the fact that as the appellant merely wanted to explain away the charges made against him which were based on admitted facts, he should have examined Sri Udai Raj Singh and produced other evidences to that effect. 13. The appellate authority further took note of the fact that the petitioner had made well calculated moves and misconducted himself by presenting another cheque of M/s. Vijay Syndicate for the purpose of obtaining financial benefit for his own game. It further took into consideration the fact that the petitioner even did not examine any responsible person from M/s Vijay Syndicate for showing whether any sum from M/s. Vijay Syndicate was due to him or not. According to the appellate authority the petitioner thus misrepresented the Manager of the bank to make him believe that the cheques were good ones for the purpose of purchasing the same and thus abused his position as an of officer of the bank to get financial benefit from the bank by tendering cheques for purchase which were in fact worthless. 14. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 who by an order dated 10-9-1982 and as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition dismissed the said petition. 15. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioner having admitted that he had no sufficient funds in his savings bank account, it was not considered necessary to examine any witness. 15. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioner having admitted that he had no sufficient funds in his savings bank account, it was not considered necessary to examine any witness. It is further stated that the only evidence produced on behalf of the bank and against the petitioner was a copy of the extract of the petitioners savings bank account which was an admitted document. It has further pointed out that the petitioner himself admitted that he had assumed his Branch Manager that there was sufficient fund in his account and in that view of the matter the cheques presented by him would be honoured which subsequently having been found to be false and the cheques having bounced the findings in the disciplinary proceeding was justified. 16. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the aforementioned document was admitted in evidence without any protest by the petitioner at the enquiry in view of the fact that he had been in possession of the pass book in respect of the aforementioned account. It is further stated that before the Enquiry Officer the petitioner stated that he had no witness of documents to be produced. It has further been contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never indicated before the Enquiry Officer that Sri Udai Raj Singh should be examined or he wants to examine the said witness. 17. The hearing of this writ petition commenced on 30th July, 1988. It was also heard on 1st August, 1988. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 17-81988 wherein vires of Clause 24 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was sought to be challenged. 18. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following questions. 19. He firstly submitted that Regulation 24 was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it confers an arbitrary, unguided and wide power upon the authorities concerned. Regulation 3 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 reads as follows:- - 3.(1) Every Officer employee shall at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and deligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Regulation 3 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 reads as follows:- - 3.(1) Every Officer employee shall at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and deligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. (2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations. (3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. (4) Every officer shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority. 20. In terms of Clause 24 of the Regulations a breach of any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 21. True it is that the said conduct rules or the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 of the respondent No. 1-Bank do not contain the list of misconducts. Normally in the Service Rules relating to disciplinary matters certain acts which amount to misconduct are enumerated but it is now well known that such enumeration of misconducts in the Service Rules are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. 22. It is now well-settled that action can be taken as against as employee by his employer if the concerned employee acts in a manner forbidden under the Conduct Rules. The question as to whether an employee has committed a misconduct or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 23. An officer of a bank is expected to know his code of conduct. Such a code of conduct on the part of officer having been prescribed in the Conduct Regulations, in my opinion, it would be futile to urge that any act which is done in violation of Conduct Regulation may not be a misconduct. The Conduct Regulation of the Bank inter alia stipulates that an officer must ensure and protect the interest of bank and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The Conduct Regulation of the Bank inter alia stipulates that an officer must ensure and protect the interest of bank and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The question as to whether a particular act committed by an officer comes within the purview of the said Conduct Rules or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It, therefore, cannot be said that the said Regulation suffers from the vice of conferring upon the authorities an arbitrary or unguided power. The guidelines for the purpose of finding out as to whether an officer has committed misconduct or not are to be found in Regulation 3 aforementioned. Regulation 3, in my opinion, provides sufficient guidelines so that the action of the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment upon a delinquent employee remains within the framework of the aforementioned regulation. In a given case it may be possible for the employee to show that a particular set of facts on the basis whereof he is charged with misconduct does not fall within the guidelines as laid down in the aforementioned Regulation 3 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 24. In my considered view Regulation 24 cannot be said to have conferred wholly unguided and uncanalised power upon the disciplinary authority inasmuch as it is to be read along with the Regulation 3 aforementioned which, as noticed hereinbefore, provides sufficient guidelines. Further in my opinion, Regulation 3 is not vague. 25. In this view of the matter, Regulation 24 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 is not ultra vires Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. 26. Mr. Choubey then submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no witness having been examined nor any document except one having been proved, the entire proceeding is vitiated in law. According to Mr Choubey as the petitioner has denied his guilt, it was incumbent upon the respondents to follow the normal procedure as laid down in Regulation 6 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 According to the learned Counsel this having not been done, there has been a violation of Regulation 6(2) and Regulation 6(10)(a) of the said Regulation. The aforementioned Regulation 6(2) and Regulation 6(10)(a) read as follows:- - 6(2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against officer employee, it may itself enquire into, or appoint any other public servant (hereinafter referred to as the inquiring authority) to enquire into the truth thereof. 6(10)(a) The inquiring authority shall, where the officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by Whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. 27. According to the learned Counsel, the respondents having committed flagrant violation of the aforementioned provisions by not following the procedure laid down therein, the entire disciplinary proceeding as also the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on the basis thereof must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 28. True it is that the respondent did not examine any witness nor furnished any list of documents or list of witnesses to the petitioner on the basis whereof the articles of charges were proposed to be proved. 29. However it must be borne in mind that in the instant case the petitioner admitted the basic facts. He not only admitted that he did not have sufficient funds in his savings bank account but also admitted that upon his request the Branch Manager of the Bokaro Steel City Branch and the Patna Branch purchased the cheques presented by him and permitted him to draw the same amount. The petitioner being an officer of bank must be deemed to have further admitted, as also it is a common knowledge, that a person is not entitled to receive the consideration amount by selling a cheque unless there exists a sufficient amount in his account whether in the same bank or elsewhere. 30. It was, therefore, wholly unnecessary for the respondent to examine any witness or to prove any document to establish the charges levelled as against the petitioner. The petitioners in the circumstances, cannot be said to have been prejudiced. 31. Mr. Choubey has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Ors. V/s. Hindustan Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1985 Vol. 1 S.L.J. 109. The petitioners in the circumstances, cannot be said to have been prejudiced. 31. Mr. Choubey has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Ors. V/s. Hindustan Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1985 Vol. 1 S.L.J. 109. The aforementioned decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in a different situation and in a different set of facts. In the said case the procedure as provided for in Standing Order No. 32 of the relevant standing orders was taken recourse to, which reads as follows:- - Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a court of law or where the General Manager is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is expedient or against the interests of security to continue to employ the workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure in Standing Order 31. 32. Evidently such is not the case here. 33. It is well known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what logically follows from it. 34. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that a mere procedural infirmity may not be sufficient to invalidate an order unless it is shown that thereby a delinquent has been prejudiced. 35. In the instant case the admission made by the petitioner had been taken into consideration and the only evidence which was adduced was a statement of the accounts of the petitioner in respect of his savings bank account. As noticed hereinbefore, the said document was admitted in evidence without any objection having been raised by the petitioner. Further, as noticed hereinbefore, such a statement is merely a copy of pass book maintained by the petitioner which must have been in possession or in custody of the petitioner as a customer of the hank and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced by not having been furnished a copy of the said document to him by the respondent. 36. 36. Further in view of the fact that the petitioner himself admitted and acknowledged that he has no sufficient amount in his savings account, the question of the petitioners being prejudiced by reason thereof does not and cannot arise particularly in view of the fact that thereby the employer only intended to prove that the petitioner did not have sufficient balance in his savings bank account. 37. Mr. Choubey has relied upon an unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri Brajendra Nath Tripathy V/s. The State Bank of India and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 966 of 1988 disposed of on 15th July, 1988. The said decision was rendered on the facts obtaining in that case. In the aforementioned decision an order of dismissal passed as against the delinquent officer was quashed on the ground that the maker of the report on the basis whereof the punishment was inflicted was not examined and further evidences were admitted behind the back of the delinquent employee. In the said decision, on the facts obtaining in that case, it was held that the mandatory provisions contained in the Regulations of the State Bank of India relating to the Discipline and Appeal of the employees were violated. As indicated hereinbefore such is not the case here. 38. The petitioner admittedly did not deny or dispute the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the statements of the account. In fact in view of the categorical admission made by the petitioner that he did not have sufficient fund in his savings bank accounts adduction of any evidence was not at all necessary. 39. In K.L. Tripathy V/s. The State Bank of India and Ors. reported in -- , the Supreme Court clearly held that applicability of the document in a departmental enquiry depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case and non compliance of the same must cause some real prejudice to the delinquent officer. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision that in absence of any lis as to facts, allegations having been not disputed by the delinquent officer, he cannot later challenge the validity of the proceedings on some grounds or the other. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision that in absence of any lis as to facts, allegations having been not disputed by the delinquent officer, he cannot later challenge the validity of the proceedings on some grounds or the other. In the said decision it has clearly been held by the Supreme Court as follows:- - In respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an officer or an employee of statutory corporations like the State Bank of India, there must be an investigation into the charges consistent with the requirements of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice as far as these were applicable to a particular situation. The application of those principles of natural justice must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and subject matter of the case. It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply nor as to their scope and extent. There must have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with, and so forth. 40. It has further been observed as follows :- - The concept of fair play in action, which is the basis of natural justice, must depend upon the particular lis between the parties. Where there is no lis regarding the facts, no real prejudice would be caused to a party by absence of any formal opportunity of cross examination and that perse would not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. The party who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence from record of testimony gathered behind his back cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent demand that there was no opportunity of cross examination specifically when it was not asked for and there was no dispute about the veracity-of the statements. 41. The aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by two Division Bench of this Court in Girja Nandan Singh V/s. The State Bank of India and Ors. 41. The aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by two Division Bench of this Court in Girja Nandan Singh V/s. The State Bank of India and Ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 95 and Instrumentation Ltd. Bokaro Steel City V/s. P.O. Labour Court and Ors. reported in 1988 PLJR 145. 42. This aspect of the matter has also been recently considered by me in Ram Chandra Prasad V/s. The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Muzaffarpur reported in 1988 BBCJ 632 . 43. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as also of this Court, in my opinion, it was not necessary for the respondents to examine any witness to prove the said document. 44. In the instant case, allegations upon which the charges of misconduct as against the petitioner were to be proved are all admitted. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner merely intended to explain away the admission made by him The question as to whether Sri Udai Rai Singh did not deposit a sura of Rs. 7,000.00 in his savings bank account in spite of reminders have been made in this regard or the circumstances leading to the bouncing of the cheque of the petitioner issued by M/s. Vijay Syndicate could be prod by adduction of evidence which were in possession of the petitioner in respect whereof only the petitioner had special knowledge. The petitioner having admitted his guilt it was for him to prove the existence of the extenuating circumstances. The petitioner having not chosen to do so must thank himself for the same. 45. Further, from a perusal of the impugned orders it would be evident that the appellate and the reviewing authorities have applied their independent minds before passing the orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. 46. Mr. Choubey then submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in respect of the transaction in question the petitioner was acting as a customer and not as an officer of the bank and further in view of the fact that no actual loss having occurred to the bank, the petitioner should not have been inflicted with the extreme punishment of dismissal from services. 47. True it is that the petitioner had sold the cheque to the bank as a customer. 47. True it is that the petitioner had sold the cheque to the bank as a customer. There cannot, however, be any doubt that he was having a dual role to play while making a misrepresentation to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank to purchase the two cheques offered by him in which act the petitioner was successful i.e. to pursuade the Branch Managers to purchase the cheques not once but twice. The same was evidently possible owing to his being an officer of the bank and not as a customer. Had the petitioner been not an officer of the bank, the Manager of the concerned branches of the bank would have applied themselves to the situation for considering as to whether the cheques should be bought or not. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that the petitioners representation was accepted without any further enquiry as he happened to be an officer of the bank. The petitioner was thus a privileged person and he took undue advantage of his position. 48. There cannot be any gain saying that the representation made by the petitioner was accepted by the Branch Managers not once but twice only on account of fact that he happens to be an officer and as such they must have been pursuaded to purchase the cheques offered by the petitioner The petitioner, thus, exercised his position as an officer to the bank for obtaining payment against two cheques for which he was not otherwise entitled to. 49. It is true that the respondent-bank being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is bound to act in a reasonable manner even in the matter of imposition of penalty on its employees so as not to offend Article 14 of the Constitution but it is also well settled that except in the case of gross and disproportionate imposition of punishment which may be held to be an arbitrary act on the part of the employer so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not interfere with the punishment imposed by an employer. 50. 50. Reference in this connection may be made to State of Orissa V/s. Baidabhushan Mohapatra reported in -- wherein it has been held as follows: But the Court, in a case in which an order of dismissal of a public servant is impugned, is not concerned to decide whether the sentence imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanour established. The reasons which induce the punishing authority, if there has been an enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable; nor is the penalty open to review by the Court. 51. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that the hearing of this case was adjourned in order to enable the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank to take instructions from the respondent No. 1 as to whether it, taking into consideration the lapse of time, would consider the desirability to re-employ the petitioner. 52. Mr. Chunilal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent after obtaining instruction in this regard stated before me that after taking into consideration the charges levelled as against the petitioner that he did not deposit the amount in spite of opportunities having been given to him on earlier occasions, the bank does not consider it desirable to offer him reemployment. 53. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority took into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had presented the aforementioned cheques in order to continue to retain the financial gain made by him by making a false representation before the concerned Branch Managers of the Bank. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that the concerned authorities after taking into consideration the relevant facts arrived at the said decision. It is evident that in view of admission of facts and circumstances of the case the authorities considered it fit to impose the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner which having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can neither he held to be arbitrary nor unreasonable so as to attract Article 14 of the Constitution. 54. After taking into consideration the case from all its remifications, in my opinion, this petition has no merit and thus is liable to be dismissed. 55. 54. After taking into consideration the case from all its remifications, in my opinion, this petition has no merit and thus is liable to be dismissed. 55. In the result this application is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. 56. Before parting with the case, I may observe that the respondent- bank should consider the matter of re-employment of the petitioner, taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner before his commission of the alleged misconduct as also the fact that the loss occurred to the Bank was meagre if the respondent considers the same to be desirable and in the interest of justice.