Judgment 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th May, 1989 passed by the learned trial judge in CO. No. 10286 (W) of 1987. By the aforesaid order, the learned trial "Judge has allowed the writ petition made by the respondent, Santosh kumar Chakraborty and quashed the charge-sheet, enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority of dismissal from service. The learned trial Judge has directed that petitioner should be treated as on duty for the entire period and he would be entitled to all service benefits including monetary benefits. It was also directed that after adjustment of substance allowance already paid to the petitioner, the other arrears should be paid within a period of one week from the date of communication of the judgment and the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties forthwith on a plain copy of the order directed to be supplied to the writ petitioner. The Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Bank and other officials of the Allahabad bank, thereafter, preferred the instant appeal. 2. THE writ petitioner-respondent, Sri Santosh kumar Chakraborty was appointed as Comptist in Allahabad bank in 1966 and at the relevant time he was posted as a Clerk in Provident Fund Department, in the head office of the Allahabad Bank in Calcutta. At the relevant time his salary was Rs. 2 440/- per month. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Sri Chakraborty by serving a charge-sheet on him and he was also placed under suspension in connection with the said disciplinary proceeding. It was inter alia, alleged in the charge-sheet that the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty had deliberately and intentionally false a false credit to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- in his Savings Bank Account no. 348/5 without any supporting credit voucher. It was stated in the charge-sheet that such inflation of the false credit was made by writing 1 (one) on the left side of the posted entry as well as on the balance. One Sri Gopal Mukherjee was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Manager, Golpark Branch was appointed as Presenting Officer, Sri Chakraborty made a representation to the Enquiry Officer that he should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding, but such request was turned down. One Sri Gopal Mukherjee was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Manager, Golpark Branch was appointed as Presenting Officer, Sri Chakraborty made a representation to the Enquiry Officer that he should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding, but such request was turned down. It is the case of the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty that as he was not a member of the union he did not get assistance from the Union and the Secretary of the Union indicated that he should be represented by a lawyer. It appears that the writ petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court against the refusal to give assistance of a lawyer to Sri Chakraborty in the disciplinary proceeding. Such writ petition was disposed of after a contested hearing by this Court on 19th January, 1987 and the learned Judge directed that the disciplinary proceeding should be completed within three months from the date and it was further directed that he would be entitled to get assistance of any employee of any branch of the Bank as a defence helper. It however, appears that no defence helper appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, but the same was held on a number of days where the witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. It also appears from the records of the disciplinary proceeding that the petitioner had declined to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted a report indicating that at one stage of the disciplinary proceeding the writ petitioner had admitted his complicity in the offence alleged in the charge-sheet. Accepting the Enquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause notice to the delinquent employee asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after considering his representation, the order of dismissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Against such order, a writ petition was moved by the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty and as aforesaid, such writ petition was allowed by the learned trial judge in the manner indicated hereinbefore. Against such order, a writ petition was moved by the writ petitioner Sri Chakraborty and as aforesaid, such writ petition was allowed by the learned trial judge in the manner indicated hereinbefore. It may be noted in this connection that in the appeal, the appellants asked for stay of the operation of the order of the learned trial Judge and the appeal Court did not stay the operation of the order of the learned trial Judge, but only directed that it would be option of the Bank not to utilise the service of the writ petitioner respondent but he should be paid his salary during the pendency of the appeal. Against the said order of the Court of appeal disposing of the application for interim order made by the appellants, a Special leave petition was moved by the Bank and such special leave petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble supreme Court by directing that there should be a stay of operation of the order passed by the learned trial judge, It may be noted that the Supreme Court has indicated in its Judgment disposing of the Special Leave petition that although ordinarily the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Court of Appeal, in the facts of the case the Supreme Court had felt that no salary should be paid to the writ petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. There was a direction by the Hon'ble Supreme court to get the appeal disposed of at an early date and pursuant to such direction, this appeal has been taken out of turn for final disposal. 3. MR. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank has very strenuously contended that a very serious charge was levelled against the delinquent employee to the effect that he being the bank Account by putting 1 (one) on the left side of the factual figures in several months thereby inflating the credit in the Savings Bank Account. By such process, each month the credit lying in the Savings Bank Account sought to be increased by Rs. 1,000/ -. The delinquent employee had also withdrawn Rs, 3,000/- by taking advantage of the inflated amount appearing in the Savings bank Account, although the appellant had actually only Rs.141/- in such Savings Bank Account, Mr. By such process, each month the credit lying in the Savings Bank Account sought to be increased by Rs. 1,000/ -. The delinquent employee had also withdrawn Rs, 3,000/- by taking advantage of the inflated amount appearing in the Savings bank Account, although the appellant had actually only Rs.141/- in such Savings Bank Account, Mr. Gupta has further submitted that when on scrutiny the said fact of interpolation of the Savings Bank Account of the delinquent employee was noticed and it was found that he had withdrawn Rs. 3,000/- more than what was lying in his account the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against his and he was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was issued. He has contended that all reasonable opportunities of being heard were given to the delinquent employee in the said disciplinary proceeding, but the delinquent employee insisted that he should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding. Such prayer was not allowed by the bank administration and the delinquent employee moved a writ petition which after a contested hearing was disposed of by directing that the delinquent employee would be entitled to take assistance of the defence helper from any of the employees of any branch of the Allahabad Bank, but the prayer for assistance of a lawyer was not allowed by this Court. Even thereafter, the delinquent employee made a prayer for being assisted by a lawyer but such prayer was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary proceeding was continued on a number of days when the delinquent employee had participated and had made inspection of the records Mr. Gupta has also submitted that the delinquent employee had clearly admitted the correctness of the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding and such fact was noted by the Enquiry Officer in the report. Along with the second show cause notice, the copy of the report was also served on the delinquent employee, but the delinquent employee had not denied the correctness of the report to the effect that he had admitted the correctness of the charges levelled against him. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissal from service. Mr. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissal from service. Mr. Gupta has contended that if a Bank employee had indulged in forging and fabricating his Savings Bank Account in order to derive an unlawful gain with an intention to cheat the Bank and had successfully cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- by overdrawal, the Bank administration is quite justified in dismissing the delinquent employee because no trust can be imposed on such employee, particularly in a Bank where trust and confidence are essentially necessary. Mr. Gupta has submitted that it is unfortunate that the learned trial Judge has held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionately harsh to the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Mr. Gupta has contended that in the facts of the case, the order of dismissal was only fair and just and in no way disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. He has also submitted that in any event, when in a disciplinary proceeding the charges were brought home it was entirely a matter for the punishing authority to decide what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee and this court in the exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have interfered with the discretion of the disciplinary authority in the matter of imposition of punishment. In support of this contention, Mr. Gupta has referred to a recent decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of mien of India Vs. Paramanand reported in AIR 1989 SC page 1185. In the said case, the Administrative Tribunal interfered with the quantum of punishment by holding that such punishment was disproportionate to the offence alleged against the delinquent employee. The Supreme court has held in the said decision that jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal is the same as that of civil Court or High Court from which pending proceedings had been transferred. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty imposed by the competent authority on the ground that penalty is not commensurate with the delinquency of the employee. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal interfere with the disciplinary matters on punishment cannot be equated with the appellant jurisdiction. If the action is not arbitrary or preserve, the Tribunal cannot interfere. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty imposed by the competent authority on the ground that penalty is not commensurate with the delinquency of the employee. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal interfere with the disciplinary matters on punishment cannot be equated with the appellant jurisdiction. If the action is not arbitrary or preserve, the Tribunal cannot interfere. If the enquiry has been made consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment will meet the ends of justice is a matter of concern for the punishing authority. . If the penalty imposed on the delinquent employee can be lawfully imposed, the Tribunal had no power to substitute the quantum of punishment. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court where the quantum of punishment was interfered with, have also been noted in the said judgment by indicating that the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution might have interfered in appropriate case but such interference either by the Tribunal or by the High Court is not warranted. Mr. Gupta has submitted that when the charges levelled against the delinquent employee have been found to have been proved not only by evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceeding but also on account of admission made by the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceeding itself, the imposition of penalty is not only just and prefer and commensurate with the charges levelled against him but in any event interference by the High Court ma not at all warranted, Mr. Gupta has submitted that the assistance of a lawyer is not a matter of course and/or a matter of right of a delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding. The law is well settled that in an appropriate case when it is found that the nature of allegations deserve that a proper assistance of the lawyer should be given and the delinquent employee is pitted against a trained person with legal background, such assistance may be given to the delinquent employee so that he gets reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, fabrication of his own account is basically a question of fact and the delinquent employee being a clerk in the Bank itself is quite competent to make effective representation in the disciplinary proceedings without assistance of a lawyer. Mr. In the instant case, fabrication of his own account is basically a question of fact and the delinquent employee being a clerk in the Bank itself is quite competent to make effective representation in the disciplinary proceedings without assistance of a lawyer. Mr. Gupta has contended that even if it is assumed for argument's sake that in such disciplinary proceeding, assistance of a lawyer was required for effective representation to be made by the delinquent employee, the delinquent employee is not permitted to agitate such questions when he moved a writ petition before this Court on earlier occasion, inter alia claiming the assistance of a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding but such writ petition was disposed of after a contested hearing disallowing such prayer and it was only directed tat he might avail the service of any employee of any branch of the Bank. After such adjudication in the earlier writ proceeding, the delinquent employee is not permitted to contend that assistance of a lawyer was necessary and for not getting such assistance of the lawyer, he has been prevented to made effective representation, thereby frustrating the disciplinary proceeding itself. Such contention according to Mr. Gupta, is barred by the principles of res judicata and should not be allowed to be agitated in. the instant writ petition. But, unfortunately, the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the import of the decision made in the earlier writ proceeding and has held that denied of assistance of lawyer had occasioned a serious prejudice to the delinquent employee. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that if a reference is made to the order sheet of the disciplinary proceeding it will be quite clear that the delinquent employee had participated in the disciplinary proceeding and had taken inspection of the records. He did not make any representation to the effect that he was prevented from cross-examining any witness. On the contrary, it is revealed from the records of the disciplinary proceeding that the delinquent employee declined to cross-examine when the prosecution witness was tendered for cross-examination. Mr. Gupta has also contended that the delinquent employee had clearly admitted the correctness of the charge levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding and such fact was noted by the Enquiry Officer. The report of the enquiry Officer was made available to him and he did not protest against such recording of his admission. Mr. Gupta has also contended that the delinquent employee had clearly admitted the correctness of the charge levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding and such fact was noted by the Enquiry Officer. The report of the enquiry Officer was made available to him and he did not protest against such recording of his admission. If in such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the enquiry report and has imposed a punishment, no interference the writ court is called for. Mr. Gupta has submitted that in the second writ petition out of which the instant appeal arises, the delinquent employee for the first time contended that the charge-sheet depicted a closed mind and the disciplinary proceeding, therefore, must be held to be bad. Mr. Gupta has contended that in the earlier writ proceeding, the delinquent employee in Ids writ petition did not challenge the legality and validity of the charge-sheet on the ground of alleged bias or on account of closed mind. The only challenge made by the delinquent employee in the earlier writ proceeding was against the refusal to give assistance of a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding. Such earlier writ petition, as aforesaid, was disposed of on a contested hearing by directing that the delinquent employee would not be entitled to get the assistance of a lawyer but would be entitled to get assistance of an employee of any branch of the Bank. When after the disposal of the earlier writ petition, the disciplinary proceeding was resumed and continued, the delinquent employee did not throw any challenge against the validity of the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that the charge-sheet being illegal on account of was, no disciplinary proceeding was permissible in law. On the contrary, the entire disciplinary proceeding was allowed to be concluded and only when the punishment was imposed on him, the second writ petition was initiated and it was contended for the first time that the charge-sheet was defective because the same depicted bias and/or closed mind and as such the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding itself was bad and punishment on such defenctive proceeding was also invalid. Mr. Gupta has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case such contention should not have been entertained by the learned trial judge and such contention was clearly barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. Mr. Gupta has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case such contention should not have been entertained by the learned trial judge and such contention was clearly barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. Moreover, the delinquent employee having clearly admitted the correctness of the charges levelled against him the question of bias, if any, was of no importance. But, unfortunately, the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and had proceeded on the footing that the charge-sheet depicted a closed mind on the part of the disciplinary authority and as such was bad. Mr. Gupta has therefore submitted that the order of the learned trial judge is patently erroneous and should be set aside and the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee should be upheld by the Court of Appeal. In this connection Mr. Gupta has referred to a decision of this Court made in the case of Surendra chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 86 cwn 232 and also a bench decision of this Court in the case of Ananda Prakash Sexena Vs. Union of India, reported in 92 CWN 807. Referring to the said decisions, Mr. Gupta has contended that presumption of bias or closed-mind should not be drawn by considering the charge-sheet only. Other attending circumstances are also required to be taken into consideration and in issuing the charge-sheet the offences alleged must be indicated in a straight forward manner, to avoid ambiguity. At times, such statement may partake the shade of a closed mind but the Court should consider all relevant facts for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether or not the charges-sheet is vitiated on the ground of bias and/or closed mind. Mr. Gupta has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Management of Power's Tea Extate M.K. Barkataki reported in 11 (1965) Factories and Labour Reports, Page 1. In the said decision, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration of the relevant facts held that although the charge-sheet was not happily worded and was likely to create ah impression that the same was issued with closed mind, the charge-sheet not be discharged on consideration of the relevant facts of the case, Mr. In the said decision, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration of the relevant facts held that although the charge-sheet was not happily worded and was likely to create ah impression that the same was issued with closed mind, the charge-sheet not be discharged on consideration of the relevant facts of the case, Mr. Gupta has, therefore, submitted that in the instant case it was necessary to allege in a straight forward manner in order to avoid any ambiguity that the delinquent employee had deliberately withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in order to make an unlawful gain after fabricating his Savings Bank account. In the facts of the case, such statement cannot be held to be an indication of a closed-mind thereby vitiating the charge-sheet itself. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that in the instant case, such question is also not required to be gone into in view of the fact that the delinquent employee did not challenge the validity of the charge-sheet in the earlier proceeding on the ground of bias and allowed the same to be concluded and as such he should not be permitted to challenge the said charge-sheet in the later writ petition more so when he has clearly admitted the correctness of the charges levelled against him, Mr. Gupta has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Judge has occasioned a grave failure of justice and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside by the Court of appeal. 4. MR. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner respondent has, however, contended that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated because the disciplinary Authority had already formed a firm opinion about the complicity of the delinquent employee and the disciplinary proceeding was only initiated for complying with the formality. He has contended by referring to the decisions of this Court made in the case of Sunil Kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1977 CWN 1014 and Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. Bharat Process Mechanical Engineer, reported in 1982 (2) CHN 185 and Surendra Chandra Das VS. He has contended by referring to the decisions of this Court made in the case of Sunil Kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1977 CWN 1014 and Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. Bharat Process Mechanical Engineer, reported in 1982 (2) CHN 185 and Surendra Chandra Das VS. State of West Bengal, reported, in 86 CWN 232 that the language used in the instant charge-sheet is harsher than the languages taken into consideration by the Court in the said decisions wherein it was held that the charge-sheet was defective because it deleted a closed mind and bias and was therefore illegal and invalid. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that in the earlier writ proceeding the question for consideration was limited to the assistance of a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding and other question namely the validity of the charge-sheet was not raised. As such, the principles of res judicata is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has also contended that the delinquent employee has little education and he was not capable of effectively representing in the disciplinary proceeding con ducted in English. As he was not a member of the Union, he was deprived of the service of the defence helper by any of the employees of the Bank and therefore has suffered a serious prejudice. Mr. Bhattacharya has also submitted that the delinquent employee could not appreciate that the Enquiry Officer had noted his alleged admission of the correctness of the charges levelled against him. He has submitted that being placed in an unfortunate circumstances the delinquent employee has suffered a serious prejudice and for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 3000/- on a mistaken belief that such amount had been lying in the Savings Bank account, the extreme punishment of dismissal was not warranted and in an appropriate case where such punishment is shocking to the conscience of the Court, an interference by the writ court is permissible. Mr. Bhattacharya has further contended that the disciplinary proceeding was not con ducted in a proper manner and no list of witnesses or list of documents was supplied to the delinquent employee before the enquiry was started. Mr. Bhattacharya has further contended that the disciplinary proceeding was not con ducted in a proper manner and no list of witnesses or list of documents was supplied to the delinquent employee before the enquiry was started. For not supplying such list of documents or list of witnesses the delinquent employee has suffered serious prejudice and being handicapped in all respects, he could hot make effective representation and the disciplinary proceeding was concluded in an arbitrary manner. When the disciplinary proceeding has not been properly conducted and the principles of natural justice have been violated, the writ court is well within its right to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and also with the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that although the assistance of a lawyer was not permitted by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding but in the changed circumstances when the delinquent employee failed to obtain any assistance from any employee of the Bank, such assistance of a lawyer was a matter of utmost necessity and the learned trial judge was, therefore, justified in taking into consideration about the failure of reasonable opportunity to defend because of not getting assistance of a lawyer in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that the learned trial judge upon consideration of the relevant facts in details has clearly come to the finding that the disciplinary proceeding had not been properly conducted and the disciplinary authority had already framed its mind about the complicity of the delinquent employee and initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and conduction of the same were nothing but empty formality. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment was passed by the learned trial judge and interference by the Court of appeal should not be made. After taking into consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circum circumstances of the case, it appears to us that when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent employee by issuing the charge-sheet, his prayer to get assistance of a lawyer in the disciplinary proceeding was not allowed. The delinquent employee at that stage moved a writ petition before this Court. The delinquent employee at that stage moved a writ petition before this Court. But he did not challenge the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding with a closed mind and it appears that he also did not allege that there was any bias on the part of the disciplinary authority which could be demonstrated by the charge-sheet itself. It was quite open to him to challenge the validity of the disciplinary proceeding on account of defective charge-sheet if the delinquent employee had intended to challenge the same. But he only confined the challenge to the refusal of the assistance of a lawyer, such writ petition was disposed of on a contested hearing by directing that no assistance of a lawyer need be given in the facts of the case. The delinquent employee thereafter allowed the entire disciplinary proceeding to be concluded and it was only when punishment was imposed on him, in the second- writ petition for the first time he alleged that the disciplinary proceeding was bad because the same was initiated with a defective charge-sheet depicting bias and closed mind. In our view, Mr. Gupta is justified in contending in the facts and circumstances of the case that such challenge should not be permitted to be made at a later stage when the petitioner was quite competent to challenge the validity of the charge-sheet and consequential initiation of disciplinary proceeding upon such charge-sheet in the earlier wit proceeding. Such challenge, in our view, is clearly barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. It appears from the enquiry report that the delinquent employee had admitted the charge levelled against him. The Enquiry Report was admittedly supplied to him before the order of punishment was finally passed. It was never stated by the delinquent employee that he had not admitted the correctness of the charges levelled against him. The contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delinquent employee not being properly literate could not appreciate the report of the alleged admission as contained in the enquiry report cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delinquent employee not being properly literate could not appreciate the report of the alleged admission as contained in the enquiry report cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be noted in this connection that if any fabrication of the Savings bank account was made, such fabrication was made only to ensure to the benefit of the delinquent employee and in such circumstances there should be a presumption against the delinquent employee about his complicity in this matter of fabrication of the account. That apart, the department has also examined witnesses who have also indicated that such fabrication was made contrary to the actual state of affairs. If on such facts and circumstances, and also in view of the aforesaid admission of the delinquent employee the correctness of the charge levelled against him is accepted by the punishing authority, we do not find any reason to hold that such finding is perverse for which interference by the writ court is called for. It appears from the enquiry report and the records of the disciplinary proceeding that all reasonable opportunities to be heard were given to the delinquent employee and he had also inspected the re cords. It, therefore, does not appear to us that the principles of natural justice were infringed and there was violation of any rule governing such disciplinary proceeding. No allegation has also been made by the writ petitioner that departmental rules relating to disciplinary proceeding were not followed. In our view, Mr. Gupta is justified in his contention that if a disciplinary proceeding has been lawfully concluded and punishment which has one imposed on the delinquent employeed can also be imposed on account of the charges levelled against the delinquent employee, the writ court cannot substitute the quantum of punishment in its discretion. Such discretion, in our view, must be left to the disciplinary authority. It may also be indicated herein that if an employee of the Bank is found to have manipulated his savings Bank account in order to defraud the Bank and has in fact defrauded the Bank to the extent of rs. 3000/-, it cannot be held that the Bank will be unjustified in losing confidence on such employee and imposition of punishment of dismissal is wholly unjustified. 3000/-, it cannot be held that the Bank will be unjustified in losing confidence on such employee and imposition of punishment of dismissal is wholly unjustified. We are therefore not inclined to hold that imposition of the said penalty in any event, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned trial judge and uphold the penalty imposed on the delinquent employee. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.