C. SHIVAPPA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is a nationalised bank having one of itsregional offices at bangalore. The first respondent was workingas a cash-cum-accounts clerk in the koppal branch of thepetitioner-bank. He was dismissed from service vide order dated31-3-1990 for serious acts of misconduct committed by him in thecourse of his duties as a cashier. The first respondent thereafterraised an industrial dispute regarding his dismissal from serviceand a reference was made on 28-10-1991 for adjudication torespondent no. 2. The second respondent sot aside the dismissalof the first respondent and directed reinstatement withcontinuity of service and with backwages but denied two futureincrements with cumulative effect. Further directed thepetitioner not to take into account the period of absence of thefirst respondent from duty from the date he was placed undersuspension till his reinstatement for the purpose of earningincrement. ( 2 ) THE first respondent joined the petitioner-bank on 30-10-1980 as subordinate staff and he was promoted ascashier-cum-accounts clerk on 15-10-1984. It is reported thatbetween april 1989 to july 1989 he received several remittancesfrom various customers on several dates in the capacity as acashier but did not remit it to the bank and made fictitious debitand credit entries in their accounts. As these facts constitutedserious acts of misconduct he was kept under suspension on4-10-1989 and charge-sheet was issued on 15-10-1990 by theregional manager, who is the disciplinary authority. Thereaftera domestic enquiry was held and the first respondentparticipated in the enquiry and took the assistance of the unionrepresentative as his defence representative. In the course ofenquiry, the first respondent voluntarily admitted All thecharges levelled against him and also admitted the documentsproduced by the management but did not choose to adduce anyevidence. On the basis of the material on record, the enquiryofficer gave his findings holding the first respondent guilty ofthe charges and imposed the punishment of dismissal fromservice. ( 3 ) THE learned judge in his order has assigned three reasonswhich are as follows:" (1) that the amount misappropriated by the respondenthas been paid back to the customer and it is the amount ofthe customer and not of the bank; (2) that the respondent belongs to schedule tribe; and (3) that the first respondent ought to have been given anopportunity to reform himself and to prove his loyalty tothe bank and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court inscooter India ltd. , lucknow v labour court, lucknow. , lucknow v labour court, lucknow. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether thereasons assigned by the tribunal are proper or calls forinterference? ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in the east India hotels v theirworkmen and others, has held as follows:"when a proper enquiry has been held by an employer andthe finding of misconduct has support from the evidenceadduced at the said enquiry, the tribunal has nojurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer asan appellate body. The interference with the decision of theemployer will be justified only when the enquiry is unfairor the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse orhave no basis in evidence or the management is guilty ofvictimisation, unfair labour or mala fide or the punishmentis harsh and oppressive. The tribunal cannot, reappraisethe evidence and arrive at a conclusion different from thatarrived at by the domestic tribunal. even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or ifthe enquiry held by him is found to be defective, thetribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality andvalidity of the order, has to give an opportunity to theemployer and employee to adduce evidence for the firsttime justifying his action. Once misconduct is proved,either in the enquiry conducted by the employer or by theevidence placed before the tribunal the punishmentimposed cannot be interfered with by the tribunal exceptin cases where the punishment is harsh and oppressive. " ( 6 ) THE bank is the custodian of the money of the customers andcashier is a person who deals with the money and he must be morediligent and honest and justify the trust reposed on him by thebank and by the customers. If once the customers lose theconfidence in the dealings, the entire organisation suffers andconfidence of the customers is the basis on which the entire edifice ofthe banking system is built. The learned judge has assigned thereason that the money misappropriated by the first respondenthas been paid back to the customer and it is the amount of thecustomer and not of the bank. The learned judge has lost sight ofthe principle that the intentional temporary retention of themoney which does not belong to a person is also amisappropriation. Mere repayment will not absolve the liability or themisconduct committed by the first respondent. The learned judge has lost sight ofthe principle that the intentional temporary retention of themoney which does not belong to a person is also amisappropriation. Mere repayment will not absolve the liability or themisconduct committed by the first respondent. When once the money isput to bank by the customer, the bank owes a duty to repay andthe reasoning that it is the money of the customer and not of thebank is a perverse reasoning. The second reason that the firstrespondent belong to scheduled caste normally is not the relevantcriteria to weigh while considering the cause. Caste should not bethe ground while appreciating the facts and law in a given case. the second reasoning also does not merit any consideration. Thethird reasoning that he ought to have been given an opportunityto reform himself, of course, may be on humanitarian grounds. Butthis aspect depends upon facts of each case. The learned judge hasrelied on a decision of the Supreme Court in scooter India limited,lucknow v labour court, lucknow and others. That was a casewhere the workman indulged in distribution or exhibition ofoffensive hand bills, pamphlets, etc. , inside the factory premises. Insuch a circumstance, the labour court took the view that justicemust be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman shouldbe given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be loyal anddisciplined employee. The facts of that case cannot be equated andapplied to the instant case. Here, it is the misuse of office orbetrayal of the trust shaking the very confidence reposed by thecustomer in a banking system. It is settled law that when once theconfidence is reduced, or a responsible post is misused or asensitive or a strategic position is abused, the court should not lightlyconsider the same and grant the relief. To reinforce confidence inthe mind of the customers stringent punishment is essential andtherefore the case relied on by the learned judge has noapplication and the reasonings of the learned judge are perverse. ( 7 ) SRI subba rao, learned counsel for the first respondentpleaded that having regard to the strata to which the firstrespondent belongs, he should be given an opportunity to servethe petitioner-bank with All sincerity. ( 8 ) SETTING aside the dismissal of the first respondent andreinstating him may demoralise the petitioner-organisation andbreed indiscipline. This is not a case where certain trivialmisconduct is committed. ( 8 ) SETTING aside the dismissal of the first respondent andreinstating him may demoralise the petitioner-organisation andbreed indiscipline. This is not a case where certain trivialmisconduct is committed. His intention is exhibited by falseentries and the act of misappropriation has been proved byoverwhelming evidence and admissions. The interest of anindividual cannot override or be compromised when it is aquestion of maintaining discipline in a banking organisation. therefore, I pass the following order:" (I) the award passed by the second respondent impugnedin this writ petition is set aside. (ii) the order of dismissal is confirmed; and (iii) the rule is made absolute. (iv) parties to bear their own costs. " --- *** --- .