Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners dismissal is on the ground that he had embezzled a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- and odd. 3. It is submitted before me that a sympathetic view in the matter may be taken because the petitioner not only confessed his guilt but also deposited the embezzled amount along with interest. 4. In my view the jurisdiction of this court in such matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited. If it is shown that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, this court may interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction, because the action of the bank may be characterised as arbitrary and thereby violar. ive of the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, is a question of fact and has to be viewed in each case having regard to the special leatures of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to have defalcated a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- and odd by manipulating the account, inasmuch as he is said to have deposited the amount in three different accounts belonging to his relatives namely, mother, brother and landlord. The employment in a bank is a matter of trust and to view defalcation of funds by a bank employee lightly may result in serious consequences. Obviously such acts result in loss of fatith particularly where the performance of duty involves faith in the employee concerned, and honesty and integrity is an essential requirement. A person who is found to have defalcated a huge amount cannot be imposed upon the bank, on any consideration of sympathy for the employee concerned or his family members. 5. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.