SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Petition assails an order of termination from service dated 23. 7. 1994 passed against the present petitioner who was at the relevant time an employee of the 3rd respondent Society (hereinafter referred to as 'hopcoms' ). The respondents allege that it was necessary to place the petitioner under suspension which they did on 21. 5. 1993 on the ground that he had committed certain acts of misconduct. The allegation against the petitioner as far as this case is concerned relates to incidents that took place in the month of May 1993 and it is alleged that on 17. 5. 1993, the petitioner who was working as Manager of the Mysore Branch informed the godown Keeper that the Managing Director had telephoned him to purchase mangoes from one m. R. Gopal and pay Rs. 80,000/- as advance. The petitioner is alleged to have induced the godown Keeper to prepare a purchase bill without receiving the actual goods, which the godown Keeper did not agree to do. It is further alleged that on similar representations he had induced the Godown assistant to prepare a purchase bill No. 1088 showing the supply of mangoes at a total cost of Rs. 80,000/- without mentioning the rate of the mangoes. The allegation was that this stock of mangoes had not been physically received at the godown. It is alleged that at his insistence, the godown assistant made certain entries in the Stock Register indicating as though the stock had been received whereas in fact the consignment of mangoes had not been received. The further allegation is that on the same date the petitioner instructed the cashier to prepare a cheque for Rs. 80,000/- in favour of M. R. Gopal in respect of this consignment of mangoes, though the goods had not been received by HOPCOMS and it is alleged that the petitioner got the cheque issued on the representation that he was acting on the telephonic instructions from the Managing Director. The HOPCOMS relies on the fact that no gate pass had been made out evidencing the receipt of the consignment and it is alleged that even when the Godown assistant and the cashier asked for the same that the petitioner stated that it could be subsequently prepared and attached to the bill. According to the HOPCOMS, on 21. 5. The HOPCOMS relies on the fact that no gate pass had been made out evidencing the receipt of the consignment and it is alleged that even when the Godown assistant and the cashier asked for the same that the petitioner stated that it could be subsequently prepared and attached to the bill. According to the HOPCOMS, on 21. 5. 1993 the petitioner attempted to have got the Godown Keeper and one Hanumanthaiah who is a staff member to prepare supply bills in respect of the non existent consignment of mangoes as though the same were being issued from the godown. The two persons refused to do this. ( 2 ) THE explanation put forward by the petitioner as far as this head of charges are concerned, requires to be set out by me because it is of some consequence. According to him, one of his job functions was that he was required to purchase large consignments of mangoes for the hopcoms from the market and he contends that the purchase of the consignments of mangoes was done by him at the request of the HOPCOMS from the said Gopal who was one of the agriculturists who normally supplied mangoes. According to the petitioner after he had placed the order with Gopal and the consignment was virtually at the premises of the HOPCOMS that the transaction in question had been informed to the head office at Bangalore by one of the staff members who was asked to do the necessary documentation and the Managing Director who was ill-disposed towards the petitioner informed him on the telephone that the HOPCOMS does not want that consignment of fruit. The petitioner states that it was a huge quantity of mangoes, that the consignment had physically reached the premises of the HOPCOMS and that there was no means of revoking the order at this stage which was why he instructed the cashier to make out the cheque for Rs. 80,000/- against the payment. According to him since the head of the hopcoms had very clearly said that they do not want the mangoes, there was no option except to have them disposed of straight away and he therefore contacted another customer by the name of Ashraf and that person agreed to take the whole of the consignment which he in fact did. According to him since the head of the hopcoms had very clearly said that they do not want the mangoes, there was no option except to have them disposed of straight away and he therefore contacted another customer by the name of Ashraf and that person agreed to take the whole of the consignment which he in fact did. The petitioner states that the buyer has paid for the entire consignment of mangoes which were taken by him and that the amount has been received by the HOPCOMS and, strangely enough that the amount received from Ashraf is almost Rs. 20,000/- more than the amount paid by the hopcoms for the consignment. He therefore submits that there is no irregularity of any type committed by him and that on the contrary, despite the fact that he was required to take hasty corrective action that the HOPCOMS has in fact benefited in so far as they have made a profit of rs. 20,000/- on the transaction. The petitioner's whole case is that there has been some personal animosity between him and some of the officials in the HOPCOMS and that there has been a background of various disputes and litigations right from the year 1973 onwards and it is his contention that the person who was at that time the Managing Director of the HOPCOMS was ill-disposed towards the petitioner and was virtually looking out for opportunities to harass him and it was for this reason that he issued instructions to cancel the consignment, hoping that the petitioner would be put into serious difficulties. The petitioner contends that he was able to save the situation, thanks to the corrective action taken by him but despite this, on the alleged ground of procedural irregularities the Managing Director personally directed that the petitioner should be straight away suspended and that this suspension was followed by a Disciplinary Enquiry. In sum and substance the petitioner alleges personal and legal mala fides against the respondents. He contends that he was framed and it is his case therefore that he is absolutely innocent and that the action taken against him is totally unjustified. ( 3 ) THE respondents have seriously questioned the maintainability of this Petition and the learned counsel who represents them has submitted that the law is now well settled that a Writ would not lie against a Co-operative Society. ( 3 ) THE respondents have seriously questioned the maintainability of this Petition and the learned counsel who represents them has submitted that the law is now well settled that a Writ would not lie against a Co-operative Society. They contend that on this ground alone the petitioner is liable to be non-suited and they further pointed out that in respect of an earlier service dispute, wherein disciplinary action was taken against the present petitioner that he approached the registrar and that in keeping with what had happened in that case, the petitioner is liable to be directed, if he so desires, to approach the Co-operative Court. In this regard, apart from several other Decisions it is pointed out to me, that my Brother Rajendra Babu, J, has recently in a more or less similar situation taken the view that where a clear alternate remedy is provided for, that the Writ Jurisdiction is barred. As far as this head is concerned, the two learned Advocates have argued the matter at considerable length and the respondents' learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a series of Decisions both of the Supreme Court and of this Court in support of his contention that this Petition is not maintainable. Apart from the Decision of Rajendra Babu, J in w. P. No. 4878/95, my attention was drawn to the following Decisions: ILR1992 KAR 2980 , 1992 (4 )Karlj631 , Secretary. Karnataka industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, wherein this Court had occasion to enunciate the various tests that would be applicable in a situation of this type, the most important of them being the structure of the Society, the fact that it has no public functions, that it has only a few Government nominees, that it is a trading Society like all other Societies and that its profits are generated out of its business. Reliance was also placed on SLR 1984 (2), KLJ 647 M. N. Siddeswariah v. Managing Director, Bangalore District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Bangalore, wherein this Court had taken the view that a Co-operative Bank cannot come within the definition of "state" as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution. Reliance was also placed on the Decision reported in 1975 (2) KLJ 203, M. C. Nagappa v. Karnataka Film Industry development Corporation and Anr. Reliance was also placed on the Decision reported in 1975 (2) KLJ 203, M. C. Nagappa v. Karnataka Film Industry development Corporation and Anr. , wherein this Court clarified that merely because the managing Committee or Board consisted of certain Government Nominees, that this was not the only test for the purpose of testing the status of a Society. In another Decision reported in 1981 (2) KLJ 533, Khoday Brewing Distilling Industries Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , this Court had occasion to examine a different situation where the Government was a minority or a nominal shareholder and still held that the body did not qualify for being categorised as a "state". Learned Counsel also relied on a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 (2) klj 314, Gurupadappa v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. and in particular para 5 of that Judgment, wherein it has been very clearly laid down that a Writ would not lie against a Co-operative Society. Lastly the learned Counsel drew my attention to a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR1992 SC 76 , JT1991 (4 )SC 233 , (1992 )I LLJ331 SC , 1991 (2 )SCALE773 , (1991 )4 SCC578 , [1991 ]supp1 SCR165 , 1992 (1 )SLJ17 (SC ), 1991 (2 )UJ747 (SC ), (1992 )1 UPLBEC18 , Chander Mohan Khanna v. National council of Educational Research and Training and Ors. , wherein the Supreme Court had occasion, while dealing with a matter concerning the National Council of Educational Research and training, to observe that Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression "state". Effectively the Supreme Court laid down that it must be demonstrated that a deep and pervasive control over the working and management must be exercised by the State before the body could be categorised as coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Effectively the Supreme Court laid down that it must be demonstrated that a deep and pervasive control over the working and management must be exercised by the State before the body could be categorised as coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE respondents' learned Counsel submitted that the respondent-3 is registered as a co-operative Society, that there is no dispute about the fact that it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Courts as the petitioner himself has agitated an earlier service dispute before such a Court, and that in this background, this Court must refuse to exercise jurisdiction in so far as a Writ would not lie. ( 5 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate has vehemently countered the submissions because it is his contention that the test is not with regard to the nomenclature in so far as in a given instance the body may even be registered as a Co-operative Society or as a limited Company. He has drawn my attention to the Bye-laws and particularly clause 38 thereof. He points out that the Joint registrar is a member of the Managing Committee and that as far as the constitution of the board is concerned, that all the persons shown therein are virtually Government Officials. Learned Advocate further illustrates to me that all these persons are functioning on the Board of management in their ex-officio capacity and that consequently, even applying the last of the tests applied by the Supreme Court that there is a deep and pervasive control of the state as far as respondent-3 is concerned. The petitioner's learned Advocate has pointed out the factual position relating to the financial structure, the management and the business in the form of a written statement which for purposes of brevity, I am reproducing below, wherein as many as 19 grounds have been set out in support of the contention that the Writ is maintainable and that respondent-3 will have to be held to be "state" within the. meaning of Article 12 of the constitution: " 1. The Managing Director of the Society is a State Employee of the rank of Joint Director of horticulture. 2. Out of 18 Directors of the Society, 7 are State Nominees. 3. The business of the Society is brought directly under Supervision of the Department of horticulture. 4. Out of share capital of Rs. 227. The Managing Director of the Society is a State Employee of the rank of Joint Director of horticulture. 2. Out of 18 Directors of the Society, 7 are State Nominees. 3. The business of the Society is brought directly under Supervision of the Department of horticulture. 4. Out of share capital of Rs. 227. 93 lakhs of the Society's, the State share capital is Rs. 221. 00 lakhs. e. , 96%. 5. The Society has received Rs. 28. 18 lakhs financial assistance in the form of subsidiary from national Horticulture Board (N. H. B.) which body is directly under the control of the Central government. The National Co-operative Development Corporation which is a body under direct control of the Central Government has financed of Rs. 448. 00 lakhs for the development of the projects works through State Government and in assistance the State Government stood as a guarantor. The National Co-operative Development Corporation has been requested to finance through the State Government by the Society to seek financial package of Rs. 1280. 986 lakhs for development activities under IV project of N. C. D. C. The National Co-operative Development Corporation has been requested to finance through the State Government by the Society to seek financial package of Rs. 1471. 94 lakhs for development activities. The Bangalore Zilla Parishat paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Society for the purpose of construction of procurement centre. The Kolar Zilla Parishat paid Rs. 6. 25 lakhs for constitution of retail outlets in the Township of Kolar. The Mysore Zilla Parishat has financed Rs. 4. 27 lakhs for purchase of vehicles and free distribution of seeds to the farmers. The Bangalore City Corporation has paid Rs. 1. 60 lakhs for construction of retail outlets. Integrated Co-operative Development Project which is a State Institution has financed Rs. 4,00,000/- for purchase of plastic trays and weighing machines. The Society is supplying fruits and vegetables to various State owned Hospitals, Hostels, factories etc. , as per Government directions. The Society is rendering yeoman service to the public by selling fruits and vegetables through its retail outlets all over the State at a reasonable price. The Society is engaged in selling controlled articles such as fertilisers and chemicals to the farmers at the controlled price. The Society is procuring fruits and vegetables from the growers by opening procurement centre at selected points all over the State. The Society is engaged in selling controlled articles such as fertilisers and chemicals to the farmers at the controlled price. The Society is procuring fruits and vegetables from the growers by opening procurement centre at selected points all over the State. a) The Society has been importing GEBRALIC Acid from France for the purpose of horticultural growers. b) The Society has been importing Secateurs from Italy for the purpose of Horticultural growers. c) The Society has imported Juice Vending dispensions from BRASS International, from Italy. The State Government has handed over all the Cold Storage Plants to the control of the society for utilisation of the growers and for which annually the State Government is paying Rs. 75 to 90 lakhs for maintenance The few of the illustrations narrated above indicates deep pervasive control on the affairs of the Society by the State Government and also further indicates the combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and which Society is rendering an important public service. " ( 6 ) THERE is one other aspect of the matter which is of some consequence namely the fact that on an earlier occasion a dispute had arisen between the present petitioner and the then Managing director with regard to the question of whether the Managing Director was rightly continuing in office. That Writ Petition was decided by this Court and was thereafter carried in Appeal and came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court. On that occasion, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution had been filed by the present petitioner and at no stage was the contention taken up or agitated that the respondents does not come "within the ambit of article 12 of the Constitution. On that occasion, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution had been filed by the present petitioner and at no stage was the contention taken up or agitated that the respondents does not come "within the ambit of article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner's learned Advocate has produced before me a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench and he submits that it is unnecessary for this Court to go into any lengthy debate with regard to whether the petition is maintainable or not on the ground of Article 12 because after this has occurred, the respondents have submitted themselves to the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court on earlier occasions and furthermore that they are estopped from canvassing this point at the Bar in so far as this "was never done when the earlier Writ Petition and Appeal were decided. ( 7 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, this last argument is a very cogent and convincing one, but it is not an absolute bar to the respondent-3 raising the point of jurisdiction in so far as even if for any reason the writ Jurisdiction of this Court was submitted to on an earlier occasion if the respondent-3 is justified in law in questioning it, he would not be precluded from doing so. I however do not need to labour much on this aspect of the matter for the reason that quite apart from the fact that this Court has recently exercised jurisdiction, that a perusal of both the factual and legal position would very clearly and unequivocally indicate that regardless of the respondent-3 having been registered as a Co-operative Society, that it is almost completely financed out of State funds, that its functions are virtually that which would normally be performed by a State body and more importantly that it is virtually managed and controlled by the State through its officers. In this background, even if the various tests that the Courts have applied over a period of time were to be taken into consideration, it is impossible to hold that the respondent-3 does not qualify to be categorised as "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In this background, even if the various tests that the Courts have applied over a period of time were to be taken into consideration, it is impossible to hold that the respondent-3 does not qualify to be categorised as "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Over the years, the courts have interpreted Article 12 and ever since the Decision in AJAY HASSIA's CASE, AIR1981 SC 487 , (1981 )I LLJ103 SC , (1981 )1 SCC722 , [1981 ]2 scr79 , 1981 (2 )SLJ651 (SC ) even the Supreme Court has liberally construed Article 12 while dealing with State and instrumentality of State bearing in mind the fact that in cases of grave injustice that a Writ Petition is the only speedy and efficacious remedy available to an aggrieved party. On strict technicalities there may be occasions where other parallel remedies are available but the question is as to whether they are expeditious and equally efficacious and if the answer is 'no' and if the Writ is otherwise maintainable a High Court will not drive a litigant to that remedy. It is in this background that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability is required to ,be overruled and the matter will have to be decided on merits. On the question of alternate remedy the petitioner's learned Advocate relied on a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR1974 SC 2343 , (1975 )1 SCC401 , [1975 ]2 SCR570 , 1974 (6 )UJ745 (SC ), Dilip Kumar Gon v. Durga Prasad Singh as also a subsequent Decision reported in (1980 )3 SCC599 , [1980 ]3 SCR746 , State Bank of haryana and Ors v. Jage Ram and Ors. in support of his plea that this is not a situation in which the petitioner can be forced to approach the Co-operative Court if he can demonstrate that in law he has a right to approach the High Court. In the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to labour on this point because I have already held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. In the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to labour on this point because I have already held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. ( 8 ) AS far as the merits of the case are concerned the record of this proceeding is rather voluminous and at this stage itself I would like to compliment both the learned Advocates, who have represented the two sides for their industry, research and meticulousness with which they have dealt with the record as also the various factual and legal aspects of the case as a result of which it has become considerably easy for me to summarise the position and record the Decision of this Court without having to wade laboriously through a large number of documents and records. The respondents have very fairly produced before me the entire record of this case including the entire enquiry proceedings. Whereas it is the petitioner's grievance that the issuance of the charge sheet itself was unjustified, that it is motivated by malice and that the whole object was to place him under suspension and throw him out of the organisation. He has submitted that even the manner in which the enquiry was conducted was manifestly unfair. The grounds on which this last aspect of the matter has been urged were carefully examined by me because as far as Service Law is concerned a serious breach of procedure would amount to an infringement of the Rules of Natural Justice. The petitioner, as I find has been taking up a very contentious attitude and it was pointed out by his learned Advocate at one point of time that the enquiry was hurried through despite the fact that the petitioner and his representative were not available. As far as the various grievances put forward on behalf. of the petitioner was concerned, I have examined each of them very carefully but I am not satisfied that any of these are sufficient to either vitiate the conduct of the enquiry or call it into question. On the other hand I need to record that perhaps because of the earlier background or the hostile atmosphere that prevailed in the organisation that the petitioner was also adopting an unduly aggressive posture at all stages as is reflected both in the correspondence and in his conduct. On the other hand I need to record that perhaps because of the earlier background or the hostile atmosphere that prevailed in the organisation that the petitioner was also adopting an unduly aggressive posture at all stages as is reflected both in the correspondence and in his conduct. This coupled with the various disputes and litigations, had aggravated the situation on both sides, and it is from this point of view therefore that I was required to examine the record very carefully which I have done for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether in the process the respondents might have overstepped their limits or whether they have infringed upon the parameters of fairness to which the petitioner is entitled. The facts of the case are relatively simple. The charges are quite uncomplicated but unfortunately as the record will indicate, because of the hostility and attitudes for which I would hold both the sides responsible the enquiry proceedings are virtually voluminous with all sorts of extraneous issues having been adverted to. However it would not be possible for this Court to uphold the contention of the petitioner's learned Advocate that the enquiry is vitiated because I do find that the various witnesses have been examined, documents have been produced and the enquiry officer has recorded that, in his opinion the charges against the petitioner stand proved. ( 9 ) AS far as the merits of the case are concerned, I do not propose to make any elaborate observations, but the petitioner's learned Advocate submitted that this is not a case in which any misconduct can even be alleged assuming all the facts that have been marshalled against the petitioner are accepted. He supports this submission of his by pointing out that in the present instance there is no allegation of dishonesty against the petitioner in so far as despite the procedural breaches that are attributed to him, there is no allegation that he has tried to either misappropriate the funds of HOPCOMS or for that matter that he has made any wrongful gains for himself. In this background it is contended that because of the personal animosity, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner had strongly fought back the instances of injustice that had been meted out to him earlier and the fact that the then Managing Director had a strong bias against the petitioner, it is alleged that whatever happened has been exaggerated and blown out of proportion. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel who appears on behalf of respondent-3 has argued at considerable length and on the basis of the various statements, documents and circumstances on record he has pointed out that there was a very large sum of money involved in the present transaction viz. , a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and he further submits that the attempt was to falsify the records and furthermore that the position had been misrepresented to the other employees in so far as they had been told that the petitioner was acting under the oral instructions of the Managing Director. Learned Counsel submits that in the process the other subordinate employees of the branch at mysore were asked to do such things as preparation of a cheque for Rs. 80,000/-, entries in the stock Ledger etc. all of which could have seriously endangered their continuation in service and that therefore, this matter assumes extreme seriousness. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner held a responsible post namely that of Branch Manager at Mysore and that in-this capacity, he was expected to discharge his functions with a high degree of honesty, integrity and responsibility and that this discloses that he was instrumental in making payment for a consignment of fruits that had never been received and that therefore this is a case which borders on criminality. The other aspect of the matter that the learned Counsel stressed on was that this is a case in which the Court inust read between the lines insofar as it was very clear that the petitioner was acting in collusion with one of the customers and trying to virtually give him a large advance of Rs. 80,000/ -. Learned Counsel submitted that as is well-known there are several malpractices that are indulged in by traders and that the object was to misuse the funds of the hopcoms, and that it would be impossible to conclude that this was done for honest motives. 80,000/ -. Learned Counsel submitted that as is well-known there are several malpractices that are indulged in by traders and that the object was to misuse the funds of the hopcoms, and that it would be impossible to conclude that this was done for honest motives. Also, what is submitted is that the so-called defence namely that the consignment was sold to ashraf and that the amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- was recovered from him, is according to the learned counsel, an absolute cover up in an attempt to get out of a situation where the petitioner would have otherwise straight away been liable for prosecution on grounds of misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust. In sum and substance the arguments proceeded on the footing that the charges have been proved, that they are of utmost seriousness and that therefore, the termination from service of the petitioner is more than fully justified. ( 11 ) I have already dealt with the submissions canvassed by the petitioner's learned Advocate and as far as the merits of the case are concerned this Court will necessarily have to adjudicate on them for the reason that the petitioner has challenged the order of termination of service through the present Petition. Whereas his first contention is that the order of suspension itself is unjustified, he has further submitted that the subsequent order terminating his service on the ground of his misconduct is also liable to be quashed. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, I need to observe that the respondent-3 while passing orders in this case appears to have gone a bit too far. The reason for this is that the petitioner was admittedly posted as the branch Manager at Mysore and it was well within his functions to purchase the fruit on behalf of hopcoms in bulk. There is no allegation to the effect fact that he had no authority to do so. The charge against him is that the payment of Rs. 80,000/- was made without the stocks having been received and the HOPCOMS relies heavily on the fact that there is no gate pass and that there are no documents in support of the fact that the consignment of mangoes had in fact been delivered. Reliance is also placed on the oral evidence in support of this plea. 80,000/- was made without the stocks having been received and the HOPCOMS relies heavily on the fact that there is no gate pass and that there are no documents in support of the fact that the consignment of mangoes had in fact been delivered. Reliance is also placed on the oral evidence in support of this plea. One needs to however take cognizance of a different aspect of the matter which the HOPCOMS seems to have completely overlooked. The petitioner is alleged to have exceeded his authority or he is alleged to have breached the procedural requirements in so far as a payment of Rs. 80,000/- was made without the consignment having been physically received by the HOPCOMS. This to my mind is a grave error for the simple reason that the HOPCOMS is right in stating that there are no records to indicate that the mangoes in fact came to the godown. The petitioner's case is that because the Managing Director refused the consignment and that he had to immediately dispose it off in order to avoid loss and this explains the reason why such entries are lacking in the record. I need to observe here that there can be little dispute about the fact that the petitioner had entered into some transaction with the customer Gopal pursuant to which the payment of Rs. 80,000/- was made. The evidence on record seems to suggest however that all this/look place without the consignment having been in fact received and in doing this the petitioner is said to have committed some procedural faults. As far as the petitioner is concerned he has demonstrated that the consignment was immediately disposed of to another customer of the hopcoms and this is evident from the fact that the other customer Ashraf has in fact paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- against that consignment. Petitioner's learned Advocate has relied on the affidavit filed by Gopal wherein he has stated that he had in fact supplied the consignment which was immediately sold to Ashraf because the HOPCOMS did not want it. This is a case in which the transaction was virtually aborted and that is the obvious reason for the lack of necessary gate pass, the various entries in the records and that is the main ground on which the petitioner has been charge sheeted. This is a case in which the transaction was virtually aborted and that is the obvious reason for the lack of necessary gate pass, the various entries in the records and that is the main ground on which the petitioner has been charge sheeted. I do not share the view that the transaction is of such seriousness and such gravity as has been made out by the respondents as to warrant the type of action that was taken against the petitioner. I have perused the record of the enquiry and the findings that have been recorded against the petitioner. I have also taken cognizance of the fact that for all intents purposes the HOPCOMS was working in the same manner in which a government Department works whereby, there are several paper requirements that must be complied with. If these are bypassed it is undoubtedly a breach on the part of the employee and in a case where a large amount of money is involved it does open an employee to disciplinary action for the simple reason that the organisation is exposed to a grave risk. If one were to view the case from this angle there can be no dispute about the fact that even though the charges framed against the petitioner were highly technical that one cannot conclude that they were wholly and completely devoid of substance. There is a good deal of merit in the submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Advocate that it is the background that the previous hostility that has seriously aggravated the matter and I would also agree that the petitioner's aggressive and contentious attitude virtually invited the action against him. ( 12 ) IN the light of the aforesaid findings, to my mind, all that can be held against the petitioner is that there was a certain technical breach of procedure in respect of the transactions that were put through by him in May 1993. No loss has occurred to respondent-3 and the petitioner has ensured, that not only such loss was avoided but that despite the transaction having been aborted that the respondent-3 in fact recovered much more than the amount paid to Gopal. No loss has occurred to respondent-3 and the petitioner has ensured, that not only such loss was avoided but that despite the transaction having been aborted that the respondent-3 in fact recovered much more than the amount paid to Gopal. Though the petitioner's learned Advocate has advanced a very strong plea that in the overall complexion of the matter, this Court must clear the petitioner completely of the charges that are held proved against him, to my mind, a correct appraisal of the record would require that the Court must uphold the charges only to the extent that they were technical infringements. The gravity of the situation therefore gets considerably reduced. ( 13 ) THE last question that falls for determination is as to whether in the light of the findings of this Court, the order of termination from service passed against the petitioner can be upheld. It is a well established principle, not only of Criminal Jurisprudence but also of Service Law that a punishment awarded must be not only in consonance with of the gravity of any charges framed but of the charges proved. In the light of this position even assuming and accepting the fact that the petitioner has committed some technical and procedural faults in the handling of the transactions, the order of termination from service is wholly and completely unjustified and therefore requires to be set aside. To my mind, even though I do not propose to interfere with the order of placing the petitioner under suspension, a fair order would be that the punishment which must be in consonance with what is established against him would require that he be made to forego two increments for a period of two years. ( 14 ) IN the light of the aforesaid findings, the Petition partially succeeds, the order of termination is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 1. 1. 1996. The respondents shall compute and pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary etc. , that he is entitled to in keeping with the order passed by this Court in the present case as also in the companion Petition disposed of by this Court, latest by 31. 3. 1996. 1. 1996. The respondents shall compute and pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary etc. , that he is entitled to in keeping with the order passed by this Court in the present case as also in the companion Petition disposed of by this Court, latest by 31. 3. 1996. It is clarified that since the petitioner is being reinstated in service that he would be entitled to reinstatement subject to the fact that while computing the arrears payable to him the respondents shall take into account that two of his increments stand reduced for a period of two years. This to my mind would meet the ends of Justice. As far as the order of suspension is concerned, since it would make some difference to the salary payable to the petitioner, the suspension shall be treated as having been in operation only until the date on which the petitioner's services were terminated. ( 15 ) THE Petition partially succeeds and stands disposed of. In the circumstances of this case there shall be no orders as to costs.