JUDGMENT 1. :- This special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13th September, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court, whereby the entire proceedings taken against the writ-petitioner-respondent were found to be not authorised by a Bipartite Settlement in between the Management of the Bank and its employees and hence, stood quashed. It was held inter alia by the learned Single Judge that diversion of a house building loan for some other purpose by the employee concerned did not amount to a misconduct as enumerated in the apposite provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, which sought to enumerate the different types of misconduct for which a disciplinary proceeding was envisaged. The letter issued by the Bank on 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) which threatened an action against the writ- petitioner-respondent on account of misuser of the housing loan making him liable for the interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from the date of advance of the loan till the date of repayment of the entire loan amount and a further direction that no housing loan would be sanctioned to him in future as also the demand for repayment of the loan amount, was found by the learned Single Judge to be not authorised in law and was also quashed alongwith the entire disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order dated 23rd May, 1985 imposing the penalty of censure on him. It was further directed that the appellant-Bank would not be able to take any disciplinary action under the Conduct Rules against the writ petitioner-respondent, but if it did choose to do so, it may proceed to take such action as may be felt necessary on the basis of the show cause notice dated 16th August, 1982 (Annex.2 to the writ application) after taking into account the writ-petitioner-respondent's reply thereto and after providing him a proper and adequate hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 2. It would be necessary for us to take into account the background of the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Bank against the writ-petitioner-respondent S. R. Purohit. He was an employee of the UCO Bank, who borrowed money for the construction of a house under the Scheme for Housing Finance applicable to the UCO Bank employees. 2. It would be necessary for us to take into account the background of the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Bank against the writ-petitioner-respondent S. R. Purohit. He was an employee of the UCO Bank, who borrowed money for the construction of a house under the Scheme for Housing Finance applicable to the UCO Bank employees. It was alleged that he misutilised the funds by not building the house in accordance with the plan submitted to the Bank while he obtained loan of Rs. 59,850/-. It was submitted by the writ petitioner-respondent that the letter dated 16th July, 1983, by which the Manager of the Bank called for repayment of housing loan and also charged interestat the rate of 14% p.a. from the date of advance till the entire loan amount was repaid by him and further conveyed a decision that no further housing loan would be sanctioned to him in future, was itself a punishment since the decision was arrived at by the Manager of the Bank in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The writ-petitioner-respondent was served with another letter dated 8-8-1983 charging him with "misconduct" and asking him to submit explanation to the charges within ten days of the receipt of the letter. The writ petitioner-respondent submitted his explanation on 15-10-1983 and, thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately on 23rd May, 1985. he was served with an order of punishment of censure. He filed an appeal against the penal order of censure and it was submitted that the said appeal was still pending disposal. He also filed an appeal against the action sought to he taken vide letter dated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application), but the said appeal was not as yet decided. His contention interalia was that the letter dated 16-7-1983 culminated in a decision against him, which was sought to he taken by the Bank for the alleged diversion of the loan amount by him. Once the Bank having decided to take action as per Annexure 4 to the writ application vide its letter dated 16-7-1983, no further action, far less a disciplinary action, could be taken against him on the self-same facts and circumstances. Once the Bank having decided to take action as per Annexure 4 to the writ application vide its letter dated 16-7-1983, no further action, far less a disciplinary action, could be taken against him on the self-same facts and circumstances. His further contention inter aliawas that the entire proceedings taken against him were totally unauthorised and illegal in view of the fact that the conduct with which he was charged did not amount to any case of gross misconduct within the ambit of the definition of a misconduct as given out in the Bipartite Settlement. His further contention was that his alleged conduct did not come within the purview of any of the clauses envisaged in the Bipartite Settlement, where illustrative definitions of gross misconduct have been enumerated. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, AIR 1984 SC 505 : (1983 Lab IC 1909) and A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361 :(1984 Lab IC 961) , it was contended by the writ petitioner- respondent that when specific misconducts are enumerated in the Service Rules, no further misconduct could be added to the species of misconduct by the employer concerned and accordingly, he prayed not only for quashing of the letter dated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application), but also prayed for quashing of the punishment of censure as imposed on him (vide Annexure 11 to the writ application) dated 23-5-1985. 4. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since adecision having civil consequences was sought to be taken against the writ petitioner-respondent apropos the letter dated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) where the principles of natural justice were not followed, the same could not be enforced in law. 4. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since adecision having civil consequences was sought to be taken against the writ petitioner-respondent apropos the letter dated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) where the principles of natural justice were not followed, the same could not be enforced in law. We are afraid we cannot agree to the said proposition that the order as sought to be corn municated vide the letter dated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) sought to impose on the writ petitionef-respondent any penalty, just because the Manager of the Bank called for repayment of the loan and made a demand for interest at the rate of 14% p.a. on the unrealised amount of loan and further gave out by way of a threat that no further housing loan would be sanctioned by the Bank authorities in respect of the writ petitioner-respondent in future. We are given to understand that the entire principal amount of loan has been repaid by the writ petitioner-respondent, but not the interest at the rate of 14% p.a. as charged by the Bank. The threat that no housing loan would he sanctioned to the writ petitioner-respondent in future is indeed an empty one, not really of any civil consequences. We, therefore, cannot agree with the learned Single Judge that the letterdated 16-7-1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) sought in any manner to impose any penalty on the writ petitioner-respondent or sought to take away any of his individual rights h1 pecuniarily transgressing any of his legal rights from the rights and obligations which are ingrained in the contract of Bank loan. 5. As regards the penalty sought to be imposed on the writ petitioner-respondent by way of censure. We, are indeed in agreement with the learned Single Judge that diversion of the loan amount for his personal use may not be one of the misconducts as envisaged in an one of the clauses defined as "gross misconduct" or "minor misconduct" as given out in the Bipartite Settlement and that being so, the entire disciplinary proceedings were an exercise in futility since the Management of the Bank was not authorised in law to take disciplinary proceedings on that account as per the Bi partite settlement. We would make it clear that even though we do not interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding quashing of the disciplinary proceedings as also the order of censure dated 23rd May, 1985, we would grant liberty to the Bank to realise its legitimate dues on account of the interest at the rate of 14% p.a. as demanded by the Bank in its letter dated 16-7-1983 or interest at such rate permissible in such circumstances in accordance with law, which may be so done by way of deduction of such amounts by way of instalments from the writ petitioner respondent's salary. We may not pass hny opinion whatsoever as regards the Bank's denial to give him a further loan for identical purposes, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner-respondent has no legal right to obtain a loan unilaterally from the Bank without the Bank authorities concurring to sanction such loan in this context. 6. With these observations, the present special appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******