Judgment :- P. D. DINAKARAN, J. The petitioner/employee, having been dismissed from service by the first respondent-bank management by an order dated April 17, 1987, raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 167 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Madurai, and the same was transferred as I.D. No. 81 of 1992 of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, viz., the second respondent herein, who by an award, dated March 10, 1993, confirmed the order of dismissal, dated April 17, 1987. Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus under the following facts and circumstances of the case. A disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner/employee by the first respondent/management by a memo, dated April 7, 1986, for alleged charges of misappropriation of funds of the first respondent/management to the time of Rs. 100 on January 8, 1982 and a further sum of Rs. 517 on December 6, 1986 towards his travelling allowance and encashment of leave to his credit respectively. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was under interim suspension, he had abused his co-employees, viz., Sri Lakshmanan and Sri Rajan and assaulted them with chappal on August 21, 1986 which warranted the issue of a second chargememo, dated February 9, 1987, to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanations, dated November 3, 1986, and March 27, 1987, to the chargememos, dated April 7, 1986, and February 9, 1987, respectively. Not satisfied with his explanations, a domestic enquiry was ordered given a hearing and a fair and reasonable opportunity. Finding ultimately that the charges were held proved, he was dismissed from service by an order, dated November 17, 1987. Sri L. N. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of dismissal, dated November 17, 1987, on the following grounds :(i) The first respondent/management was not regular in paying the subsistence allowance and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal is bad in law. In this regard, Sri L. N. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions : (a) Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Industrial Tribunal 1986-II-LLJ-124. (b) Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another 1999-I-LLJ-1094. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal is bad in law. In this regard, Sri L. N. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions : (a) Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Industrial Tribunal 1986-II-LLJ-124. (b) Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another 1999-I-LLJ-1094. (ii) Sri L. N. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on (a) Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1982-II-LLJ-472 and (b) Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and others reported in 1974 L. & I.C. 25, contends that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of victimisation, as the first respondent/management failed to take into consideration the long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner, prior to the allied dates of misconduct and (iii) In any event, the first respondent/management ought to have taken into consideration the order, dated June 24, 1987, made in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, wherein the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case with regard to the charges registered against him, on the same incident said to have taken place on August 21, 1986. Per contra, Ms. Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the first respondent/management, at the outset pointed out that "the decision of the criminal Court in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987, dated June 24, 1987, is not relevant, wherein the petitioner had not been acquitted on merits, but was acquitted on technical grounds holding that the Chambers of the Special Officer in the first respondent management could not be construed as a public place." It is further contended that in any event, the criminal case is not with reference to the charge of the alleged misappropriation of funds of the bank referred to above, but for having assaulted the special officer, which incident is said to, have taken place on August 21, 1986. It is argued that assaulting a co-worker is a serious misconduct warranting dismissal of the petitioner from service as held in Basu Deba Das v. M. R. Bhope and another, 1993-II-LLJ-1022 (Bom).That apart, it is contended that even though the petitioner was entitled for travelling allowance as well as encashment of leave to his credit, he is not entitled to unilaterally withdraw the same without proper sanction by the special officer of the first respondent/management as per the bye-law and in the absence of such proper sanction and disbursement of funds by the management to the petitioner, the unilateral withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 100 on January 8, 1982, towards travelling allowance and Rs. 517 on December 6, 1985, towards encashment of leave to his credit by the petitioner, from the funds of the first respondent/bank management, amounts to misappropriation of the same. Since the petitioner had admitted such withdrawals, the charges in that regard stand proved. Once misappropriation of funds stood proved, it is argued that showing sympathy to the petitioner is uncalled for, as held in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others 2000-II-LLJ-1395. The alleged non-payment of subsistence allowance is strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent/bank management on the grounds that such contention was not raised before the Labour Court and therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court and that in any event, the allegation is false and incorrect as the petitioner was paid the entire subsistence allowance and the same was only acknowledged by him under stamped receipts. With regard to the alleged victimisation that the first respondent/bank management had not considered the long and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, Ms. Narmadha Sampath learned counsel for the first respondent/bank management, contends that the length of service of a workman is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for a proved misconduct as held in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Labour Court 1980 (1) LLN 211.I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. Narmadha Sampath learned counsel for the first respondent/bank management, contends that the length of service of a workman is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for a proved misconduct as held in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Labour Court 1980 (1) LLN 211.I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. A careful perusal of the order, dated June 24, 1987, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 makes it clear that the petitioner was not acquitted of the charges levelled against him before the criminal Court on the alleged incident said to have taken place on August 21, 1986. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent/bank management, though the trial Court convicted the petitioner, on, appeal the learned assistant sessions Judge, Pudukottai, acquitted the petitioner on a technical ground "that the Chambers of the special officer of the first respondent/bank management could not be construed as a public place." Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order, dated June 24, 1987, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 is directly relevant to the charge of misappropriation of funds of the first respondent/bank management at all, as to which the impugned disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. Even though the refusal of payment of subsistence allowance would certainly result in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, as such denial amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice, as held in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer (supra) as such non-payment of subsistence allowance could be likened to slow-poisoning the employee, and would gradually starve himself to death, as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra). It is never the case of the petitioner that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he could not participate in the enquiry at all. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra). It is never the case of the petitioner that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he could not participate in the enquiry at all. On the other hand, in the records produced by the first respondent/bank management) it is stated that the petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance and the petitioner himself had acknowledged for having received the same under proper stamped receipts and therefore, I do not find any substance in the grievance of the petitioner in this regard.It is the victimisation as (sic) a strong ground on which the order of dismissal could be set aside where the workman concerned is innocent and yet he is being punished for no fault on his part, as he has in some way displeased his employer on the one hand and on the other hand, where the punishment imposed on such innocent employee in a manner shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him, as held in Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra), of course, ignoring the unblemished service rendered by the worker prior to the date of the alleged misconduct, as held in Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). But in the instant case, even though the petitioner himself is entitled for travelling allowance and to encash the leave to his credit, he is not authorised to do so without proper sanction of the special officer of the first respondent/bank management as per the bye-laws. In the absence of such proper sanction for such withdrawals, viz., Rs. 100 towards travelling allowance and Rs. 517 for encashing the leave to his credit from the funds of the first respondent/management in my considered opinion, the impugned withdrawal of the funds of the first respondent/bank management would certainly amount to misappropriation of funds, particularly when the petitioner is working in a co-operative bank where he is dealing with the funds of the public, who have entrusted their money with the bank. It is a settled position in law, as held by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma reported in 2000-I-LLJ-1117, even a threat to assault a co-employee amounts to a serious misconduct and the punishment of removal could not therefore be construed as shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved. It is a settled position in law, as held by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma reported in 2000-I-LLJ-1117, even a threat to assault a co-employee amounts to a serious misconduct and the punishment of removal could not therefore be construed as shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved. The Bombay High Court in Babu Deba Das v. M. R. Bhope and another (supra) held that an act of assaulting the co-worker is a serious misconduct warranting dismissal from service.If that be so, once misappropriation is proved and the assault of co-employee is also found proved by the enquiry officer in the instant case, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, merely on the ground of the length of service put in by the petitioner in the first respondent/bank management as held in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Labour Court (supra) as mere length of service of the petitioner would not be relevant in imposing punishment for a proved misconduct, nor the length of service of an employee could itself be taken as a license to commit such misconduct. Under such circumstances, showing sympathy to the petitioner is not called for by this Court as held in Janatha Bazaar S.K.C.C.W.S. Ltd. v. Secretary S. N. Sangha (supra). In the result, finding no merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.