BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ application, the United Bank of India has challenged an award dated June 18, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in Reference Case No. 28 of 1989. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal for determination: a) Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in dismissing from service Sri Gopal Chandra Ghosh, sub-staff, is justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to? ( 2 ) BY the award impugned herein, the Tribunal found that although the concerned workman had taken recourse to very unfair means in order to get rid of option of transfer already submitted and instigated another employee to do illegal act but he did not deserve extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Thus, in exercise of power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and modified the punishment to the effect that the management would reinstate him in service without any back wages and without any increment from the date of his dismissal upto the date of award. Being dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the instant writ application. ( 3 ) THE allegations of the employer were as follows:"a) The workman as a probationary sub-staff was posted at Balarampur Branch of the Bank on December 24, 1975. On April 7, 1977 the respondent No. 2 gave his option for his posting to Gobordanga Branch of the Bank and he was released from Balarampur Branch on January 14, 1978. On joining Gobordanga Branch, for the reason best known to him, the employee had a mind to go back to Balarampur Branch knowing fully well that option given by an employee for second time was not entertainable. The respondent No. 2 however wanted to show to the Bank that before he was released from Balarampur Branch he submitted to the Bank a cancellation letter of his option in respect of his posting to Gobordanga Branch. b) With a view to achieve his aforesaid object, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to one Sri Subol Chandra Mondal, a sub-staff of Balarampur Branch in an inland letter enclosing therewith the letterhead of the Bank of the Balarampur Branch procured by the said respondent before hand. b) With a view to achieve his aforesaid object, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to one Sri Subol Chandra Mondal, a sub-staff of Balarampur Branch in an inland letter enclosing therewith the letterhead of the Bank of the Balarampur Branch procured by the said respondent before hand. On the said letterhead the respondent No. 2 in his own hand writing addressed a letter to the Manager, Personnel Department cancelling his earlier option to Gobordanga Branch and the letter was dated December 3, 1977, i. e. a date prior to his release from Balarampur Branch viz. January 14, 1978. On the body of the letterhead the signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, Accountant-in-Charge of Balarampur Branch was forged by respondent No. 2 with a remark "may be considered" which was also in his hand writing. In the inland letter the respondent No. 2 requested Sri Subol Chandra Mondal to put impression of the rubber stamp of the Accountant-in-Charge of Balarampur Branch and to give a number from the letter dispatch register of Balarampur Branch to complete the forgery. c) In the aforesaid way, the respondent No. 1 requested Sri Subol Chandra Mondal to keep the letter at Balarampur Branch in his personal file kept with the said branch in order to show that it was a copy of his application kept with the employer's file and further requested the said Sri Mondal to send him two blank letterheads with the seal of the Accountant-in-Charge, Balarampur Branch so that the workman concerned could use the letterhead as his copy of original application for cancelling his option for his posting at Gobordanga Branch. d) The above facts clearly showed mala fide intention of the respondent No. 2 and as a result of respondent No. 2's enclosing the Bank's letterhead inside the inland letter, which is against the regulation of post and telegraph department, the said inland letter was marked as bearing. e) On being interrogated, the respondent No. 2 first denied having any knowledge of the inland letter sent to Sri Mondal, but subsequently admitted in writing that the aforesaid inland letter had been sent by him and he had forged the signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, the then Accountant-in-Charge of Balarampur Branch, on a letterhead of the said Branch. f) The employer's Dum Dum Branch received an M. T. for Rs. 8,970/ -. f) The employer's Dum Dum Branch received an M. T. for Rs. 8,970/ -. This M. T. No. 45/80 appeared to have been issued by the Jhalda Branch of the petitioner with single signature vide M. T. advice Serial No. 2/302648. As per practice, Dum Dum Branch sent a copy of the credit offset voucher with a note issued under single signature "please confirm". This copy of the M. T. confirmation was returned by Jhalda Branch with the remark "it is not meant for us". On investigation, it transpired that in Dum Dum Branch S. B. A/c. No. 24870 was opened on May 30, 1980 in the name of one Sri Amal Das of 56b, Private Road, Calcutta-28 with a cash deposit of Rs. 5/ -. From the respective ledger folio it further transpired that Dum Dum Branch credited a sum of Rs. 8,970/- to the S. B. A/c. No. 24870 on the basis of the said M. T. advice. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 8,950/- was withdrawn from the said S. B. A/c. on June 16, 1980 leaving a balance of Rs. 25/ -. On further scrutiny of the C. A. advice in question, it revealed that the said advice contained the apparent signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, agent of Jhalda Branch, who was formerly Accountant-in-Charge of Balarampur Branch. But on being approached, Jhalda Branch denied having sent any M. T. to Dum Dum Branch for Rs. 8,970/ -. " ( 4 ) FROM the facts and circumstances stated above it was clear that by sending a fake M. T. to Dum Dum Branch purported to have been issued from Jhalda Branch, Rs. 8,950/- had been credited to the said S. B. A/c. No. 24870 and the same was subsequently withdrawn. On further scrutiny of the questioned M. T. C. A. advice No. 2/302648 by virtue of which Dum Dum Branch credited the S. B. A/c. No. 24870 with Rs. 8,970/- it appeared that the hand writings of the said C. A. advice were very much similar to the hand writing of the respondent No. 2 and the signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, the agent of Jhalda Branch was a forged one. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, in Bongaon Branch a S. B. A/c. No. 12823 was opened on July 4, 1980 in the name of Sri Anil Mondal with cash deposit of Rs. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, in Bongaon Branch a S. B. A/c. No. 12823 was opened on July 4, 1980 in the name of Sri Anil Mondal with cash deposit of Rs. 5/- and the Bongaon Branch credited Rs. 7,890/- to S. B. A7c. No. 12823 on July 19, 1980 against M. T. C. A. , advice No. 27302647 dated July 10, 1980 purported to have been issued by Jhalda Branch. The C. A. advice in question had a signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, the agent of Jhalda Branch. Thereafter the account holder had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 7,8807-from the S. B. A/c. No. 12823 on July 21, 1980 leaving a balance of Rs. 10/- only. But on being approached, Jhalda Branch denied having sent the M. T. to Bongaon Branch for the aforesaid amount. On scrutiny of M. T. C. A. advice No. 27302647 dated July 10, 1980 on the basis of which Bongaon Branch credited the S. B. A7c. No. 12823 with Rs. 7, 890/-, it appeared that the hand writing on the said M. T. C. A. advice was very much similar to that of the respondent No. 2 and the signature of Sri F. B. Ghosal, the agent of Jhalda Branch was a forged one. ( 6 ) ON analysing the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the Deputy Chief Officer, DIR, Personnel Department who was the disciplinary authority, formed a prima facie opinion that the respondent No. 2 was involved in the entire fraudulent deal and thereby misappropriated the bank-fund for his personal gain and purpose. As a result, the respondent No. 2 was charged with the following offences: a) Misappropriation of Bank's fund. b) Committing forgery and/or forging signature of Bank official with a view to misappropriate the Bank's fund. c) Abetting/instigating other employees of the Bank in doing an illegal act. d) Doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. ( 7 ) IN the said chargesheet respondent No. 2 was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. c) Abetting/instigating other employees of the Bank in doing an illegal act. d) Doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. ( 7 ) IN the said chargesheet respondent No. 2 was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The respondent No. 2 replied to the said chargesheet but as the reply was found unsatisfactory, the Bank instituted a departmental enquiry to investigate into the charges levelled against respondent No. 2 and ultimately after affording respondent No. 2 all reasonable opportunities at the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge of committing forgery by respondent No. 2 in relation to option letter for the purpose of cancelling his option and also committing forgery in relation to M. T. C. A. advice by him with a view to misappropriate the Bank's fund had been proved and established. The Enquiry Officer also held that the charge of abetting and/or instigating other employees of the Bank for doing an illegal act had also been proved and established. The Enquiry Officer further held that although the charge of misappropriation of Bank's fund had not been proved as there was no direct evidence but it could be reasonably deduced that the respondent No. 2 engineered the plot and/or connived with the others for misappropriation of the Bank's fund. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER a second show cause notice was issued upon the respondent No. 2 and after considering the record of respondent No. 2 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent No. 2 from the service with immediate effect. ( 9 ) BEING dissatisfied, the respondent No. 2 moved a writ application before this Court but SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. refused to interfere as the Bank in the meantime had made an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action. ( 10 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ application the aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as stated earlier. ( 11 ) THE learned Tribunal below after considering the materials on record held that although the management had succeeded in proving the attempted manipulation of Bank's record and commission of forgery for the purpose of cancelling option of transfer, but the findings that the employee was also guilty of other charges were not approved by the Tribunal. ( 11 ) THE learned Tribunal below after considering the materials on record held that although the management had succeeded in proving the attempted manipulation of Bank's record and commission of forgery for the purpose of cancelling option of transfer, but the findings that the employee was also guilty of other charges were not approved by the Tribunal. ( 12 ) IN arriving at such conclusion the Tribunal proceeded as if admittedly no hand writing expert was examined in the said case and according to the Tribunal in the absence of any report of hand writing expert, it was not possible to come to any conclusion that the writings on the body of the two mail transfers were done by the concerned workman. ( 13 ) INSPITE of the aforesaid finding that some of the charges viz, the one for manipulation of Bank record and instigating other employee to do illegal act were proved, the Tribunal was of the view that the extreme punishment of dismissal was not appropriate and thus modified the same to reinstatement without any back wages and increment from the date of dismissal till date of award. ( 14 ) MR. Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank has seriously disputed the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. Mr. Basu by drawing attention to the report of the hand writing expert who deposed before the enquiry officer submits that there was specific finding that the writings on the body of the M. T. advice were written in the hand writing of the workman concerned and as such the finding of the Tribunal below that the charge of being involved in misappropriation of Bank's fund was not proved, was a perverse finding of fact. ( 15 ) MR. Basu further contends that even if the forging signature of the officer of the Bank and instigating other employees to be involved in such offence are proved, the Tribunal ought to have affirmed the order of dismissal even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the other charges were not proved. ( 16 ) MR. Basu further contends that even if the forging signature of the officer of the Bank and instigating other employees to be involved in such offence are proved, the Tribunal ought to have affirmed the order of dismissal even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the other charges were not proved. ( 16 ) MR. Dutta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the employee has on the other hand supported the order of the Tribunal and has contended that the Tribunal below in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act having modified the punishment, this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction should not interfere with such finding of fact. In support of such contention Mr. Dutta has relied upon the following decisions: -a) Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. and Anr. b) Scooter India Limited, Lucknow v. Labour Court, Lucknow and Ors. c) R. M. Parrnai v. Gujarat Electricity Board, 1983-I-LLJ- 261 (Guj-DB ). d) Orissa Agro Industries Corporation v. Bhimsen Maharana Ors. , 1992-I-LLJ-23 (Ori-DB ). e) T. Muthusamy v. P. O. , Labour Court, Coimbatore and Anr. , 1991-II-LLJ-159 (Mad-DB)f) Sri Ganeshar Aluminium Factory, Madras v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras and Anr. 1982-I-LLJ-159 (Mad-DB) ( 17 ) THE sum and substance of the principles laid down in those decisions can be narrated thus:-In exercise of the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, a Tribunal is entitled to set aside the order of dismissal passed against a workman and can substitute the same with such other orders which the Tribunal seems fit and proper. If such discretion is exercised on consideration of the entire materials on record, ordinarily it is not for the High Court in exercise by its jurisdiction of superintendence to substitute one finding for another and similarly one punishment for the other. Even if the disciplinary enquiry is found to be fair and lawful and its findings were not vitiated in any manner, that by itself should not be a ground for non-interference with the order of termination of service and in an appropriate case the Tribunal can modify the extreme punishment to some other and such modification cannot be said to be illegal. ( 18 ) THERE is no dispute with the aforesaid propositions of law laid down by the various Courts; but the law is equally settled that if the finding of the Tribunal is based on total non-application of mind to a vital fact and in disposing of the matter, the Tribunal erroneously ignores a very important document which has great impact on the final conclusion, such finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot but be described as a perverse one and in such a case a High Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction can interfere. ( 19 ) AS pointed out earlier, the Tribunal itself arrived at a conclusion that in order to uphold the finding of guilt as regards the charge of involvement in misappropriation of Bank's money, the examination of a hand writing expert is necessary and the report of such expert has an important role to play. In arriving at such finding, the Tribunal erroneously held that in the instant case "admittedly" no hand writing expert was examined. ( 20 ) IT appears from the record that in this case M. W.-5, one Sri S. P. Sarkar, is a document examiner since 1946 and was previously attached to Question Examination Bureau under C. I. D. , West Bengal and he retired as a Director of the Bureau in 1974 and as a document examiner in his private capacity was empanelled in the panel of Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal Government and this High Court. The said M. W-5 has examined the hand writing of the respondent No. 2 and in detail has given reason why he was of the view that the writings of the body of the M. T. was written by the respondent. The said M. W.-5 was cross-examined at length and it appears that the Enquiry Officer relied on his evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was very much involved in the matter of withdrawal of the amount of the Bank though the person who actually withdrew the amount was not identified. It was a serious lapse on the part of Tribunal in totally ignoring the evidence of M. W. 5 and his report in arriving at the conclusion that the charge of involvement of the respondent No. 2 in the conspiracy of withdrawal of the money was not proved in the absence of examination of an expert. It was a serious lapse on the part of Tribunal in totally ignoring the evidence of M. W. 5 and his report in arriving at the conclusion that the charge of involvement of the respondent No. 2 in the conspiracy of withdrawal of the money was not proved in the absence of examination of an expert. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the allegation as regards illegal withdrawal of money by forging signature of Mr. F. B. Ghosal was not proved cannot be supported. ( 21 ) EVEN assuming for the sake of argument that the said charge was not proved, the Tribunal having approved the finding of the authority that the other charge regarding manipulation of Bank's paper by forging signature of Mr. Ghosal and instigating other employees to do such offence were proved, in my view, it was not a case where the punishment of dismissal could be interfered with in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to the observation of the Apex Court in the cases of Union Bank of India v. Viswa Mohan, where the Apex Court pointed out that in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty are to be preserved strictly. It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Basu by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U. P State Road Corporation v. Subhas Chandra, that in exercise of the power under Section 11-A of the Act, a Tribunal should not interfere with the punishment awarded, unless such punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. ( 22 ) THE respondent No. 2 being an employee of a Nationalised Bank and having been found guilty of forging signature of the Accountant -in-Charge of the concerned Bank and/or instigating other employee to manipulate with the papers of the Bank, the Bank authority can legitimately oppose reinstatement of such an employee. The Tribunal below, in my view, acted illegally in imposing upon the Bank to reinstate such an employee who can go to the extent of forging the signature of an Officer of the Bank and manipulate the papers of the Bank. In this type of offence no leniency should be shown and dismissal is the only punishment. The Tribunal below, in my view, acted illegally in imposing upon the Bank to reinstate such an employee who can go to the extent of forging the signature of an Officer of the Bank and manipulate the papers of the Bank. In this type of offence no leniency should be shown and dismissal is the only punishment. ( 23 ) THEREFORE, in the fact of the present case, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal is a perverse one. The Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the findings of the enquiry based on consideration of the report of the hand writing expert and at the same time should not have modified the punishment of dismissal. The discretion exercised under Section 11-A of the Act was improper justifying interference by this Court. ( 24 ) I thus set aside the award impugned and hold that the termination of the respondent No. 2, in the facts and circumstances of the case was justified and as such he is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever. ( 25 ) THE writ application is thus allowed. ( 26 ) IN the facts and circumstances, there will be however no order as to costs.