Judgment :- Petitioner is an employee of the Union Bank of India. He has filed this O.P. for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P5 and P6 orders. Ext. P5 is an order of punishment and Ext. P6 is the appellate order modifying punishment. He has also sought for a declaration to the effect that he has not committed any misconduct and also to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for interview for higher assignment in the same cadre to the post of Special Assistant. Petitioner joined the service of the Union Bank of India on 3-2-1970. While so working there, he received a memo directing him to explain as to why he did not make adequate arrangements for honouring cheque No. 124794 for an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- on 30-9-1993 to the Bank of Baroda. He furnished Ext. P-1 reply. Thereafter he was issued Ext. P2 asking him why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 11, 000/-. Subsequently, another memo was issued to him why two increments should not be lowered. He had sent a reply, stating that he had made necessary arrangements for settling the account and requested for dropping the proceedings. But the proceedings were not dropped. Petitioner was issued Ex. P4 justifying imposition of punishments. The first respondent by Ext. P5 ordered to reduce increment by two stages. It reads as follows : "The pay of Mr. S. Nirmal Das be and hereby reduced by two stages for issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balances in his account, which is an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and thus constitutes a major misconduct as per bipartite settlement. Mr. S. Nirmal Das is and hereby censured for his misconduct in incurring excessive debts." Petitioner then filed Ext. P4 appeal. The appellate authority modified the penalty by Ext. P6, which reads as follows :"The penalty of reduction by two stages and penalty of censure imposed on Mr. S. Nirmal Das has been modified to that of reduction by one stage for a period of two years and penalty of censure." Thereafter, the petitioner was issued another memo Ext. P7 stating that Cheque No. 20207 was not honoured. He filed Ext. P8 reply. Petitioner's union took up the matter before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam and the matter was transferred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam under Ext. P7 stating that Cheque No. 20207 was not honoured. He filed Ext. P8 reply. Petitioner's union took up the matter before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam and the matter was transferred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam under Ext. P9. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the respondents; as censure cannot be treated as punishment. He states that an interview is proposed to be held in the Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Ernakulam, to select candidates for the post of Special Assistant. In view of the punishment already imposed against the petitioner, the petitioner's name is not included in the list of candidates in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Special Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner has fried this O.P. for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P5 and P6, and to declare that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the respondents and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner and interview him for higher assignment in the same cadre to the post of Special Assistant. The third respondent has filed a counter, stating that the petitioner issued three cheques, without maintaining sufficient balance in his Savings Bank Account and therefore the cheques were returned dishonoured. The said act of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct, for which the Bank took a lenient view and imposed a punishment of reducing his pay by two stages, which was modified as one stage for a period of two years and penalty of censure. According to the respondents, as per bipartite settlement dated 10-10-1966, the petitioner has committed gross misconduct, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents is legal and is not liable to be quashed.The main argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that Exts. P5 and P6 are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioner while working as Cashier issued a cheque dated 30-5-1993 for Rs. 10, 000/- without maintaining adequate balance in his Savings Bank Account. At the time of issue of the cheque there was only Rs. 1, 000/- in his account. So, the said cheque was dishonoured. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8-6-1993. Admittedly, the petitioner while working as Cashier issued a cheque dated 30-5-1993 for Rs. 10, 000/- without maintaining adequate balance in his Savings Bank Account. At the time of issue of the cheque there was only Rs. 1, 000/- in his account. So, the said cheque was dishonoured. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8-6-1993. Petitioner's allegation is that his mother suddenly fell ill and hence he had to raise money, for which he issued the cheque, eventhough there was no sufficient fund in his account. To prove that his mother fell ill suddenly, no evidence has been let in by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was advised under Ext. R3(g) dated 6-7-1993 to be more careful in future, wherein it has been stated that the bank took a lenient view as it was the first offence committed by him during his service. The petitioner also issued two other cheques one for Rs. 11, 000/- and another for Rs. 10, 000/-. Both of them were also returned dishonoured. The cheque for Rs. 11, 000/- was returned on 1-12-1993 and the cheque for Rs. 10, 000/- was returned on 3-12-1993. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in spite of the warning given to him, he had issued two other cheques and both of them were dishonoured. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in spite of Ext. R3(g) repeated the offence and hence he does not deserve any sympathy. The above cheques were issued before punishment was imposed. It is submitted that in spite of the warning, he has repeated the act of misconduct, which will definitely prejudice the interest of the bank. But from the records, it is clear, that after 6-7-1993 he had not issued any cheque. The cheques were issued before Ext. R3(g) order was passed, but the same was presented and returned only after the said order. Therefore, it cannot be said, that disobeying Ext. R3(g), he had issued two other cheques. The bipartite settlement between the Bank and the employees defines 'minor misconduct'. It includes any of the following acts and omissions on the part of the employees :"(a) absent without leave; ............... (1) incurring debts to an extent considered by the Management as excessive". There is no case that the petitioner was absent without leave. The bipartite settlement between the Bank and the employees defines 'minor misconduct'. It includes any of the following acts and omissions on the part of the employees :"(a) absent without leave; ............... (1) incurring debts to an extent considered by the Management as excessive". There is no case that the petitioner was absent without leave. The next question is whether he has incurred debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive. Admittedly, the petitioner has issued cheques for Rs. 32, 000/-, which the Management considers as incurring of excessive debt. Punishment for minor misconduct is provided in clause 19.8, which provides, that - "an employee found guilty of minor misconduct may - (a) be warned or censured; or (b) have an adverse remark entered against him; or (c) have his increment stopped for a period not longer than six months". According to the respondents, the act of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct, which is defined in clause 19.5 which has been modified by clause 14 of the bipartite settlement dated 17-9-1984. Gross misconduct includes - "habitually doing of any act which amounts to 'minor misconduct' as defined below : 'habitual' meaning a course of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions censure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remark has been entered against him". Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act attributed to the petitioner can never become a major or gross misconduct. According to him, he has not incurred any debt. He has got an approved facility to pay the amount by availing of the facility and in enjoying the facility, he had not strictly adhered to the terms and conditions stipulated for availing of the facility. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (1) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Meerut, AIR 1984 SC 505 : (1983 Lab IC 1909), to find that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. It was a case where the appellant, who is a multi-national company has set up a factory at Aligarh in 1958. It had declared a lock-out with effect from May 6, 1977. It was a case where the appellant, who is a multi-national company has set up a factory at Aligarh in 1958. It had declared a lock-out with effect from May 6, 1977. It was notified that as negotiations for settlement of pending disputes between the appellant and workmen employed by it were afoot, the lock-out was to be lifted and accordingly the same was lifted on 13th May, 1977. It was alleged that on the very day, during the second shift, some of the workmen resorted to an illegal strike, gathered together near the gate of the factory and intimidated and obstructed the other workmen desiring to report for duty. The appellant obtained an order of injunction against the workmen from indulging in unfair and illegal activities, The appellant provided a bus where loyal workers were transported. Some of the striking workmen also boarded the bus. During the journey in the bus, the loyal workmen were manhandled. It was alleged that the action of the second respondent and his striking colleagues constituted misconduct specified in clause 10.16 and 30 of the Standing Orders applicable to the Striking Workmen. The Labour Court held, that the said acts of the striking workmen would not be misconduct. The appellant then moved the High Court of Allahabad. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition, against which the appellant applied for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held as follows :"In our opinion, on a plain reading of the clause, the words "within the premises or precincts of the establishment" refer not to the place where the act which is subversive of discipline or good behaviour is committed but where the consequence of such an act manifests itself. In other words, an act wherever committed, if it has the effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment, will amount to misconduct under Standing Order 24(1). We are unable to agree that Standing Order 24(1) leaves out of its scope of an act committed outside though it may result in subversion of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment in question. We are unable to agree that Standing Order 24(1) leaves out of its scope of an act committed outside though it may result in subversion of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment in question. Such a construction in our view would be quite unreasonable." The Court also held, that if the workmen are involved in a not or indulged in fighting somewhere far away from the premises of the establishment it has no casual connection with their performance of duty in the industrial establishment in which they are employed. Referring to the decision in Tata Oil Mills Company v. its Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, the Court held, that even where a disorderly or riotous behaviour without the premises of the factory constituted misconduct, every such behaviour unconnected with the employment would not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the relevant Standing Orders. The apex Court held, that the order passed by the Labour Court was correct and thereby the appeal was dismissed. The expression "misconduct" must refer to those acts or omissions or commissions which constituted misconduct as enumerated in the settlement. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that the issue of cheque knowing fully well that adequate funds were not in his account will prejudicially affect the interest of the bank and as such it amounts to gross misconduct. The issue of cheque by the petitioner without funds in his account is an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which if any action is taken he will be liable for punishment. Because of this act of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the bank has sustained any loss. This Court in Gopalakrishna Prabhu v. Central Bank, 1991 1 Ker LT 383, held as follows :"A finding on such matters can vary with the individuals and hence a delinquent is likely to be exposed to vagaries of subjective evaluation. It is not unlikely that some disciplinary authorities may even opine that such acts will not constitute any misconduct at all although the conduct of the employee is such that it can be said that he failed to keep the high standards of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the bank. It is not unlikely that some disciplinary authorities may even opine that such acts will not constitute any misconduct at all although the conduct of the employee is such that it can be said that he failed to keep the high standards of moral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer of the bank. This by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the same falls within the enumerated items of misconduct other than the one coming under caption 'any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank'. What in a given context would constitute conduct prejudicial to the interest of the Bank to be treated as 'misconduct' would expose an area not amenable to objective evaluation. If that be the position such conduct cannot be treated as misconduct. Why it is said so is that a misconduct if proved would entail penal consequences. That is why it is always said that it is obligatory on the part of the employer to specify and if necessary define misconduct with precision and accuracy so that any expost facto interpretation of an incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct." It was a case where the petitioner, who was working as an officer in a bank was served with a charge-memo for having issued a cheque for Rs. 2, 500/- and Rs. 75, 000/- drawn on the over-draft account without the required drawing power and thereby they were returned unpaid and for other charges. According to the management, the above charge constituted misconduct, as doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss amounts to gross misconduct. In that case, it was argued for the petitioner that the said clause is a vague and of general nature and what act of an employee can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank may vary with individual's exposing the employees to the vagaries of subjective evaluation. This Court held that the conduct prejudicial to the interest of the bank expose an area not amenable to the objective evaluation. If that be the position, such conduct cannot be treated as mis-conduct. This Court held that the conduct prejudicial to the interest of the bank expose an area not amenable to the objective evaluation. If that be the position, such conduct cannot be treated as mis-conduct. This Court therefore quashed the notice proposing the punishment.From the above discussions, it can be seen that the act of the petitioner in issuing cheques without having sufficient funds in his Savings Bank Account is a minor misconduct and not a gross misconduct. For minor misconduct he was liable to censure or adverse remark or stoppage of increment not longer than six months. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the respondents is disproportionate to the offence committed. Admittedly, the petitioner has settled the accounts and now there is no dues outstanding. In the result, this O.P. is allowed. Exts. P5 and P6 are quashed to the extent they reduce his pay by one stage for two years. The maximum reduction of pay can be only for six months. Therefore, the Bank is directed to reconsider the punishment imposed and after imposing punishment if any, consider whether he is eligible for promotion to the post of Special Assistant, within three months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. Petition allowed.