JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent bank has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the learned Judge of the learned Labour Court has found that the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner were proper and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate. 2. The petitioner has been penalised departmentally for misconduct which in the departmental proceedings was held proved by the enquiry officer and is proved by the Labour Court. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bank, I have examined the rival contentions raised at the Bar and on scrutiny of the record, I find that the learned Judge has rightly observed that the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner were proper. I see no reason to interfere with that finding. 4. The petitioner has been penalised for misconduct of insubordination. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate. In the present case, misconduct alleged is not of such nature. In my opinion, interest of justice would be met if the petition is partly allowed and the punishment is reduced. Hence, this order. ORDER the award of the Labour Court is accordingly modified, that part of the award which upholds the enquiry as correct and proper, is affirmed and upheld. However, the part of the order holding the punishment not to be disproportionate, is set aside. The punishment being harsh is substituted by directing that the petitioner shall be penalised by stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. As a consequence of this punishment, it is directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated and shall not be paid any back wages. He however, will be entitled to continuity of service and calculation of entire period of service for the purposes of seniority, pension etc. as also future promotions.Ordered Accordingly. *******