ORDER : B.N. Kirpal, J. Leave granted. 2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view of the High Court in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the respondent was uncalled for. 3. In the instant case, the respondent was working as a Teller with the appellant-Bank. On different dates, he received sums totalling Rs. 864/-. He prepared sundry creditors debit vouchers but did not deposit the amount with the Bank. There were 11 such instances and though the amounts involved were small and totalled Rs. 864/- the allegations were regarded as serious enough for the appellant-Bank to take recourse to disciplinary proceedings for imposing a major penalty. 4. On 6th February, 1998, the respondent deposited this amount of Rs. 864/-. An inquiry was conducted and on the basis of that inquiry report which held the charge to be established, penalty of removal from service and not dismissal was imposed on the respondent. The High Court, on a writ petition being filed, came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was not commensurate with the proven charge. It, accordingly, while upholding the findings of the inquiry, set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed the respondent's reinstatement but without any back wages. 5. This is a case of misplaced sympathy. The respondent was acting as a Teller in the Bank. One expects the higher standards of honesty and integrity. When admittedly small amounts deposited by the bank's customers do not find their way into the coffers of the bank but land up in the pocket of an employee, to say that the charge is not serious or the embezzlement is not intentional would be gross understatement, the least to say. The charge framed was serious and normally punishment of dismissal from service would have been logical course to take. Keeping in view the past service of the respondent and other relevant factors into consideration, the punishment of removal only was imposed. The Bank, in a sense, has been more than considerate towards the respondent because with the punishment of removal being imposed pensionary benefits etc. are not denied. The decision of the High Court to direct the reinstatement was uncalled for. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside.