JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.R. No. 4838/97 by which, modifying the Award dated 30.11.96 passed by the industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, the Appellant was directed to reinstate its employee Shajahan Ali (hereinafter referred to as workman) with continuity in service and without loss of seniority in the post to which he would be entitled to. 2. The facts in a nut-shell are that Sri Shajahan Ali, the workman, while working in the capacity of Clerk-cum-Cashier at Sibsagar Branch of the Appellant-Bank during the period 27.9.84 to 1.8.89, committed certain acts of commission/omission of gross misconduct for which a charge sheet dated 29.4.91 was served upon him. The Appellant brought as many as 5 charges against the Workman. A domestic enquiry was held wherein the Workman was found guilty of misconduct and accordingly vide order dated 4.5.92 he was dismissed from service. Against the said order of dismissal, the workman preferred an appeal before the Authority but failed to get any relief and thereafter a dispute raised before the Labour Commissioner, Guwahati and ultimately the matter went to the Central Government who in turn referred the dispute to the industrial Tribunal. 3. On elaborate examination of the veracity of 5 charges against the workman, the Tribunal held that the order of dismissal of the workman from service was based on unfair labour practice and lack of good faith and consequently, the Tribunal by its award dated 30.11.96 set aside the said order of dismissal and directed the Bank-Appellant to reinstate the said workman in service forthwith with full back wages without affecting any break in the service. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award of the Tribunal, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition being C.R. No. 4838/97 before this Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award of the Tribunal, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition being C.R. No. 4838/97 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, dealing with mainly 3(three) charges levelled against the workman, upon hearing the rival arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties at length, observed that the plea of loss of confidence raised by the Appellant/writ Petitioner was brushed aside by the Tribunal on the ground that neither the Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report nor the disciplinary authority in the final order of dismissal had even mentioned that the workman lost the confidence of the Bank Authority for which he could not be retained in the service of the Bank. Relying on a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, namely, 1) Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Fritz Werner(P) Ltd., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1054 , 2) Surjit Ghosh v. United Commercial Bank and Ors. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 474 , 3) Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2249 and 4) Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310 , the learned Single Judge modified the Award of the Tribunal with a direction as under (a) Shajahan Ali should be reinstated in service with continuity of service and without loss of seniority in the post to which he would be entitled. (b) This should be done without a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (c) The employee Shajahan Ali shall be paid a fixed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of his arrear of his salary/back wages. (d) The Petitioner Bank will be at liberty to utilize the service of the employee in any establishment or section which has nothing to do with monetary transaction of the bank. (e).... 5. We have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment and order Mr. (e).... 5. We have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment and order Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, advancing his limited argument, has contended that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in passing the Award of reinstatement of the workman is wholly based on pervisity and the learned Single Judge failed to consider the said aspect of the award and thus the impugned directions of reinstatement of the workman upon whom the Bank lost its confidence is totally illegal and unwarranted and the same is liable to be quashed. According to him, once the Bank lost the confidence with the employee, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the order of reinstatement. We fully agree to disagree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant for the reasons discussed herein below: The Supreme Court, in dealing with a case of dismissal of Bank employee in Surjit Ghosh's case (supra) in paragraph-8 observed as under: The question, however, is what consequential order should be passed in the present case. It will not be fruitful to send the matter back to the Bank for rehearing of the matter by the named disciplinary authority since the appellate authority which is the higher authority has already taken a decision in the matter and it cannot be expected that the lower authority will take different decision. These proceedings have been pending against the Appellant right from the year 1982 till this day and the Appellant has been out of employment for all these years. At one stage, the Appellant had offered to forego all the arrears of his salary provided he was reinstated in service on the post to which he would be entitled at present on the basis of the continuous service till date. We had suggested to Shri Gupta appearing for the Respondent-Bank to take instructions in the matter. The Respondent-Bank however, has chosen to reject the offer and has instead suggested that the Bank would like to pay compensation to the Appellant since it has lost confidence in him. We have considered the charges against the Appellant and we find that apart from the fact that much can be said in favour of the Appellant in support of his contention that the charge has been trumped up against him. We have considered the charges against the Appellant and we find that apart from the fact that much can be said in favour of the Appellant in support of his contention that the charge has been trumped up against him. The inquiry also prima facie suffers from defects as pointed out above, though we must add that we have not gone into the merits of the said defects. The Appellant is an ex-Army Officer. What is further, the compensation amount, if directed to be paid would come to about Rs. 20 lakhs. The Bank is a nationalised Bank and the money belongs to the public. A huge amount on this scale can not be paid to anyone for doing no work during this long period just because the Bank feels that it has lost confidence in the employee. He can certainly be placed in the department where he has nothing to do with the monetary transactions of the Bank, such as the establishment section etc., even assuming that the Bank has reasons to lose confidence in him. 7. In a recent decision in Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal and Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 609 the Apex Court laid down the three essential ingredients required for proving the loss of confidence of an employee. In paragraph 9 of the said decision, it was held: Substantial contention on the merits of the case by the employer in these appeals is that the finding of loss of confidence in the employee by the Labour Court has been reversed in appeal by the Industrial Court on unreasonable grounds. What must be pleaded and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that (i) the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on the ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. All these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on the ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. Else, the right to reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will be lost. 8. Having regard to the proposition of law propounded in the above judicial pronouncement and also on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order as well as the Award of Tribunal, it appears that neither the Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report nor the disciplinary authority in the final order of dismissal had ever mentioned that the workman lost the confidence of the Bank Authority and he could not be retained in service of the Bank. Moreover, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was not proper and fair. As regards the question of perversity in the award of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant could not take us to any material available on record to substantiate his submission. Since the case of loss of confidence could not be made out by the Appellant and a departmental inquiry also found to be improper and unfair, we are of the considered opinion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service, but only in the department/section such an establishment, administration etc. where he has nothing to do with the monetary transaction of the Bank. 9. In view of what has been observed herein above, we are disinclined to upset the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Rather we do concur with the directions given by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the same is hereby affirmed. 10. At this stage, Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that the workman has already been reinstated in the Bank service vide communication dated 29.6.2001 in compliance of this Court's order dated 16.2.2000 passed in C.R. No. 4838/97. In support of his submission a copy of the said communication has been placed before this Court which be kept as part of this record. 11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. In support of his submission a copy of the said communication has been placed before this Court which be kept as part of this record. 11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.