Judgment :- The Award of the Tribunal in I.D.No.83 of 1985 which was raised by the petitioner on behalf of one P.Achuthankutty, who was dismissed from service by the second respondent, is under challenge. 2. The reason for the dismissal was production of a bogus bill for Rs.550/- to indicate that the petitioner had transported goods from Madhya Pradesh to Kerala. An enquiry was conducted after show cause notice and in the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was guilty. The petitioner had pleaded before the Enquiry Officer that he had transported the goods through a private lorry and not through New Haryana Transport Company, whose name was found in the bogus bill. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the materials on record, found that though the dismissal is not justified, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement and attendant benefits, but an award of compensation equivalent to two years emoluments was awarded. Against that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident alleged to have taken place, was in the year 1977. The enquiry was in the year 1983 and therefore, the delay itself vitiates the enquiry. When the New Haryana Transport Company had not been examined, there was no justification to conclude that the bill in question was a bogus bill and further once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dismissal was not justified, it ought not to have denied to the workman the relief of reinstatement together with backwages. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and must be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the delay had in no way prejudiced the petitioner. Only after the audit report, it came to light that the petitioner has produced a bogus bill. After enquiry with Haryana Transport Company whose name was found in the bill, the respondent issued the show cause notice and proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with law. Only because of this the delay had occurred. Therefore, the delay had in no way prejudiced the petitioner. After enquiry with Haryana Transport Company whose name was found in the bill, the respondent issued the show cause notice and proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with law. Only because of this the delay had occurred. Therefore, the delay had in no way prejudiced the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and when the workman in question is employed in a bank, the standard of integrity has to be higher and no indulgence could be to shown to a person who produces bogus bills. It is also submitted that unless the Court finds that the Award is shockingly disproportionate and arbitrary without assigning any reasons it should not be lightly interfered with. 5. The following decisions were relied on by the respondents:- 1. Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal (2003 AIR SCW 801) 2. Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank (2003 AIR SCW 1238) 3. C.M.D., United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar (AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1571) 6. Before the Industrial Tribunal five points were considered, one of which was whether there was a fair and proper enquiry. The Tribunal found that the enquiry could not have been said to be vitiated merely because of the delay. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the reason of delay. Therefore, it was open to the Tribunal to consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer as materials on record. Before the Enquiry Officer, a letter was produced, addressed by Haryana Transport Company, denying that they had issued stamped receipt for the charges. Factually, there is no dispute regarding the transport of goods by the petitioner through a private lorry and the production of a bogus bill in the name of Haryana Transport Company. Therefore, admittedly the petitioner had produced a bill indicating that he had transported his goods through Haryana Transport Company, when he had actually and admittedly transported it through a private lorry. 7. The petitioner had been transferred to Kerala and had raised this bill and claimed the amount as if he had engaged the Haryana Transport Company to convey his belongings. It is in these circumstance, the Tribunal held that the action of the petitioner in claiming a certain sum as travelling allowance without having incurred the expense and claiming the amount from the respondent-bank would amount to misconduct. It is in these circumstance, the Tribunal held that the action of the petitioner in claiming a certain sum as travelling allowance without having incurred the expense and claiming the amount from the respondent-bank would amount to misconduct. It is difficult to differ from this conclusion on the face of the facts that have been stated above. The finding that the misconduct is proved cannot be assailed. 8. Once the misconduct has been proved, the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has the power to consider whether the punishment imposed was justified. The Tribunal has given reasons for not granting the relief of reinstatement and attendant benefits. But, once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal could not have ordered reinstatement and attendant benefits. But the Tribunal has chosen to award compensation. When the misconduct amounts to lack of integrity, the award of compensation itself is an unmerited windfall. However, in this case, the respondent has not challenged the award and the learned counsel submits that compensation has been paid. 9. In 2003 AIR SCW 1238 (cited supra), the Supreme Court observed that in a case which also involved a bank employee when the nature of his work demands vigilance, any carelessness in the discharge of duty will result in action being initiated. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that there was a bogus bill and he was employed in a bank. 10. In 2003 AIR SCW 801 (cited supra), the Supreme Court said the fact that the amount that is involved in the misappropriation is only Rs.16/- will not be relevant to interfere in matters where the charged employee holds the position of trust and where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not as if the workman is an Officer of the Bank or an Accountant, he is only a messenger but undeniably he had produced a bogus bill, the fact he is only a messenger will not dilute the requirement of honesty. 11. In AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1571 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters within which the power of judicial review should be exercised. 12. In this case, after correctly finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct, the Tribunal has still awarded compensation. 11. In AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1571 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters within which the power of judicial review should be exercised. 12. In this case, after correctly finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct, the Tribunal has still awarded compensation. The petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement and backwages, since a person, who has committed the misconduct as in this instant case cannot expect to be rewarded. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.