Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order Annexure-P-5 dated March 8, 2004 by which the punishment order has been modified and in place of dismissal from Bank services he was discharged from Bank services. ( 2. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charge that he slapped Laxmichand Meena which was found to be proved in the departmental enquiry, as a result of which respondent/bank punished the petitioner by dismissing him from the service without notice under Clause 19 (6) (a) of first Bipartite. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1640/94 (Dashrath Prasad Mishra v. The Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank of India and Ors. ). The Single Bench of this Court dismissed the petition against which a Letters Patent Appeal (L. P. A. No. 676/2003) was preferred by the petitioner and the same was disposed of vide order dated 12. 12. 2003 (Annexure-P-4 ). The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 3. 5. 1993 and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1. 8. 2003 passed in M. P. No. 1640/94 and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment sympathetically. While deciding the LPA, the Division Bench in para 11 held as under: 11. All these facts cannot help the appellant in absolving him of the misconduct, but certainly, it would be a mitigating circumstance for a lesser punishment. We cannot forget the fact that originally, a lesser punishment was to be given on the basis of the legal advice, but this was over-ruled by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court must, in the ultimate analysis, look at the family of the delinquent and determine whether the punishment is so disproportionate to the charge held proved that it requires interference. Ultimately any punishment of dismissal will have adverse consequences on the family. The Division Bench while deciding the appeal took note that complainant Laxmichand Meena was having enmity with the appellant-petitioner and, therefore, making of false complaint against the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Ultimately any punishment of dismissal will have adverse consequences on the family. The Division Bench while deciding the appeal took note that complainant Laxmichand Meena was having enmity with the appellant-petitioner and, therefore, making of false complaint against the petitioner cannot be ruled out. It would be appropriate to quote para 9 of the decision of the Division Bench which reads thus: 9. There is also some material to show that the complainant, who is alleged to have been slapped, had some enmity with the appellant. It appears that earlier there was a complaint by the appellant against the complainant - Laxmichand Meena. It is further submitted that it cannot be ruled-out that Laxmichand Meena had given a false complaint against the appellant. ( 3. ) AFTER the decision of the Division Bench in LPA the impugned order Annexure-P-5 dated March 8, 2004 has been passed by the respondent-Bank and in place of dismissal from Bank service, the petitioner has been discharged from the service of the Bank. ( 4. ) SINCE the Division Bench of this Court has already held in para 9 that making of false complaint by complainant Laxmichand Meena cannot be ruled out, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be appropriate to punish the petitioner by down grading him to the lowest pay scale of the post of Daftari since at the relevant point of time he was serving on the post of Daftari. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for any back wages. ( 5. ) THE petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.