Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, dated 212. 2001, passed in I.D.No.286 of 2001, dismissing the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. .3. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the service of the first respondent Bank as a clerk from 1. 1979. He was placed under suspension, on 212. 1994, alleging that he had committed certain misconduct. The first respondent had issued a charge sheet, dated 23. 1995, alleging that the petitioner had forged the signature of one S.Elumalai, a customer having S.B. Account No.AG 11/2112 and had received the payment, illegally, for two sums of Rs.600/- and Rs.1,000/-and he had also forged the signature of a deceased account holder in the joint account standing in the name of V.Ramasamy Reddiar and Sundarambal, having account No.AG12/2397 and had withdrawn a sum of Rs.500/-. It had also been alleged that the petitioner had borrowed money from outside sources, without the prior permission from the Bank and thereby, had tarnished the image of the Bank. Based on the charges levelled against the petitioner, the first respondent had conducted an enquiry. During the enquiry, the petitioner had submitted a letter, dated 210. 1995, to the enquiry officer, accepting the lapses and had pleaded for leniency to be shown towards him. Thereafter, the enquiry officer had submitted a report holding that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. By a letter, dated 13. 1997, the first respondent had directed the petitioner to appear before the disciplinary authority for a personal hearing. After the personal hearing, the first respondent, by an order, dated 4. 1997, had dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority had passed an order, dated 27. 1997, dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the conciliation had failed and a failure report had been submitted, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court, in I.D.No.286 of 2001. However, the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, by its award, dated 212. 1997, dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the conciliation had failed and a failure report had been submitted, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court, in I.D.No.286 of 2001. However, the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, by its award, dated 212. 2001, made in I.D.No.286 of 2001, had held that the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the first respondent Bank, by an order, dated 4. 1997, was justified. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a handicapped person, the first respondent ought to have taken a lenient view in imposing the punishment on him. Further, the second respondent Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court had not invoked its discretionary powers, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to set aside the order of dismissal, dated 4. 1997, passed by the first respondent. .5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court had considered all the issues placed before it before coming to the right conclusions. The second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court had rightly held that the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the petitioner by the first respondent, by its order, dated 4. 1997, is in accordance with law. The second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court had also considered the fact that the petitioner had admitted the act of misappropriation of the funds, as alleged against him. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also submitted that the various decisions of this Court, as well as of the Supreme Court, had clearly held that a employee of a Bank or a financial Institution, like the first respondent Bank, ought to have the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness. It is also found that the petitioner had committed the act of misappropriation of the funds belonging to the first respondent Bank. No sympathy can be shown even if he is a handicapped person. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in BANK OF INDIA Vs. T. JOGRAM (2007-III-LLJ-363) in support of his contentions. 8. No sympathy can be shown even if he is a handicapped person. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in BANK OF INDIA Vs. T. JOGRAM (2007-III-LLJ-363) in support of his contentions. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the second respondent, dated 212. 2001, made in I.D.No.286 of 2001. Once it has been found that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of the funds, as alleged in the charge memo, no sympathy can be shown in his favour, even though he is a handicapped person. 9. From the various decisions of this Court, as well as of the Supreme Court, it is clear that any sympathy shown towards the delinquent employee would be a misplaced sympathy. It has also been held that where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. In such view of the matter, this Court is not persuaded to set aside the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, dated 212. 2001, made in I.D.No.286 of 2001. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.