ORAL JUDGMENT:- This writ petition is filed by the Bank being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the Appellate Court modified the order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Nanded in dispute No. 264 of 1998 dated 28-10-1999 and held that the termination order dated 253-1998 is null, void and in-operative and the present respondent is entitled to reinstatement as Branch Manager along with full back salary from 25-3-1998 on the condition of stoppage of two annual increments after 25-3-1998. Thus, the Appellate Court substituted punishment of dismissal by stoppage of two increments. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as below: The respondent was initially employed as a Clerk and later-on was promoted as a Branch Manager (Agent). On 13-8-1992 the respondent was transferred to Massakhandeshwari branch of the petitioner-Bank as Branch Manager. One Shri P.K. Pawar was working as a peon. There was no Clerk provided to the branch and the Cashier had refused to work as Clerk and therefore Shri P.K. Pawar was doing the work of Clerk. There was misappropriation of Rs. 22020/-. Modus operandi was that three societies had drawn cheques in favour of their members towards loans to purchase fertilisers. The members purchased fertilizers and gave cheques to the shop-keeper. The shop-keeper presented cheques to the bank. On the same date the amounts of cheques were credited in the account of the shop-keeper. There were no signatures of the Branch Manager on the disputed cheques. Thereafter, Shri P.K. Pawar removed those cheques from the bundle and handed them over to the shop-keeper who again presented the said cheques and encashed them. Thus, there was double payment of Rs. 22020/- to the shop-keeper. 3. After the misappropriation came to light, there was enquiry. One Shri G. R. Joshi, Advocate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He filed his report Exh. 36 in which the present respondent was held guilty. Thereafter, the Managing Committee passed resolution and dismissed the present respondent. It also dismissed the peon Shri P.K. Pawar. Said order of termination is challenged by the present respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998 in this Court. He filed his report Exh. 36 in which the present respondent was held guilty. Thereafter, the Managing Committee passed resolution and dismissed the present respondent. It also dismissed the peon Shri P.K. Pawar. Said order of termination is challenged by the present respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998 in this Court. Said writ petition along with Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1998 filed by peon Shri P.K. Pawar and another writ petition filed by another person against Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana were heard together and decided by a common judgment. Said judgment is reported as Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Managing Director, Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another, 1998(3} Mh.LJ. 214. The Court directed the present respondent to approach Co-operative Court challenging his dismissal and accordingly the present respondent filed Dispute No. 264 of 1998, which was decided on 28-10-1999. The Co-operative Court set aside order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages. As against that decision, the petitioner Bank filed Appeal No. 120 of 1990 which was decided on 5-5-2000. The Appellate Court modified the order. As against that judgment, this petition is filed. 4. The first point raised before me is that the Co-operative Court has no jurisdiction and the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998 is not tenable in law. Said view taken by the Division Bench was contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of The Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. P.R. Mankad and another, AIR 1979 SC 1203 , and by this Court in Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd., Bombay and others vs. V S. Loni and another, AIR 1984 Born. 419. Learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out that there was amendment to the Proviso to section 91 (1)(e) incorporated by the Maharashtra Act 20 of 1986 and as such there was change in the law. Therefore, there is no merit in the arguments that earlier view should have been followed. Apart from it, now the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998 itself reported as Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Managing Director, Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another, 1998(3} Mh.L.J. 214 has attained finality. It is a judgment between the parties before this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the arguments that earlier view should have been followed. Apart from it, now the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998 itself reported as Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Managing Director, Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another, 1998(3} Mh.L.J. 214 has attained finality. It is a judgment between the parties before this Court. It is no more permissible for this Court to consider legality or correctness of judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1998. There is clear bar of estoppel by record or what is called doctrine of res judicata. 5. The second point raised is that the Co-operative Court interfered with the findings arrived in the domestic enquiry. Learned advocate for the respondent has produced a copy of charge-sheet served on the present respondent and pointed out that there was no charge of committing misappropriation of Rs. 22020/-, but charge was for not keeping necessary supervision and thus being negligent which facilitated commission of misappropriation by Shri P.K. Pawar, peon and in view of this it cannot be said that the issues were not properly framed. It is argued before me by learned advocate for the respondent that the issues framed are as per pleadings before the Co-operative Court. 6. The Co-operative Court after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, has come to the conclusion that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer were not proper and the enquiry was not properly held. He also pointed out that on same date two resolutions were passed by the Managing Committee; one resolution for imposing punishment of stoppage of increments and another for imposing punishment of termination. Both resolutions refer to same act of misconduct and there cannot be two punishments for the same act of misconduct. The discussion regarding the Enquiry Report is in para 15 of the judgment. 7. However, the State Co-operative Appellate Court while deciding Appeal No. 120 of 1999 came to a conclusion that negligence of the present respondent was proved. He also held that there was no misappropriation by the present respondent. After discussion, the conclusions drawn by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court are reproduced below. They are at the end of para No.4. ". . . . . .. First point which is already discussed by me that the respondent has failed to supervise the work of the staff. After discussion, the conclusions drawn by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court are reproduced below. They are at the end of para No.4. ". . . . . .. First point which is already discussed by me that the respondent has failed to supervise the work of the staff. This contention in the enquiry report is correct to some extent because if the respondent would have supervised the work properly and timely, no misappropriation would have been committed or no chance would have been given to Shri P. K. Pawar. Second point that there is misappropriation committed by the disputant at another place, which is not concerned with the case, because the enquiry was pertaining to the misappropriation at branch Masakhandaeswari and not another place. Therefore, this finding cannot be acceptable to me. Third finding is about violation of section 15(A)(5), (11), (25) of standing order. I have perused the section 15 sub-section (4). It is in respect of misappropriation and theft and 15(5) is in respect of not keeping the accounts properly or making misappropriation in cash. But, there is no violation of this standing order of managing committee of section 15(5). Third point is about section 15(11). It is in respect of loss of confidence in public and certainly this clause is applicable in this case, because when the misappropriation is committed at any branch, public at large will lose the confidence of the bank. Section 15(25) is pertaining to uniform, which is not material in deciding this case. I have already stated to some extent violation of section 15(4) and 15(KI) are committed, but it is a fact that the disputant respondent has not committed any misappropriation and P. K. Pawar has committed the same. But due to the negligence of the respondent-disputant, the disputant cannot deny his responsibility. In case, he would have supervised the work and staff properly and worked timely, there is no scope for any employee to commit misappropriation. Due to the negligence in supervising the work Shri P. K. Pawar has committed the misappropriation and that is gist of the case and enquiry report has also mentioned this fact in para 3 of the report." 8. Due to the negligence in supervising the work Shri P. K. Pawar has committed the misappropriation and that is gist of the case and enquiry report has also mentioned this fact in para 3 of the report." 8. Thereafter, in para No.5 the Appellate court discussed that in respect of the same act of misconduct, there were two punishments by two resolutions which was not permissible and in the circumstances the conclusion drawn at the end of the judgment is that the order of the Lower Court needs to be modified to the extent that the disputant respondent be penalized by stopping two increments for negligence committed at branch Masakhandeshwari and he passed the order which is as follows:" (1) The appeal is hereby dismissed. (2) The order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Nanded on 28-10-1999 in Dispute No. 264/98 is hereby confirmed with following modifications: It is declared that the termination order dated 25-3-1998 bearing No. 10630/97-98 as null and void and in-operative. The opponent bank shall reinstate the disputant as branch Manager along with full back wages from 25-3-1998 on the condition of stopping two annual increments after 25-3-1998 and reinstate him on the service of the bank on above condition. Rand be sent back to the trial Court. Parties to bear their own cost." 9. It is argued before me that Shri P.K. Pawar is necessary party. But, considering the charge-sheet served on the petitioner, copy of which is produced on record by the learned advocate for the respondent and which is now marked as Exh. "X", clearly shows that there was no charge of misappropriation of amount against the respondent and as such Shri P. K. Pawar cannot be held necessary party. Issue No.2 was properly framed by the Co-operative Court. 10. It is argued before me that the Co-operative Appellate Court has delivered only operative part and not full judgment, which was not permissible. But that would not affect the merits of the petition before this Court. 11. It is argued before this Court that the Appellate Court imposed punishment of stoppage of increments and set aside order of reinstatement, in such eventuality, the order of backwages could not have been ordered. Secondly, when charges are proved, interference should not have been made so far as decision of the Managing Committee regarding punishment is concerned. 11. It is argued before this Court that the Appellate Court imposed punishment of stoppage of increments and set aside order of reinstatement, in such eventuality, the order of backwages could not have been ordered. Secondly, when charges are proved, interference should not have been made so far as decision of the Managing Committee regarding punishment is concerned. Thirdly, the learned advocate relied upon a case of Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2249. In that case it is observed that where a Bank Officer is involved in misappropriation of funds of Co-operative Society, termination of his service for loss of confidence is proper and action of the bank cannot be said to be mala fide. In this case there was no charge of misappropriation against the present respondent. The charge was lack of supervision and negligence as held by the Appellate Court at the end of para 4 which portion is reproduced earlier. It does not appear that the Co-operative Court committed any error in holding that there cannot be two punishments for same misconduct and then upholding the punishment of stoppage of two increments. 12. It is also pointed out that when the petitioner approached the Cooperative Court in 1998, he was 55 years of age and when the Appellate Court decided the matter on 5-2-2000, he had already crossed 57 years of age; and by this time he has cross the age of super annuation. 13. It is also rightly argued before this Court that when the delinquent is found guilty of the charges framed, no back wages can be allowed. In support of this, I may refer to a case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bhagyo Mal and ors., 1994(1l) CLR 130. In para 2 of the case following observations are made: "2. The Tribunal while reducing the punishment and reinstating the workman, had denied the back wages to him. However, in writ petition the High Court interfered with the order denying the back wages, and while affirming the punishment, directed that the respondent would be entitled to the back wages. We find that the High Court's order is self-contradictory. The Tribunal while reducing the punishment and reinstating the workman, had denied the back wages to him. However, in writ petition the High Court interfered with the order denying the back wages, and while affirming the punishment, directed that the respondent would be entitled to the back wages. We find that the High Court's order is self-contradictory. When the High Court had found that the respondent employee deserved punishment on account of his misconduct, the High Court could not have rewarded the employee by granting him the back wages particularly when the Tribunal had converted the order of dismissal into that of the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside that part of the order of the High Court whereby the respondent employee has been given the benefit of back wages. The rest of the order is maintained. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs." 14. In the case of Baldeo Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another, 1986(53) F.L.R. 738, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal from service and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, but at the same time awarded lesser punishment. It was held that no back wages could be awarded and reinstatement shall be without back wages. It is stated at bar by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent is not reinstated till now. 15. In these circumstances, this Court allows the writ petition to the extent of only back wages and sets aside the order of back wages (salary) from the date of termination which is 25-3-1998. However, the respondent is entitled to salary from the date of judgment of the Co-operative Appellate Court, which is 5-52000 till date of his super annuation. Since, by this time the petitioner has already crossed the age of super annuation, there is no question of his reinstatement. So, in effect the petitioner would be entitled to only salary from 5-5-2000 till the date of his super annuation after giving effect to stoppage of two increments as directed by the Appellate Court. 16. With aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of. Rule made partly absolute. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.