S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was a clerk in Central Bank of india. He was found involved in embezzlement of lakhs of rupees. Accordingly, after holding inquiry he was compulsorily retired through order dated September 17, 2001, Annexure 12 to the writ petition. Through the said order he was removed from bank service with retiral benefits. That order was passed by Regional manager, Agra. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal. Appeal was allowed on march 11, 2003 by Appellate Authority/deputy general Manager and punishment of removal was substituted by reduction by eight stages in time scale of pay for 10 years. There was four charges. Against every charge, reduction by two stages was granted. Against charge no. 1 and 2 reduction was for three years each and against charge nos. 3 and 4 it was for two years each. Copy of the said order has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit, dated august 20, 2005. Petitioner has challenged this order. ( 2 ) ALLEGATIONS were in respect of period when petitioner was posted at Mathura Branch. Charge sheet was given on October 26, 1998 and full opportunity was provided to the petitioner by Enquiry Officer. Appointing authority sent a copy of the report to the petitioner and after considering his reply passed the order dated September 17, 2001. Appointing Authority personally heard the petitioner on his representation on two dates august 27 and 29, 2001. The Appellate authority against charge no. 1 categorically held that petitioner was in collusion with criminals who defrauded the bank to the extent of more than Rs. 33 lakhs and petitioner acted mala fidely in the said transactions. He had unauthorizedly issued the cheque book without proper enquiry to a person who was not connected with the Account concerned. The second charge was that he issued another cheque book in favour of a third person in collusion with the criminals which caused loss of more than 33 lakhs to the bank. The appellate Authority recorded a finding that as far as charge no. 2 was concerned, petitioner was the main person responsible for the fraud. Third charge was that in March and June 1998, 16 forged demand draft were encashed and in the said activity also petitioner was primarily involved causing loss of 14. 5 lakhs. Fourth charge was also regarding deposit of 3 forged demand drafts. 2 was concerned, petitioner was the main person responsible for the fraud. Third charge was that in March and June 1998, 16 forged demand draft were encashed and in the said activity also petitioner was primarily involved causing loss of 14. 5 lakhs. Fourth charge was also regarding deposit of 3 forged demand drafts. The finding of the Appellate authority is that fourth charge was also proved and it was also proved that due to petitioners assistance criminals were able to cause the loss of Rs. 2 lakhs to the bank. ( 3 ) IT is very strange that inspite of such findings Appellate Authority set aside the order of removal on the following three grounds: 1. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste. 2. All the children of the petitioner are school going. 3. Petitioner apart from salary has got no other source of income. ( 4 ) UNDER charge no. 2 the Appellate Court categorically held that petitioner was guilty, of grave misconduct and the punishment awarded to him was not wrong. However, appellate authority further held that due to family condition of the petitioner the punishment was being changed. ( 5 ) THERE is no such law that quantum of punishment must be dependent upon caste of the erring employee. Similarly merely because children are school going or that an employee has got no other source of income punishment cannot be reduced. Normally employees in their 30s and 40s have got school/college going children and normally employees do not have any other source of income except salary. Petitioner should have thought about his family and children at the time of committing the fraud and misconduct. In view of gravest possible misconduct of the petitioner and huge quantum of loss caused to the bank no punishment except that or removal was warranted. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, as reduction of punishment by appellate authority is not under challenge in this writ petition hence that cannot be set aside. ( 7 ) AS far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the lesser punishment which was awarded by the appellate authority should not have been awarded is concerned, it is utterly devoid of merit hence rejected. In fact appellate authority should not have reduced the punishment. ( 7 ) AS far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the lesser punishment which was awarded by the appellate authority should not have been awarded is concerned, it is utterly devoid of merit hence rejected. In fact appellate authority should not have reduced the punishment. In view of this it cannot be said that even the lesser punishment which was awarded should not have been awarded or still lesser punishment should have been awarded. ( 8 ) WRIT petition is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 25000/ -. Extra vigil shall be kept in the working of the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the appellate authority who set aside the order of removal of the petitioner. .