Judgment N.K. Patil, J. 1. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the common order dated 2nd August, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.19239/2000 c/w. Writ Petition No.9279/2000 and Writ Petition No.43485/1999 by the learned Single Judge, have presented this writ appeal. In the writ petition filed by the respondent Bank, it had sought for quashing of the award dated 23rd September, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore and consequently, to declare that the Bank is justified in imposing upon the deceased employee the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 18th March, 1994. In the other two writ petitions, the appellants had sought for a direction, directing the Bank and the Regional Labout Officer (central) to implement the award in its entirety, granting all the consequential benefits and to quash the award dated 23rd September, 1999, insofar as it relates to denial of remaining 50% backwages. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the delinquent employees, Sri B.K. Basavalingappa, who was working as chashire at the respondent – Chitradurga Gramibn Bank, (hereinafter referred to as “Bank” for short) is no more and the appellants herein are his legal representatives. While the deceased employee was so working in the Bank, on 7th February, 1990, one Smt. C. Mahantamma, holder of Savings Bank Account No. 1497, came to the Bank for crediting a sum of Rs.600/- and handed over the said amount to the deceased for crediting the same to her S.B. Account. The deceased, on receipt of the said amount, gave her a challan, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 600/- and also made entry in the Pass Book, giving credit of Rs. 600/-to her S.B. Account. But, unfortunately, he failed to deposit the said amount in her S.B. Account, in actual. Only after lapse of one year, it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 600/- was not credited on 7th February, 1990 but was credited to her Account on 3rd July, 1991. the father-in-law of the deceased had obtained the Pass Book from the S.B. Account holder, wherein it was found that ‘7.2.1990’ was struck off and an entry was made to that effect as ‘3.7.1991’. When this fact came to the knowledge of the Account holder, Smt. C. Mahantamma, she lodged a complaint before the Bank. the father-in-law of the deceased had obtained the Pass Book from the S.B. Account holder, wherein it was found that ‘7.2.1990’ was struck off and an entry was made to that effect as ‘3.7.1991’. When this fact came to the knowledge of the Account holder, Smt. C. Mahantamma, she lodged a complaint before the Bank. On the basis of the complaint submitted by the S.B. Account holder, the Bank issued Articles of Charges, alleging that the deceased had misappropriated a sum of Rs.600/- remitted on 7th February, 1990 to the credit of Smt. C. Mahantamma in her S.B. Account No.1497. Accordingly, an inquiry was initiated against the deceased and the deceased contested the allegations. On behalf of the Bank, three witnesses were examined and the deceased also cross-examined the said witnesses. The deceased adduced his evidence. The inquiry Officer, after conducting through enquiry with reference to the relevant material available on file, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, in turn, issued a show-cause notice, enclosing thereto a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter also gave a personal hearing to the deceased. The deceased appeared personally and requested for lesser punishment and specifically requested not to impose higher punishment of dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has passed the order on 18th March, 1994, dismissing the deceased from service. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the deceased raised an Industrial Dispute and since the conciliation failed, the said dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication. The said Reference was numbered as C.R. 172/1997. The Labour Court, after affording reasonable opportunity to the deceased /his representative and after going through the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and other material available on file, has, by its order dated 23rd September, 1999, modified the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority to the extent that the deceased was entitled to be reinstated with 50% backwages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the Bank as well as the deceased filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court, as referred above. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the Bank as well as the deceased filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court, as referred above. The writ petition filed by Bank and the two petitions filed by deceased employee, who has since been represented by his Legal Representatives had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 2nd August, 2005 and the learned Single Judge, after re-appreciation of the material available on record, after going through the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, allowed the writ petition filed by Bank and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the deceased, following the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court. Assailing the correctness of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, referred above, the LRs. Of deceased – appellants herein have presented this appeal, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellants for considerable length of time. 4. The principal submission canvassed at the out set by the learned Counsel appearing for appellants is that, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved and the learned Single Judge is not justified in allowing the petition filed by the Bank and dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants. Further he submitted that, the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the deceased has died leaving behind him the wife and a minor son and he was the sole earning member and that the entire family was dependent on his income. He also specifically pointed out that the Inquiry Officer has failed to examine the complainant and there was no opportunity afforded for the deceased or his representative to cross-examine her. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages and continuity of service. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor considered by the learned Single Judge. To substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and Thomas Jose and Another reported in 2000-LLJ-1599 and also in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor considered by the learned Single Judge. To substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and Thomas Jose and Another reported in 2000-LLJ-1599 and also in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 277 and submitted that, in the absence of examination of the complainant, the delinquent official is entitled to be reinstated into service with 50% backwages and hence, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is not justifiable. Therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal may be allowed and the common order passed by the learned Single Judge may be modified, at least by extending the monetary benefits and appointing the first appellant on compassionate ground on account of the death of the deceased. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for appellant and after perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to: Whether the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is sustainable in law? After careful of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error of law or material irregularity, as such committed by the learned Single Judge, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by Bank and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. He has specifically referred in his order that the deceased has appeared before the Disciplinary Authority personally and requested to impose lesser punishment having regard to the gravity of misconduct in misappropriating a sum of Rs.600/-. Instead of crediting the amount given by the complainant to her S.B. Account, the same has been deposited in her Account, but after lapse of more than one year, after realizing the mistake committed. The father-in-law of the deceased has gone to the Account holder and got the pass book and thereafter changed the entry in the pass book. The said conduct of the deceased is astonishing in nature, that too, he being a cashier in the Bank. The father-in-law of the deceased has gone to the Account holder and got the pass book and thereafter changed the entry in the pass book. The said conduct of the deceased is astonishing in nature, that too, he being a cashier in the Bank. The amounts deposited by the various Account holders are the source of income to run the Bank and the deceased being a cashier, ought to have discharged his duties with dedication, honesty and integrity. The very post of cashier is held in high esteem, and a person holding such post is expected to discharge his duties with utmost caution, care and sincerity. In the instant case, the deceased being a cashier has failed to deposit a sum of Rs.600/-to the Account of the Complaint for more than one year, and has credited her Account, after lapse of more than one year, after realizing the mistake, in fact, the deceased has also admitted his guilt and requested for lesser punishment before the Disciplinary Authority, when such being the case, it cannot be said that the misconduct of the deceased employee was a bona fide act or by mistake, on the other hand, it was a clear case of deliberate and intentional act or misappropriation. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judgem, placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in case of Karnataka State Road transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti reported in AIR 2001 SC 930 and Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma reported in 2002-I-LLJ 234 and also the judgment reported in ILR 2001 Karnataka P.239 [Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited) and Others Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Others) has rightly allowed the writ petition of the Bank and dismissed the writ petitions of the deceased employee, categorically holding that, any sympathy shown to the deceased employee would be a case of misplaced sympathy. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that, unfortunately, the deceased is no more and the question of reinstatement is purely academic and a person who has not worked is not entitled to any backwages especially when misconduct is held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that, unfortunately, the deceased is no more and the question of reinstatement is purely academic and a person who has not worked is not entitled to any backwages especially when misconduct is held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and we find no reason to interfere in the well-considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we decline to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. Regarding the specific submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for appellants that the widow of the deceased employee may be provided with employment on compassionate grounds, is concerned, we are of the considered view that the said aspect has also been dealt with in detail by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 14 of his order. The learned Single Judge has held that, when once misconduct is proved and the order of dismissal is upheld, the question of directing the Bank to consider the request for appointment on compassionate grounds does not arise. Therefore, the said specific submission of the learned Counsel appearing for appellants also cannot be considered. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.