JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Appellant/workman has preferred this intra-court appeal challenging the impugned order dated 11.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 against the award of Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 2.4.1996 was allowed and award of the Tribunal, whereby penalty of dismissal of workman from service was converted into an order of penalty of with-holding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was set aside. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant/workman was appointed as probationer clerk and joined the respondent Bank on 28.10.1982. The respondent Bank issued a charge-sheet to workman-appellant on 8th/9th April, 1986. After completion of departmental enquiry, the dismissal order of workman dated 30.5.1987 was passed, which was challenged by him before Central Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal from service and passed an order of with-holding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved with the award, the respondent Bank filed a writ petition, which has been allowed by Single Judge vide order, impugned in this intra-court appeal. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that looking to nature of charge against appellant, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and in passing order of with-holding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the order passed by Single Bench is liable to be set aside. 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1 & 2. 6. There is no dispute that the finding recorded against the appellant proving the charge in domestic enquiry was found to be in accordance with the rules and as per principles of natural justice by Tribunal vide order dated 17th April, 1995 and the said order was not challenged by way of appeal and that attained finality. In these circumstances, so far as proving of charges and holding of domestic enquiry is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The said finding has been accepted by the Tribunal also. 7. The only question before Single Bench was as to whether looking to the charge against workman, the penalty of dismissal from service was justified or not? In these circumstances, so far as proving of charges and holding of domestic enquiry is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The said finding has been accepted by the Tribunal also. 7. The only question before Single Bench was as to whether looking to the charge against workman, the penalty of dismissal from service was justified or not? Learned Single Judge quoted the charge in the impugned order, which discloses that while workman was earlier employed in Narnaul Central Co-operative Consumer's Store Ltd., Narnaul as Salesman in Cloth Section, he was served with charge-sheet for misappropriation of money of Rs. 16772/- and after being held guilty, his services were terminated and this vital information of he being employed as Salesman and having been terminated from service because of proved misconduct was concealed by him while applying for Bank job despite there being a requirement to have disclosed it in the application form and Bio-Data submitted while joining Bank service. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the misappropriation committed by workman in his earlier employment was a material fact, which he concealed and this charge was found to be proved. Domestic enquiry was also conducted in accordance with the rules and after following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was not a fit case for Tribunal to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the employer. The learned Single Bench has also relied on NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh ( 2006 (6) SCC 187 ) and UP SRTC v. Vinod Kumar ( 2008(1) SCC 115 ) and came to a conclusion that interference by court with quantum of punishment in such like case, where there is a charge of misappropriation of funds was found to be proved, was not considered to be appropriate. The relevant portion of impugned order passed by Single Bench is reproduced as under:- "However, in a case of misappropriation of funds where there is financial loss, it was observed by Apex Court in NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh ( 2006 (6) SCC 187 ) that if one is found guilty of misappropriation, the Court should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman, and observed ad infra: "In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs. 360.95. 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who mis-appropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money mis-appropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of mis-appropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or mis-placed sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 ) was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected them selves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum." and further considered in later judgment in UP SRTC v. Vinod Kumar ( 2008(1) SCC 115 ) and the interference by Court in the quantum of punishment in such like case where there is a charge of misappropriation of funds and found to be proved was not considered to be appropriate. However, misappropriation of funds might not have been committed by the instant workman while being in service of the Bank but he was charge sheeted for misappropriation of funds by earlier employer and on being held guilty, his services were terminated but this vital information has been materially concealed by him while applying for job of the Bank and non disclosure of material information regarding misappropriation of funds in course of earlier employment was taken note of petitioner employer while inflicting penalty of dismissal from service and it was the gross misconduct which the workman committed while application was submitted at the stage of participation in the process of selection and at the stage of appointment in the Banking service. This Court would further like to record that there is no place of generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of judicial forums and interference with quantum of punishment is impermissible. In Banking service, if there is an allegation of deliberate attempt to withhold vital information; that too regarding proved misconduct of misappropriation of money being a financial institution, that has to be taken seriously and this Court does not find any error in the decision making process of the disciplinary authority (Canara Bank) in inflicting punishment of dismissal from service. Misappropriation might have been committed in earlier employment but once that has been found proved after regular inquiry and this vital information which the workman indisputably concealed while applying for Bank job, was necessarily to be disclosed by incumbent in the Form at Col.14, in the opinion of this Court, the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon workman by the disciplinary authority was in no manner disproportionate to the misconduct found proved against him and exercise of power U/S 11-A by the learned Tribunal in the facts of instant case cannot be approved by this Court". 8. Since the charge of misappropriation in earlier employment was a material fact, it should have been disclosed at the time of recruitment in Bank by workman and the same was not disclosed or concealed and the charge was found to be proved, therefore, reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for setting aside the award of the Tribunal are legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. 9. 9. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******