JUDGMENT By Court - Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 4458 of 2012, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal by which the Tribunal reinstated the respondent with 75% back wages, the appellant-Bank has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent was appointed in the year 1981 after death of her husband on compassionate ground as a subordinate staff and she was working with the bank. The allegation is that in the year 1994, the respondent and other staffs were engaged for counting of the cash, working under the supervision of one K. Kumar Swami (MW1), Cashcum Accounts Clerk. Further case of the appellant-Bank is that when the work was in progress, missing of one bundle of Rs. 50/was noticed and K. Kumar Swami (MW1) reported about the same. When search was going on, it is alleged that the respondent Inderawati Devi confessed that she had taken the bundle and kept somewhere else and the missing bundle was brought. The charge was framed against the respondent and on 3.8.1994 chargesheet was submitted upon the respondent, which was denied by her. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who had conducted inquiry and found the charges proved and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services. The respondent had preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority, affirming the order of dismissal from services. 3. Being aggrieved by the imposition of dismissal from the services, the respondent preferred Industrial Dispute before the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, which was registered as Reference Case No. 144 of 1997. By the award dated 9.11.2011, the Tribunal set aside the punishment of dismissal from services and directed the appellant-Bank for reinstatement of the respondent with 75% back wages. Challenging the impugned award, the appellant-Bank preferred writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 4458 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal rightly found that there is no direct evidence against the concerned workman to support the charge of theft and concealment of bundle of Rs.50/. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the Tribunal has rightly considered and appreciated the evidence on record and punishment of her dismissal is shockingly severe and affirmed the order of reinstatement with 75% back wages and other consequential benefits. 4. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the Tribunal has rightly considered and appreciated the evidence on record and punishment of her dismissal is shockingly severe and affirmed the order of reinstatement with 75% back wages and other consequential benefits. 4. Challenging the order in the writ petition, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank submitted that the banks are the authorities wherein public in general have full confidence and any action of theft would scatter the confidence which would ultimate erode the feelings of the general public in the functioning of the appellant-bank. The learned counsel further submitted that even while the counting was going on, one of the bundle of Rs.50/went missing and after the same was reported and when MW1 and other witnesses searched for bundle the respondent brought the bundle. Drawing our attention to page-42 of the supplementary affidavit (Annexure-7), counsel for the appellant submitted that when the respondent herself has confessed that she has taken one bundle of Rs. 50/, no further evidence was required to prove the case and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the evidence and further erred in ordering for setting aside the order of dismissal. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event the respondent has not adduced any evidence that she was not gainfully employed for the period of 16 years and prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. We have also heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since it was violation of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the punishment of dismissal from the services. The learned counsel further submitted that since the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the order wants no interference. 6. We have carefully considered the submission of the counsel for the parties. It transpires from the materials available and the award/order passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, the only evidence that was relied upon by the appellant-Bank is that when the search was going on, missing bundle of Rs.50/was found out at the instance of the respondent. That apart, only evidence found out is the alleged confessional statement of the respondent (vide page-42 of the supplementary affidavit). That apart, only evidence found out is the alleged confessional statement of the respondent (vide page-42 of the supplementary affidavit). In the confessional statement pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is stated that the respondent has intentionally concealed one of the bundle of Rs.50/to teach a lesson to K. Kumar Swami, another officer of the Bank. The said statement cannot be taken as a confession, admitting her guilt. 7. To impose the major penalty of punishment of dismissal, substantive piece of direct evidence is required. In our considered view, the statement pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be taken to be a substantive piece of evidence against the respondent. That apart, the respondent was with the bank from 1981 till 1994 i.e. for a period of period of 13 years and it is stated that she has got no adverse record. The Tribunal has also pointed out that no second show cause notice was given to the respondent by the Management of the Bank before dismissing her from services and the order of penalty dated 20th July, 1995 being violation of principle of natural justice. When the dismissal is a major penalty, having serious consequence, the appellant-bank ought to have issued second notice. 8. In the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the punishment of dismissal from service, which was rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In so far as back wages of 75% back wages is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has not adduced to show that she was not gainfully employed from the date of dismissal from service i.e. 20th July, 1995 till the order of reinstatement i.e. 9.11.2011 and, therefore, even if the Court has to uphold the award, payment of back wages may not be ordered. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that she was not gainfully employed during the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, the respondent being a woman and get the job only on compassionate ground as a subordinate staff, we do not think that she could have earned much amount which she could have earned from the salary of the bank. 11. However, the respondent being a woman and get the job only on compassionate ground as a subordinate staff, we do not think that she could have earned much amount which she could have earned from the salary of the bank. 11. Keeping in view the background of the respondent and the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify 75% as 40% back wages, the period of dismissal from services i.e. 20th July, 1994 till the date of award passed by the learned Tribunal on 9.11.2011. However, for continuity of service and other consequential benefits, the order passed by the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 144 of 1997 affirmed by the learned Single Judge is modified and the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed for reinstatement of the respondent by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. 75% back wages ordered by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge is modified as 40% back wages from 20.7.1995 The period between 8.7.1995 till the order of reinstatement (if she has not attained the age of superannuation or if she has attained the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier) should be treated as continuity of service and consequent attendance benefits. 12. The appellant-bank is directed to comply with the order within a period of four months. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.