JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J.:- The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of penalty imposed on the petitioner of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment on the charges being proved against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 2. The petitioner was serving as a Single Window Operator in the Punjab National Bank when a departmental inquiry was proceeded against him on the following among other charges: Charge Sheet dated 18.11.2008 "You used to receive cash from the Head Cashier on different dates in the pleas of late payments in the Account No. 1067000100076864 of M/S James Connection Trust of which are an authorized signatory as drawer. But no such cheques were passed in the account on subsequent dates i.e. next date of receipt of payments. The payments were being accommodated overnight on regular basis." There was another Charge Sheet dated 22.4.2009 which related to improper verification of entry in two accounts. 3. The present writ petition is primarily concerned with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner in connection with the charge sheet dated 18.11.2008, in respect of which he was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment on the charge being proved in the departmental enquiry initiated against him. The authority imposed the penalty of downgrading of pay by 2 stages lower in the scale of pay in respect of charge sheet dated 22.4.2009, of which the petitioner has not raised any issue in the present writ petition. 4. As regards the charge relating to Charge Sheet dated 18.11.2008, with which we are presently concerned, the petitioner apparently admitted the charge in course of the inquiry, though he also submitted his explanation in respect of the aforesaid charge in his explanation submitted on 11.12.2008. In other words, even though he had admitted to have received money from cashier on different dates on late payment in his explanation dated 11.12.2008, he explained that he was one of the signatories of M/s James Connection Trust (SB A/C No 1067000100076864) of which he was an Honorary Director. It was stated that the said Trust is purely a voluntary charitable organisation based in his hometown Churachandpur far away from the Bank which was giving shelter to many orphans and refugees of communal clash in the State of Manipur. It was stated that the said Trust is purely a voluntary charitable organisation based in his hometown Churachandpur far away from the Bank which was giving shelter to many orphans and refugees of communal clash in the State of Manipur. At the relevant time, he was working in the Clearing Department of the Bank and stated that whenever there was any urgent need for money for the inmates of the Orphanage he used to receive cash from the Head Cashier, Shri Khupzathang against cheques of the Account on late payment for adjustment on the next morning. He also stated that late payment was made on two occasions during the said period from the above mentioned SB Account in the interest of the poor children who are living in the Orphanage at Churachandpur. It was also stated that there was no question of misuse of Bank's fund by fraudulent means as there was always enough balance of Funds in the Account. He also stated that such transactions were executed with due knowledge and approval of the Supervisors of the branch which had been discontinued after inspection and sought for forgiveness as there was no malafide intention. 5. The inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report dated 23.3.2009 holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 4.3.2011 by the disciplinary authority as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment should not be imposed upon him. Ultimately, the authorities issued the order dated 16.5.2011 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment, in terms of clause 6(c) of Bipartite Settlement dt. 10.4.2002 which is challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order dated 16.5.2011 before the appellate authority raising various grounds, inter alia, by making serious allegations against the inquiry officer that the petitioner was pressurized to admit the charges assuring the petitioner of exoneration, that the petitioner was denied opportunity to examine two officers of the Bank. The petitioner had also contended that he had explained his position clearly in his explanation letter dated 11.12.2008 which was never considered by the disciplinary authority. 6. The appellate authority, however, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 18.2.2012. 7. The petitioner had also contended that he had explained his position clearly in his explanation letter dated 11.12.2008 which was never considered by the disciplinary authority. 6. The appellate authority, however, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 18.2.2012. 7. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the charges against him were not serious as the irregularities alleged were not serious as no pecuniary loss was caused to the bank. It had been submitted that there was always sufficient fund in the account in issue and only on two occasions, the petitioner had drawn money against cheques deposited and the said withdrawal was done in order to meet the urgent requirements for the poor inmates of the orphanage which was being managed by the Trust from whose account the petitioner had withdrawn money on late payment. According to Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the allegation and charge relating to chargesheet dated 18.11.2008 framed against the petitioner could never be construed as a gross misconduct as no pecuniary loss was caused to the bank and it could at best be a "minor misconduct" as contemplated under Clause 7 of the Bipartite Settlement and as such, the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment is grossly disproportionate to the charges. Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel has also raised various other issues regarding the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend himself, as no defence assistant was allowed, leading of evidence was denied, etc. Further, he also submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply their mind particularly with regard to the explanation furnished by the petitioner before imposing the aforesaid impugned penalty as provided under Clause 12(c) of the BPS. Mr. Nokulsana has also contended that the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the money only after submitting necessary cheques and the petitioner could not be faulted if the concerned cashier had not entered the amounts and made necessary debit. Mr. Mr. Nokulsana has also contended that the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the money only after submitting necessary cheques and the petitioner could not be faulted if the concerned cashier had not entered the amounts and made necessary debit. Mr. Nokulsana has also submitted that the petitioner has been victimized by imposing a harsh penalty, as many others who were similarly charged with such irregularities have been retained in service by merely imposing penalty of reduction of 3 (three) stages in the time scale of pay for 2 (two) years, etc, as in the case of one Shri F. Zimik who was a Manager of the office at Imphal, and also charged with various irregularities which were proved against him. It has been also contended that similarly, in respect of Shri L. Haokip who was working as a Senior Manager in the Branch Office, in spite of charge of irregularities being proved mostly against him, he was punished only with the imposition of penalty of reduction of 2 (two) stages in the time scale of pay for 2 years. 8. The respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition have denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It had been denied that the departmental inquiry was not conducted by following due process. It was contended that in fact, the petitioner never requested the inquiry officer to allow him to produce any witnesses for examination or cross-examination and he was given the opportunity to engage the defence assistant and produce witnesses. It was also stated that in his explanation submitted to the authority on 5.3.2009 and 11.12.2009, the petitioner had admitted that he had received cash from the cashier on account of late payment and it has been contended that the bank incurred loss financially as it could have earned on the interest on the amount received by the petitioner without debiting to the concerned account. It was also stated that other officers mentioned by the petitioner were not involved in financial transactions or withdrawal on late payment as in the case of petitioner and their case cannot be equated with that of the petitioner and accordingly it had been submitted that no fault can be found with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed with the petitioner. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer and it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the charge labelled as the petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct as provided under Clause 5(j) of the BPS. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors vs. P.C. Karkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , it has been submitted that the bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity as it deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. As such, merely because there was no loss or profit resulted, could not be a ground for taking a liberal view and it cannot be said that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. Mr. Sharma has also produced the relevant records in connection with the departmental proceeding before this Court in support of his contentions. 10. From the records, it seems that before the formal enquiry was initiated, the petitioner had been informed of the irregularities in respect of the same charge-sheet to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.4.2008 stating that M/s James Connection Trust Account No. 1067000100076864 is entirely a charitable voluntary organisation based in Churachandpur, Manipur of which the petitioner was serving in the capacity of an honorary Director of the said organisation. He claimed that he used to render service to that said organisation voluntarily without getting any remuneration and the Managing Committee of the said organisation made the petitioner as one of the authorised signatories of the bank account of the organisation to avoid inconvenience in operation of the account from the far-off town of Churachandpur. It was also submitted by the petitioner that as the said charitable organisation was fully dependent on the funds from outside the State funding organisations, such funds were required to be converted to cash immediately to meet the requirements of the 130 orphans and staff members of the organisation. In that connection, the petitioner had taken late payment of cheques only when the credit of such fund was confirmed and he had no malafide intention of misusing the bank's fund and requested the authorities to pardon him for such irregularities. 11. In that connection, the petitioner had taken late payment of cheques only when the credit of such fund was confirmed and he had no malafide intention of misusing the bank's fund and requested the authorities to pardon him for such irregularities. 11. This Court has perused the statement of account relied upon by the authorities in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. As per statement of account for the period from 11-03-2007 to 29.02.2008, what is seen is that there were withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 60,12,290.00 while the deposits were Rs. 66,00,901.00 and balance of Rs. 5,88,511.00 remained in the account. Therefore, what it indicates is that there were more deposits than withdrawals and there was sufficient balance in the account of the said organisation at all the time. In the reply submitted by the petitioner to the disciplinary authority on 11.12.2008 after the petitioner was informed of the charges, he had stated that he stood by his previous statement submitted to the authorities on 15.04.2008. From the records of the proceeding of the disciplinary enquiry, the following may be reproduced as the same is relevant for consideration of this Court:- 12. From the above, what is evident is that though the petitioner admitted the charge, he also furnished his explanation for the late payment. According to the petitioner, he had taken late payment only on two occasions and also explained the circumstances in his letter dated 11.02.2008 and 01.3.2008. From the above, what transpires is that though he admitted the charge but that admission will be in respect of the late payment on two occasions only. It is seen that the authorities have not charged the petitioner of late payment on other occasions. There is no mention anywhere in the charge-sheet or the memorandum of charges or anywhere else of late payment more than 2 times. It has also not been stated as to how much money was involved in the said late payments admitted by the petitioner on two occasions. The statement of account produced before the Enquiry Officer nor before this Court does not indicate when the said late payments were taken by the petitioner or about the amount. 13. It has also not been stated as to how much money was involved in the said late payments admitted by the petitioner on two occasions. The statement of account produced before the Enquiry Officer nor before this Court does not indicate when the said late payments were taken by the petitioner or about the amount. 13. This Court also on examining the record of the proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry, has noticed that the petitioner had admitted to the charges and also he had stated that he had nothing to say further from what he had already stated before the enquiry authority, when asked by the Enquiry Officer. As such, the allegations made by the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine witness or to engage defence assistant and other procedural irregularities as alleged in the writ petition are without any basis and accordingly rejected. However, as regards other issues raised by the petitioner, these deserve due consideration. Though this Court is not sitting as an appellate authority or scrutinising the evidence on record, this Court has referred to these evidences only for the purpose of examining whether the authorities had considered the relevant materials for coming to the conclusion that the charges been proved against him and also as regards the nature of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. 14. In this regard, one may refer to the provision for penalty as mentioned in the Bipartite Settlement in para No. 12(c), which is reproduced herein below. "12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows:- ......................... ......................... (c) In awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action the authority concerned shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the employee and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances, that may exist. Where sufficiently extenuating circumstances exist the misconduct may be condoned and in case such misconduct is of the "gross" type he may be merely discharged, with or without notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowances, in lieu of notice. Such discharge may also be given where the evidence is found to be insufficient to sustain the charge and where the bank does not, for some reason or other, think it expedient to retain the employee in question any longer in service. Discharge in such cases shall not be deemed to amount to disciplinary action. Such discharge may also be given where the evidence is found to be insufficient to sustain the charge and where the bank does not, for some reason or other, think it expedient to retain the employee in question any longer in service. Discharge in such cases shall not be deemed to amount to disciplinary action. Thus, even if the charges against the petitioner are said to have been proved, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to take into account the gravity of the mistake, the previous record, if any, of the employee or any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances, that may exist at the time of imposing the penalty. 15. This Court is of the view that the charges made against the petitioner and admitted by the petitioner was against the background as mentioned above. However, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, which is challenged in the writ petition, did not appear to have taken into consideration the circumstances as mentioned in para No. 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement. Though in the order dated 16th May, 2011, it has been mentioned that the petitioner received large payment and was fully aware that account was not debited, it does not show anywhere as to the amount of the payment which the petitioner was charged of receiving on late payment and which were not debited in time. The proceeding of the disciplinary enquiry as reproduced above does not indicate when and how much money was received by the petitioner as late payment. This Court has noted that the plea of the petitioner that he had taken late payment on two occasions to meet the urgent requirements of the orphanage has not been taken into account by the authorities at the time of passing the impugned order of penalty. Neither the impugned order reflects it nor the documents produced before this Court. This Court, therefore, taking into consideration the circumstances, as discussed above, is of the view that the authorities have not applied their mind properly in terms of the requirement of Para 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and without disqualifying from future employment and accordingly, the impugned order of penalty dated 16.5.2011 is liable to be interfered with. This Court has also observed that when the appellate authority disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of penalty, the appellate authority too did not take into consideration the factors as discussed above. 16. The contention of Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Managing Director Union Bank (supra) can be considered only after the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of penalty in terms of Para 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement. The Disciplinary Authority is under statutory obligation to take into consideration the factors mentioned in Para 12(c) of the BPS, failing which such an order of penalty will suffer from the vice of non application of mind. This lapse can not be covered by the authority by relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The issue of proportionality of penalty in respect of bank employees as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the said decision can be considered only when the disciplinary authority has discharged the statutory obligation which in the present case, has not been done as discussed above. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by interfering with the impugned order dated 16.5.2011 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 18.2.2012 issued by the Appellate Authority to the extent indicated above and are accordingly set aside. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass a fresh order of penalty by keeping into mind the considerations as mentioned in Para 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement as well as the contentions raised in his appeal preferred to the Appellate Authority on 27.6.2011 as expeditiously as possible, against which the petitioner will have the right to prefer the statutory appeal, if aggrieved with the order of the Disciplinary Authority that may be passed as directed by this Court, in accordance with the rules. Since, the impugned order of penalty dated 16.5.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 18.2.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority have been set aside, the petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension w.e.f. 16.5.2011 till passing of the fresh order of penalty, which period will be dealt with appropriately by the authority as regards entitlement in accordance with the relevant service rules for which the Disciplinary Authority may also invoke the principle of "no work no pay." 18. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. ___________