JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. : At the threshold, Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Advocate for the appellant Bank, sought adjournment. However, we rejected his request and, therefore, as Officer of the Court he has assisted us in the best possible way. We have accordingly heard Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Advocate for appellant Bank and Mr. C. S. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1/employee. 2. A charge-sheet dated 22-1-1993 was served upon the respondent No. 1 employee by appellant employer under Chapter XI, Regulation 9 Clause 1(a) of Canara Bank Service Code. The charge in substance reads as under :— “You are working as a Special Assistant at our Itwari, Nagpur Branch since 27-7-1992. On 11-11-1992, you were working as Cash Supervisor at the Branch. It is reported that you received 130 packets of Rs. 100/- denominations Notes from the following 3 cashiers, namely, Sl. Name of cashier No. of Packets in Rs.100/- denomination 01 MR. AWALE 49 02 MR. NIKHARE 80 03 MR. KOLHATKAR 1 However, you have handed over only 129 packets of Rs. 100 denomination to the second key holder Mr. M. R. Ninawe, Officer. You have also altered the figures in the books of the Bank as under. “1 as O and 130 as 129”. The other charge is consequential, i.e. of shortage of Rs. 10,000/- and of not handing over charge to Shri Ninawe, who thereafter was supposed to take cash into custody. 3. After departmental enquiry, punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted and it formed subject-matter of Reference No. R/78/1996 before the CGIT, Jabalpur (for short “Labour Court”). The Labour Court delivered award on 7-8-2000 and maintained the punishment. This award was questioned before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 309/04. After elaborate consideration of controversy, the petition has been allowed. As employee in the meanwhile reached the age of superannuation, he has been awarded 70% backwages with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Advocate for appellant Bank, in this background has submitted that when on very same day fact of handing over one bundle less of currency notes was accepted by employee, the finding of guilt cannot be interfered with and considering the responsible post as Special Assistant held by employee, the punishment of dismissal from service also needs to be maintained. He contends that appellant Bank cannot repose trust in such officer and cannot permit him to work on a responsible post. He has taken us through relevant material to substantiate the contentions. 5. Without prejudice, he submits that when on 11-11-1992 itself the shortage and, therefore, readiness and willingness to make good the loss to Bank has been accepted by employee, costs of Rs. 10,000/- could not have been saddled upon the appellant Bank. 6. Mr. C. S. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that judgment of learned Single Judge brings on record situation prevailing in Bank on 11-11-1992. There was heavy workload and more than 12 persons were deployed to count cash. The respondent No. 1/employee was one such person. After Bank hours as he had some domestic work, he left the charge with second key holder Mr. Ninawe and then was summoned back from his residence. After coming back, he was confronted with corrections made by him in total and he honestly accepted the corrections. He also, therefore, expressed his readiness and willingness to compensate his employer for loss. Mr. C. S. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, submits that there is nothing on record to show that in fact any loss was caused to employer and an honest error corrected by employee is being capitalized upon to harass him. He submits that past service record of employee is clean and unblemished and, therefore, for such a misconduct, even if it is presumed to be proved, punishment of dismissal from service could not have been imposed. 7. Perusal of award by CGIT reveals that CGIT framed only following issues :— “The following points in controversy are to be determined : 1. a. Whether the DE conducted by the Canara Bank against the workman is proper. b. Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is just and proper. 2. Relief and costs.” Its consideration is short and learned Single Judge has rightly found it to be cryptic. In paragraph No. 8 because of letter given by employee on 11-11-1992 after he was called back in the Bank, it is presumed that misconduct is admitted and, therefore, the CGIT has proceeded to examine the question of proportionality of punishment. 2. Relief and costs.” Its consideration is short and learned Single Judge has rightly found it to be cryptic. In paragraph No. 8 because of letter given by employee on 11-11-1992 after he was called back in the Bank, it is presumed that misconduct is admitted and, therefore, the CGIT has proceeded to examine the question of proportionality of punishment. It is not in dispute that employee had in fact appeared before CGIT and contended that there was no misconduct and charge is not established. CGIT, therefore, ought to have formulated an issue regarding perversity or otherwise of the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P. P. Mundhe, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1900 and in Bharat Forge Company Limited vs. A. B. Zodge and another, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1556 . By not framing this issue and by not answering it, it is apparent that the CGIT has acted with material irregularity. 8. In this backdrop, when the challenge came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has rightly looked into the controversy. The atmosphere prevailing in the Bank and resulting confusion has been commented upon. The learned Single Judge has found that Mr. Awale, who is shown to have handed over 49 bundles of Rs. 100/- denomination to the employee had himself corrected the number of bundles on at least three occasions. The consideration in paragraph 6 is sufficient to throw the light on how more than 12 staff members were attempting to complete the job of counting huge cash received in Bank in unprecedented manner on that day. 9. The employee has after he was called back submitted a letter to Manager and stated that he found shortage of Rs. 10,000/- cash while handing over cash to Mr. Ninawe. He then agreed to pay back that amount to Bank. This has been done immediately after the alleged shortage was noticed. This communication could not have been used as admission at all after charge was framed and in departmental enquiry, charge was denied by employee. The shortage should have been brought on record by independent material by appellant Bank. Ninawe. He then agreed to pay back that amount to Bank. This has been done immediately after the alleged shortage was noticed. This communication could not have been used as admission at all after charge was framed and in departmental enquiry, charge was denied by employee. The shortage should have been brought on record by independent material by appellant Bank. The mere fact that an accounting error was corrected by employee and earlier he recorded total number of bundles to be 130 but after physical verification found it to be 129 and corrected to 129 in same go cannot be viewed as a dishonest act of interpolation. It is not the case of appellant that any particular entry was totally erased or wiped out and a new figure was substituted in its place. Earlier figure written by employee was visible and after scoring it, corrected figure was written by its side. This, therefore, shows transparent mode and manner of correction adopted by employee. Prima facie, it rules out any malintention. 10. If only on the basis of this material or then the letter dated 11-11-1992 given by him, a finding of guilt is to be returned, we find the insistence by appellant Bank for it unsustainable. The appellant Bank in that event ought to have established generation of 130 bundles independently by proving total cash receipts on that day and then at least pleaded that though its record established receipt of 130 bundles, only 129 bundles were available. This would have then proved loss caused to Bank and then it could have indicted employee as person responsible for causing it. The correction in records of employee could have been then used to implicate him and to point out his wrong intention. No such finding of inquiry officer or then by Labour Court is brought to our notice. 11. Though the appellant urges that without delivering actual charge to Mr. Ninawe employee hurriedly left the Bank, material on record does not support this. The charge-sheet itself reveals that he handed over 129 packets of Rs. 100/- denomination to Mr. Ninawe. If 129 bundles was a wrong figure, why it was wrong has not been brought on record by the appellant. Only on the basis of correction done by employee, an inference that 130 should have been the correct figure is being reached. The charge-sheet itself reveals that he handed over 129 packets of Rs. 100/- denomination to Mr. Ninawe. If 129 bundles was a wrong figure, why it was wrong has not been brought on record by the appellant. Only on the basis of correction done by employee, an inference that 130 should have been the correct figure is being reached. We have, therefore, attempted to ascertain availability of other material on record to find out whether 130 bundles were available on that day in the Bank. No such evidence adduced by appellant before the CGIT or then before the Enquiry Officer is pressed into service. 12. The employee was about 54 years old when he filed statement of claim before CGIT and today he is about 75 years old. The learned Single Judge has after proper appreciation of material on record found charge not proved and granted him relief of 70% backwages only as reinstatement was not possible. Normally when enquiry is found to be vitiated, the law on the point requires Tribunal to extend opportunity of proving misconduct to the employer, if such liberty is reserved by employer in written statement. However, CGIT here has found enquiry to be fair and valid and did not find it necessary to record any finding on perversity. When the learned Single Judge addressed the issue, the employee had already superannuated. At final hearing of writ petition, employee bank did not invoke its right to prove misconduct in Court. In any case, no wrongful intention of respondent employee can be gathered in the matter. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge has moulded the relief properly and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 13. However, in the light of letter dated 11-11-1992, opportunity given in departmental enquiry and report of Enquiry Officer or then consideration of controversy by learned CGIT, it cannot be stated that the employer had acted with malice against the employee. We do not see any intention to victimize him in the process. We, therefore, find grant of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1 unjust. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said part only. 14. Accordingly, maintaining the relief of grant of 70% backwages, we partly allow L.P.A. and delete the costs of Rs. 10,000/- ordered to be paid by appellant to respondent No. 1/employee. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 15. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1 unjust. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said part only. 14. Accordingly, maintaining the relief of grant of 70% backwages, we partly allow L.P.A. and delete the costs of Rs. 10,000/- ordered to be paid by appellant to respondent No. 1/employee. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 15. At this stage, Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Advocate for appellant Bank, submits that the appellant Bank may like to challenge the adjudication by this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, interim direction given to respondent employee to furnish bank guarantee and to keep it valid till today, should be continued for six months more. Request is being strongly opposed by Mr. C. S. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1. However, in this situation, we direct the employee to keep said Bank guarantee valid for further period of four months. It shall expire and cease to operate thereafter. Appeal partly allowed.