ORDER : Aniruddha Bose, J. The appellant, who at the material point of time was a sub-staff with Canara Bank, Currency Chest Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur has been imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. Such punishment has been imposed on the basis of a departmental enquiry. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. Broadly, the allegations against the appellant was that he was accompanying a clerk, Mr. V.N.K.Tirkey, who was carrying cash of Rs. 5 lacs to T.R.F Extension Counter, Jamshedpur on 15th April, 2009, but the said cash never reached the TRF Extension Branch. The charge against the appellant leading to the departmental proceeding was:- “You were working at our Telco Colony branch, Jamshedpur from 30.06.2009 and have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.07.2009. Prior to that you were working at our Currency Chest, Jamshedpur from 26.11.2007 to 29.06.2009. It is reported that Currency Chest, Jamshedpur had remitted a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakh (Rupees Five Lakh only) on 15.04.2009 to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur (Since upgraded as branch) through you and Sri. V.N.K.Tirkey (46064), Clerk. While remitting cash to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur, an acknowledgement was purported to have been obtained from Sr. Baishakhoo Kumbhar (16722), Clerk working at TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur for having received cash on duplicate copy of the BAR bearing No. 97/2009 dated 15.04.2009 (erroneously written as 16.04.2009) raised on TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur. Since branch advice was not received from TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur even after two months after remitting cash, Currency Chest, Jamshedpur contacted TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur over telephone and requested the officials working there at to send branch advice of Rs.5.00 lakhs to square off the entry outstanding in the books of accounts of Currency Chest, Jamshedpur. In turn the officials working at TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur have informed that they have not received cash remittance of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 15.04.2009. Consequently, Cash BAR bearing No. 97/2009 dated 15.04.2009 (erroneously) written as 16.04.2009)raised on TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur remains outstanding at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur. Upon conducting an investigation into the matter, the following lapses have been observed on your part:- While working as Driver-cum-Peon at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur, you had carried cash of Rs. Consequently, Cash BAR bearing No. 97/2009 dated 15.04.2009 (erroneously) written as 16.04.2009)raised on TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur remains outstanding at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur. Upon conducting an investigation into the matter, the following lapses have been observed on your part:- While working as Driver-cum-Peon at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur, you had carried cash of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs along with Sri V.N.K.Tirkey (46064), Clerk for delivery to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur on 15.04.2009 and purported to have been delivered to Sri Baishakhoo Kumabhar (16722), Clerk against obtaining his acknowledgement who was working in cash counter on that day whereas Sri Baishakhoo Kumabhar (16722), Clerk has stated that no such cash was received by him on 15.04.2009 said to be remitted from Currency Chest, Jamshedpur and thus, there are reasons to believe that cash of Rs. 5.00 Lakh has been embezzled by you either alone or in connivance with Sri V.N.K.Tireky (46064), Clerk. By your above acts, you have committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (i) (j) & (m) of Canara Bank Service Code.” 2. The appellant denied the charge and before the enquiry officer he took the plea that he was only accompanying the clerk carrying the cash and was not directly involved in the actual delivery process. It transpires from the records, however that the receiving clerk in the TRF Extension Counter one Sri Baishakhoo Kumabhar had acknowledged the receipt thereof. According to the Bank Management the actual delivery date was 15th April, 2009, but from the charge it appears that the BAR had erroneously recorded the date as 16th April, 2009. These have been recorded in the memorandum of charge, itself, excerpts from which we have reproduced earlier in this judgment. Two witnesses were produced on behalf of the Management before the enquiry officer, Sri J.P.Keshri and Sri D.K.Kurli. The enquiry report however does not deal with the depositions of the management witnesses in any manner whatsoever. The enquiry officer gave its finding inter-alia in the following terms:- “ Recital of Charge and Findings. While working as Drive cum Peon at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur, you had carried cash of Rs. The enquiry report however does not deal with the depositions of the management witnesses in any manner whatsoever. The enquiry officer gave its finding inter-alia in the following terms:- “ Recital of Charge and Findings. While working as Drive cum Peon at Currency Chest, Jamshedpur, you had carried cash of Rs. 5.00 Lakh along with Sri V.N.K.Tireky (46064), Clerk, for delivery to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur on 15.04.2009 and purported to have been delivered to Sri Baishakhoo Kumbhar (16722), Clerk against obtaining his acknowledgement who was working in cash counter on that day whereas Sri Baishakhoo Kumbhar (16722), Clerk has pleaded that no such cash was received by him on 15.04.2009 said to be remitted from Currency Chest, Jamshedpur. Hence, there are reasons to believe that cash of Rs.5.00 Lakh has been embezzled by you either alone or in connivance with Sri V.N.K.Tirkey (46064) Driver cum peon who accompanied with you. The MEXs submitted during the enquiry proceeding clearly indicates that cash was taken out from the BINs of Currency Chest, Jamshedpur, received by the CSE, carried by the CSE to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur. As regards delivering cash at TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur, it is not roved beyond reasonable doubt that the cash was actually delivered to the cashier, Sri Baishakhoo Kumbhar, TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur. As such, the CSE cannot be absolve of the charge. The charge, therefore, is established.” 3. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiry officer. The contention of the appellant before the enquiry officer was dealt with by the disciplinary authority in the following manner:- “His contention that the duplicate acknowledged copy of the BAR No. 97 dated 15.04.2009 (erroneously written as 16.04.2009) for Rs. 5.00 Lakh bears the signature of Sri B.Kumbhar and the seal of TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur is also affixed there upon, Sri B.Kumbhar has nowhere stated that it is not his signature, the investigation report submitted by Sri C.R.Mohanty also does not say categorically that it has not been signed by Sri B.Kumbhar, nothing is there on record to say that the signature of Sri. B.Kumbhar and the seal of TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur on the acknowledged copy of BAR No. 97 are not genuine, are tenable. The fact remains that cash was not delivered to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur.” 4. B.Kumbhar and the seal of TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur on the acknowledged copy of BAR No. 97 are not genuine, are tenable. The fact remains that cash was not delivered to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur.” 4. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and observed:- “His contention that the entire banking transactions are done on the basis of signatures only. He is unable to understand, what the Enquiry Officer means to say by stating that it is not proved beyond doubt that cash was delivered at TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur. It is nothing but a figment of his imagination and mental bias, is not acceptable. The findings of the Enquiry officer is crystal clear that cash was not delivered to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur.” 5. The appellate authority broadly accepted the disciplinary authority’s reasoning in the appeal filed by the delinquent sub-staff. To a supplementary affidavit filed in connection with the memorandum of appeal, a document captioned as “investigation report” has been annexed. But the records of the disciplinary proceedings on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the management do not reveal any consideration of the investigation report. No other material has been produced before us to demonstrate that the copy of the investigation report was taken into account by the bank management at any stage of the departmental proceeding. 6. The appellant questioned legality of the finding of the disciplinary authority as also the order imposition of punishment along with order of the appellate authority before the learned First Court by filing the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 by the respondent Bank to sustain their action in course of the departmental proceeding. The learned First Court held that it was a case where the Bank had fully lost its confidence on the appellant and once the employer loses confidence on its employee, the order of removal/termination or compulsory retirement ought to be immune from challenge before a law Court. In the case of Nemi Chand Nalwaya (supra), the charged employee was dismissed in consequence of a departmental proceeding. There was a criminal complaint instituted against him by the bank. In the case of Nemi Chand Nalwaya (supra), the charged employee was dismissed in consequence of a departmental proceeding. There was a criminal complaint instituted against him by the bank. He was acquitted of the charges by the criminal Court approximately after four years from his dismissal. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with the observation that he may avail the remedy of appeal. The appellate authority dismissed his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and thus the appeal also stood dismissed. The employee challenged the order of the appellate authority successfully before the Appellate Bench of the writ Court. The Appellate Bench decided the case in his favour on merit also. The Appellate Bench found that no wilful or fraudulent conduct with intension to cause loss to the appellate Bank nor misappropriation by the appellant was made out. On further appeal by the Bank, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. 8. When a court is considering whether the punishment of “termination from service” imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor. 8. When a court is considering whether the punishment of “termination from service” imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor. When an unknown person comes to the bank and claims to be the account-holder of a long inoperative account, and a bank employee, who does not know such person, instructs his colleague to transfer the account from “dormant” to “operative” category (contrary to the instructions regulating dormant accounts) without any kind of verification, and accepts the money withdrawal form from such person, gets a token and collects the amount on behalf of such person for the purpose of handing it over to such person, he in effect enables such unknown person to withdraw the amount contrary to the banking procedures; and ultimately, if it transpires that the person who claimed to be the account-holder was an impostor, the bank cannot be found fault with if it says that it has lost confidence in the employee concerned. A bank is justified in contending that not only the employees who are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue in its service. 10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him. 11. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the punishment and directing reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits. In fact, the order of the High Court directing back wages amounts to rewarding a person who has been found guilty of a misconduct. However, having regard to the fact that the proven charge did not involve either misappropriation or fraudulent conduct and the other circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should be substituted by compulsory retirement, which does not involve reinstatement.” 7. In our view however, on facts, the present case is distinguishable. We find that there was acknowledgement receipt of the sum alleged to have been embezzled. This acknowledgement was by the Receiving Clerk of the TRF Extension Branch. The said clerk was prosecuted in a criminal case, but subsequently was acquitted by the criminal Court. That Receiving Clerk was not examined in the departmental proceeding. No evidence was led to establish the signature of the Receiving Clerk was forged or fraudulently obtained. The evidence of the two management witnesses have not been dealt with in the enquiry report or the decision of the disciplinary authority. The bank appears to have proceeded against the appellant on elimination theory, seeking to pinpoint the guilt on him finding no other person responsible or liable for such embezzlement. The appellant himself was adduced as a witness for the Bank in the criminal case and he had taken stand that he was only the carrier of the box. We are satisfied that the findings of the disciplinary authority was not based on any evidence. We do not think charge against the appellant has been established applying the principle of preponderance of probability or even applying the test of mere probability alone. If the bank does not want to continue with his employment for loss of confidence in these circumstances, there must be some foundational facts for such loss of confidence. We do not think charge against the appellant has been established applying the principle of preponderance of probability or even applying the test of mere probability alone. If the bank does not want to continue with his employment for loss of confidence in these circumstances, there must be some foundational facts for such loss of confidence. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner (supra), the employee broadly admitted the factual basis giving rise to the charges. The appellant in this proceeding has consistently denied the allegations made against him. 8. We are not making any comment in this judgment in relation to the clerk who was supposed to actually take the funds to the Extension Branch, i.e. V.N.K.Tirky. His case is not before us. On the basis of available materials, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the materials disclosed in the enquiry report while accepting the same. 9. We accordingly set aside the decision of the learned First Court along with the decisions of the disciplinary authority so far as the present appellant is concerned. As a consequence, the appellate authority’s decision shall also stand invalidated. The disciplinary authority is however given liberty to reconsider the enquiry report and take a fresh decision. In the event such reconsideration cannot be completed within a period of 12 weeks, the appellant shall be permitted to rejoin his service. If the process of reconsideration and taking fresh decision is concluded within the aforesaid time frame of 12 weeks, then the fresh decision taken by the disciplinary authority shall prevail, subject to any further proceeding that may be brought by either of the parties in relation to such decision. The present appeal stands allowed in the above terms and the judgment of the learned First Court is set aside. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.