JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge by the petitioner is to the punishment of compulsory retirement, but with superannuation benefits, that is, pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time. The penalty order dated 18.07.2007, however, absolves the petitioner from disqualification for future employment. 2. The petitioner was appointed under the respondent-Bank on 13.12.1976 on the post of Cashiercum-Accounts Clerk. While posted as Special Assistant on 20.06.1994 he was placed under suspension. Chargememo dated 17.11.1994 which was served upon the petitioner contained the following charges : “I. During your tenure at Bank's Hunterganj Branch you permitted withdrawals to a third party in S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shariff in contravention of the banking norms and unauthorizedly allowed transfer entries from the above account of the account holder. (a) on 25.06.97 you permitted a withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip, without accompanied by the pass book, violating the rules of the bank, (b) on 16.10.1987 you permitted a withdrawal of Rs. 12,000/- from the same S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip without any supporting pass book, violating the rules of the bank, (c) On 08.08.1987 you prepared a set of transfer voucher of Rs. 3,000/- from S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to S/B A/C No. 197 of Md. Tahir Hussain, son of the account holder. The above transfer transactions were allowed by you on the strength of a letter of authority purportedly signed by the account holder Md. Shariff. Subsequently, it was reported that the same authority letter was neither signed by the account holder not were you authorised for that transfer entry transaction. The account holder had subsequently denied having signed the said authority letter and sign there on the said authority letter bear certain variations when compared with specimen signature of the account holder. Thus you unauthorisedly allowed transfer entries from the above account no. 3611 of the account holder. II. During your tenure at Bank's Ramgarh Cantt Branch on 16.02.94 you deposited a cheque bearing No. 046539 dated 16.02.94 of United Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch for Rs. 16,616.70 in the S/B Joint Account of your wife and children (S/B A/C No. 7798). 3611 of the account holder. II. During your tenure at Bank's Ramgarh Cantt Branch on 16.02.94 you deposited a cheque bearing No. 046539 dated 16.02.94 of United Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch for Rs. 16,616.70 in the S/B Joint Account of your wife and children (S/B A/C No. 7798). The cheque was sent for collection through clearing house, However, on the same day i.e. on 16.02.94 you posted a withdrawal slip for Rs. 15,000/- in the same account and allowed withdrawal from the same Joint Account without the permission of the Manager. As per normal rules and practice, Bank does not allow any withdrawal against clearing cheque on the same day without the specific permission of the Manager. Thus you exceeded you authority and extended undue accommodation to your wife in the matter of effecting withdrawal from her account against the clearing cheque on same day it is deposited and sent for collection, and violated the norms and practices of Bank. III. During your tenure at Bank's Ramgarh Cantt. Branch, you have entered into fraudulent transactions and have withdrawn money unauthorisedly from the customer's account on different occasions, dishonestly, in the following manner : (i) S/B A/C No. 6696 of Md. Ataul Haque : You issued a cheque book containing leaves bearing nos. from 93781 to 93790 in the captioned account of Md. Ataul Haque without obtaining the requisition slip from the account holder Shri Haque. Thereafter, you used the first leaf of the cheque book i.e. cheque no. 93781 and handed over the same to one of your relatives Mustaq Ahmad who in turn collected the above fraudulent amount of Rs. 15,000/through his S/B A/C No. 5829 with Central Bank of India on 06.04.1994. The above cheque was cancelled by you, when it came for collection from Central Bank of India. The signature of the drawer on the said cheque considerably differs when compared with Ataul Haque's specimen signature appearing on Bank's records. Thus you involved yourself in fraudulent transaction and defrauded bank's account holder Shri Ataul Haque. (ii) S/B A/C No. 7463 of Md. Tahseem (Minor) S/o Md. Ataul Haque : You issued a cheque book containing leaves bearing nos. from 948851 to 948875 in the captioned account of Md. Tahseem without obtaining the requisition slip from the account holder. You handed over a cheque no. 948851 for Rs. (ii) S/B A/C No. 7463 of Md. Tahseem (Minor) S/o Md. Ataul Haque : You issued a cheque book containing leaves bearing nos. from 948851 to 948875 in the captioned account of Md. Tahseem without obtaining the requisition slip from the account holder. You handed over a cheque no. 948851 for Rs. 10,000/- fraudulently drawn on the above account to your relative Mustaq Ahmad who in turn collected the cheque through his S/B A/C No. 5829 with Central Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch and the date of withdrawal was 24.08.1992. Similarly you have used two other cheque leaves from the above cheque book fraudulently issued, and you have withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- through cheque no. 948855 dated 11.01.93 and 650/through cheque no. 948856 dated 10.03.93 and directly obtained the proceeds of the cheques in two occasions by signing on the reverse of the cheque leaves. The account holder had neither applied for the cheque book nor had issued the above stated three cheques as referred above, on any occasion. Thus you have entered into fraudulent transactions in connivance with outsiders i.e. your relatives and withdrawn money from the Bank's customer's account dishonestly in utter disregard to the norms of the Bank. 3. The enquiring officer submitted enquiry report dated 15.09.1995 finding charges I(a), I(b) and II not proved, charge nos. I(c), III(i) and III(ii) were found proved. The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 17.11.1995 and appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 30.07.1996. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the industrial tribunal under Reference Case No. 100 of 1997 which while answering the reference passed award dated 17.05.2004. The tribunal found action of the respondent-Bank in dismissing the petitioner from service justified. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the penalty order and the award dated 17.05.2004 by filing Writ Petition (Service) No. 5927 of 2004. 4. The writ Court finding that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges and is harsh, remanded the matter to the Regional Manager, Bank of India, Hazaribagh to consider the quantum of punishment afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The operative portion of order dated 08.05.2007 in Writ Petition (Service) No. 5927 of 2004 reads as under :. The operative portion of order dated 08.05.2007 in Writ Petition (Service) No. 5927 of 2004 reads as under :. “In this view of the matter, this writ petition is being disposed of by setting aside the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service and the matter is remitted back to the Regional Manager, Bank of India, Hazaribagh Area (Respondent No. 1) to consider the quantum of punishment afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment and after giving chance of hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of” 5. On remand the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits vide an order dated 18.07.2007 in the following terms: “Punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment', is hereby imposed on Mr. Md. Akhtar Hussain, ExSpecial Assistant of Ramgarh Cantt. Branch, in terms of clause 6(c) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, for the acts of gross misconduct proved against him in the departmental enquiry pursuant to the chargesheet bearing Ref. No. RO:IR:9495/181 dated 17.11.1994.” 6. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 18.07.2007 failed when the appellate authority finding no infirmity in the punishment order dated 18.07.2007 dismissed the appeal by an order dated 02.06.2008. 7. Contending that the punishment of “compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits” is not a punishment provided under the Settlement of 1966 under clause 19.6 which enumerates the punishments which can be imposed upon an employee who has been found guilty of gross misconduct, Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that resort to 2002Bipartite Settlement for inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner cannot be sustained in law, for the Rules which were in force at the time of commission of misconduct must regulate the enquiry proceeding and the punishment which can be imposed upon a delinquent employee. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that resort to 2002Bipartite Settlement for inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner cannot be sustained in law, for the Rules which were in force at the time of commission of misconduct must regulate the enquiry proceeding and the punishment which can be imposed upon a delinquent employee. A further contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority on the quantum of punishment this Court has infact considered the punishment of discharge from service akin to the penalty of dismissal without notice. 8. The disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that the charges found proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry pertains to lack of integrity, and it has been found that the acts committed by the petitioner are fraudulent which would amount to gross misconduct. By this order petitioner has been held not entitled to pay and allowances or any subsistence allowance from the date he ceased to be in service of the bank. There is no dispute that some of the charges; charge nos. I(c), III(i) and III(ii) have been found proved in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. These findings have been accepted by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. A reading of the order dated 08.05.2007 in the Writ Petition (Service) No. 5927 of 2004 would indicate that this Court has not interfered with the findings of the enquiring officer. The appellate authority in its order dated 02.06.2008 has recorded a finding that the charges found proved against the petitioner, though do not involve financial loss to the bank, by entering into fraudulent transactions and withdrawing money unauthorizedly from the customer's accounts on different occasions demonstrate his dishonesty. The appellate authority has observed that continuance of such an employee in a financial institution like bank which is custodian of public money is detrimental to the institution's interest. Evidently, the departmental authorities have found loss of trust and confidence in the employee. 9. Generally speaking, the discipline and conduct rules are intended at ensuring fairness during the disciplinary enquiry and observance of principles of natural justice. Evidently, the departmental authorities have found loss of trust and confidence in the employee. 9. Generally speaking, the discipline and conduct rules are intended at ensuring fairness during the disciplinary enquiry and observance of principles of natural justice. This is not a case in which the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and even if this was the case it stands closed by the order of the High Court when the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for a consideration on quantum of punishment. The Bipartite Settlement of 2002 is an outcome of various other settlements entered into between the parties and award by Mr. Justice K.T. Desai in Reference No. 1 of 1960. In view of the subsequent settlements and the aforesaid award the Settlement dated 14.12.1966 was modified. One of the important features of 2002Settlement is enlargement of the expression “gross misconduct”. Various other measures for protecting the delinquent employee during the disciplinary enquiry have been incorporated under the 2002Settlement and on the question of punishment also 2002 Bipartite Settlement has enlarged the scope under various heads. One of the penalties enumerated in the Bipartite Settlement of 1966 is discharge from service after the misconduct having been condoned. Punishment of dismissal from service would confer powers upon the disciplinary authorities to inflict any other lesser punishment. No doubt, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service is not mentioned in 1966 Bipartite Settlement, but it provides a punishment of discharge on condonation of misconduct, which admittedly is a graver punishment than the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. This punishment awarded to the petitioner under 2002Bipartite Settlement is in consonance with the intention under 2002 Bipartite Settlement which is intended to extending benefits to the employees. It is not a case in which some rights of the delinquent employee under the 1966 Settlement have been taken away. It is wellsettled that quantum of punishment is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority and the Courts would interfere with the quantum of punishment only in cases where major punishment like dismissal from service or compulsory retirement has been inflicted on trivial charges. Charges found proved against the petitioner are; preparation of transfer vouchers without authorisation from the accountholder, unauthorised withdrawal from the customer's account through his relative and by himself. Charges found proved against the petitioner are; preparation of transfer vouchers without authorisation from the accountholder, unauthorised withdrawal from the customer's account through his relative and by himself. The contention that the charges which have been found proved against the petitioner is merely ipsedixit of the enquiring authority is not open to the petitioner to reagitate in the present proceeding, for this Court vide order dated 08.05.2007 has closed any argument on the findings on the charges found proved against the delinquent employee. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no substance in the challenge to the impugned orders dated 18.07.2007 and 02.06.2008 and accordingly, the writ petition fails to that extent. 11. In so far as the prayer for payment of salary and other allowances after his dismissal from service is concerned, what becomes relevant is that the petitioner admittedly was not taken back in service. There was no direction by this Court on reinstatement of the petitioner in service, and there was neither a direction by this Court on payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period between 17.11.1995 to 08.05.2007. For the first time the petitioner has agitated this claim after his appeal against penalty order dated 18.07.2007 was dismissed by the appellate order dated 02.06.2008. In my opinion, he has been rightly denied salary and allowances after he ceased to be the Bank's employee on dismissal from service. Writ Court's order is confined to reconsideration on quantum of punishment. 12. On the question of payment of the superannuation benefits which have accrued to the petitioner by virtue of penalty order dated 18.07.2007, after this Court passed order dated 30.01.2018 which was not challenged by the Bank rather by filing affidavit the respondent-Bank has claimed that it has complied with the said order, however, by producing the bank-statement of the petitioner a grievance has been raised that superannuation benefits with interest have not been paid to the petitioner. Without going into this dispute on facts, I hereby direct the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Hazaribagh to comply with order dated 30.01.2018 for payment of superannuation benefits to the petitioner with interest as indicated in para 6 of the said order by which the respondent-Zonal Manager was directed to produce calculation on interest. 13. Without going into this dispute on facts, I hereby direct the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Hazaribagh to comply with order dated 30.01.2018 for payment of superannuation benefits to the petitioner with interest as indicated in para 6 of the said order by which the respondent-Zonal Manager was directed to produce calculation on interest. 13. Let payment of superannuation benefits with interest be made to the petitioner within a period of two weeks, if already not paid, failing which a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall be initiated against the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Hazaribagh.