JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. - The management-Bank in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 16th February, 2017 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for short, Tribunal) in Industrial Dispute Case No. 14 of 2008 in reducing punishment of compulsory retirement to reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other service benefits along with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as a measure of punishment against the workman-Sri Narayan Panda. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details relevant facts for adjudication are as follows : The workman, while continuing as a Cash Clerk/Shroff in the Dhalapur Branch of the Management-Bank (Indian Bank), was alleged to have misbehaved with his superior authority (Branch Manager) and involved in certain activities as well as certain omissions and commissions on his part during discharge of his duties, which amounts to gross misconducts as defined under Clause 19 (5)(c) and 19 (5)(e) and 19 (5)(i), 19 (5)(j) and 19 (7)(b) of the Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 between the Management and the Union. As such, he was placed under suspension with effect from 30.05.1995 and charge memo was issued against the workman on 08.09.1995. The workman faced a domestic inquiry under 12 heads of charges and was found guilty of charge Nos.1,2,5,7,8,9, 10 and 12 and was exonerated from all other charges levelled by the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, he filed his representation against the findings of the inquiry report, so also, against the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement vide his order dated 10.06.2006. The workman preferred appeal against the said order, which was rejected vide order dated 28.09.2006. As such, the workman approached the labour machinery which culminated in referring the matter to learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government to adjudicate the following schedule of reference:- "Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank in terminating the service of Shri Narayan Panda, Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier by way of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 10.06.2006 is legal and/or justified ? If not, relief the workman is entitled to ? 3. Learned Tribunal taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues "1. Whether the reference is maintainable ? 2. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the Manager was fair and proper ? If not, relief the workman is entitled to ? 3. Learned Tribunal taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues "1. Whether the reference is maintainable ? 2. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the Manager was fair and proper ? 3.Whether the punishment by way of compulsory retirement imposed on the disputant was proportionate to the charges ? 4. If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to ?" 4. Learned Tribunal, while answering issue Nos. 2 and 3 came to a finding that the domestic inquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down in the certified standing order as well as in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the disputant workman was given just and proper opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry. However, learned Tribunal held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Charge Nos. 5,6, 9 and 10 suffer from conjectures and surmises being based on no legal evidence. Basing upon the aforesaid findings, learned Tribunal proceeded to modify the punishment imposed upon the workman by holding that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages and other service benefits along with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as a measure of punishment for the charges found to have been established and further directed to implement the award within a period of two months from the date of publication in the official gazette. 5. The Management-Bank being not satisfied with the impugned award has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, based his argument mainly on the ground that learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence adduced during domestic inquiry. Learned Tribunal is only expected to examine that the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is based on evidence on record and the same is not perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Further, learned Tribunal can also examine as to whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved against the workman. Learned Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on him under law for which, the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Learned Tribunal has committed error of law as well as facts in converting the punishment of compulsory retirement to that of reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other service benefits etc. Learned Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on him under law for which, the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Learned Tribunal has committed error of law as well as facts in converting the punishment of compulsory retirement to that of reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other service benefits etc. Hence, the impugned award (Annexure-4) is.liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the workman-opposite party, per contra, refuted the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the j Management-Bank. Supporting the impugned award, he contended that the findings on Issue Nos.5,6, 9 and 10 are perverse and are based on surmises and conjectures. On a bare reading of the evidence would lead a man of prudence to the conclusion that the findings on the aforesaid charges would not sustain. As such, there was no illegality committed by learned Tribunal, which warrants interference. Further, taking into consideration the past service record of the workman, gravity of the charges proved against him as well as the mental agony suffered by the workman for pendency of the inquiry proceeding for a period of more than one decade, learned Tribunal has rightly reduced the punishment. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the case record as well as materials produced before us in detail. On perusal of the records, it appears that the workman was charged under 12 heads. He was found guilty only on Charge Nos.1, 2, 5,7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. For better appreciation, the aforesaid charges are quoted hereunder: "1. On 01.05.1995, he had prepared a debit voucher for payment of rent of Rs. 1400/- for generator and sent to the Manager for passing. The Manager released the voucher and the amount was credited to the S.B.. A/c. of the generator supplier, Mr. Manoranjan Kama. When Mr. Panda prepared the SB w/s of Mr. Manoranjan Kama filing there the rent amount of Rs. 1400/-, the Manager insisted for appropriating a sum of Rs. 250/- to the IRDP loan a/c. of Mr. Manoranjan Kama. He became furious and shouted at the Manager stating "you cannot recover the amount from rent proceeds." 2. Manoranjan Kama. When Mr. Panda prepared the SB w/s of Mr. Manoranjan Kama filing there the rent amount of Rs. 1400/-, the Manager insisted for appropriating a sum of Rs. 250/- to the IRDP loan a/c. of Mr. Manoranjan Kama. He became furious and shouted at the Manager stating "you cannot recover the amount from rent proceeds." 2. That, he had switched off the generator - when the Manager told him that he would pass the w/s only after discussion with the generator supplier-stating that he (Mr. Panda) would not allow anybody to use the generator. On account of his above act, the customer service was very much hampered due to current failure. Xx xx xx 5. That, on 2.5.1995, when he had sent the SB w/s. of the generator supplier again to the Manager altering the date without the authentication of Mr. Manoranjan Kama, Manager told him that he would pass the w/s only after discussion with Mr. Manoranjan Kama. On hearing this he told in front of the customers that he would not make any payments henceforth. When the Manager called for reasons, he replied that there was no cash. Again when the Manager told him that sufficient cash was available to make immediate payments, he retorted that he would draw himself whatever cash was available there. When the Manager asked him to draw cash after receipt of remittance from Boudh Branch, he shouted in front of the customers "I will not make any payment; I will draw the money myself." When the manager requested the customers to wait till the arrival of cash remittance from Boudh, he closed the case at 2.00 P.M., while the customers were still waiting for payment. Xx x xx xx 7. That, on 3.5.1995, when the Manager sent his w/s for Rs. 6,000/ - for payment, he had deducted a sum of Rs. 1400/- and paid the balance amount. When the Manager asked him the reasons, he told Manager that he had kept the amount of Rs. 1400/- towards rent on generator. When the Manager insisted in writing for deduction of Rs. 1400/- from his payment, he did not obey his orders. Despite Manager's repeated instructions he had neither made full payment of Rs. 6,000/- to him or did he give in writing for deduction of Rs. 1400/ -from Manager's payment. 8. 1400/- towards rent on generator. When the Manager insisted in writing for deduction of Rs. 1400/- from his payment, he did not obey his orders. Despite Manager's repeated instructions he had neither made full payment of Rs. 6,000/- to him or did he give in writing for deduction of Rs. 1400/ -from Manager's payment. 8. That, when the Manager was busy in preparing the L.A. statement from the IRDP ledger, he rushed to the Manager in violent mood and snatched the IRDP ledger and threw it away, shouting, I will not allow you to do any clerical work. 9.That on 18.5.1995, he had arranged Mr.Rama Joshi, Sarpanch of Ramgarh G.P and Mr. Lakshmi Mahakud, Physical Education Teacher, Dhalpur High School, who are outsiders, to come and threaten the Manager with dire consequences on the generator rent issue and prevented the Manager from leaving the office premises. The situation became so tense that the Manager could not open the branch on 19.05.1995 fearing physical-danger to him. 10. That, he had supplied and hired generator to the branch in the name of Mr. Manoranjan Kama and he had been receiving the rent. Xx xx xx 12. That, he had availed BP facility at Dhalpur Branch by presenting the SB w/s of Smt. Padmini Padhi, holder SB a/c. 3737 of Boudh Branch. The BPs were realized either by transfer from his SB a/c of Dhalpur branch or by remitting cash." 9. Learned Tribunal, upon consideration of materials on record exonerated the workman from charge Nos.5,6,9 and 10. Although it vehemently argued by Mr. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management that learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by exonerating the workman from charge Nos.5,6,9 and 10, we, after perusing the material on record and reasons assigned by learned Tribunal, are not inclined to interfere with the same for the reason that learned Tribunal was well within its power and jurisdiction to read into the evidence and interfere with the finding of the inquiry Officer, if the same is perverse in the context of the evidence and materials produced before him. Further, this being finding of fact and based on certain evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. The next issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the adequacy of punishment. Further, this being finding of fact and based on certain evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. The next issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the adequacy of punishment. Law is well settled while interfering with the quantum of punishment, the Court should keep in mind the doctrine of proportionality. In other words, the Court cannot sit over the quantum of punishment as an Appellate Authority. The scope to interfere with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited and the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment should be sparingly used only in the cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt proved against the workman/delinquent. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that an employee of the Bank is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. Every officer/employee of a Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence He should do nothing, which is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Bank. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable of functioning of an officer/employee of a Bank. A Bank employee should not do any act, which ultimately affects the interest as well as business of the Bank. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we have to examine the case at hand. As discussed earlier, in the inquiry the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the workman basing upon the charge Nos,. 1,2,5,7,8,9, 10 and 12. Learned Tribunal, on reading into the evidence and scrutinizing the materials on record, exonerated the workman from charge Nos.5,6,9 and 10. The workman was a Cashier and handling with the cash. He had no previous record of indiscipline or insubordination. It appears from the materials on record that the genesis of the proved charges is non-payment of rent of a generator It is clearly proved that the workman on 01.05.1995, refused to comply with the instruction of the Branch Manager to appropriate a sum of Rs. 250/ --towards the IRDP loan account of Mr. Manoranjan Karna, the named supplier of the generator from the rent of Rs. 250/ --towards the IRDP loan account of Mr. Manoranjan Karna, the named supplier of the generator from the rent of Rs. 1,400/- and thereby disobeyed the direction of the Branch Manager and when the Branch Manager insisted upon the same, the workman became furious at the Manager and shouted at him in the Bank premises during the office hours saying, "you cannot recover the amount from rent proceeds". Further on the very same day, tie had switched off the generator stating that he (workman) would not allow anybody to use the generator. On account of his above conduct, the customer service was disrupted. On the same day, when the Branch Manager was busy in preparing the L.A. statement from the IRDP ledger, the workman rushed to the Manager in violent mood and snatched the IRDP ledger, and threw it away shouting "I will not allow you to do any clerical work". Further on 18.05.1995, the workman had availed two BPs and reversed subsequently without receipt of any credit advice of other Branch by debiting the same to his account or by payment of cash. 11. Learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the charges proved against him are not that serious which would warrant compulsory retirement. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the case of State Bank of India and anr. v. Bela Bagchi and Ors., reported in -AIR 2005 SC 1272, wherein it is held as follows : "11. Xx xx xx A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/ employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 68, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charge against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance." Xx xx xx It is contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the Bank has not suffered any monetary loss for the conduct of the opposite party, which is one of the grounds to interfere with the punishment by learned Tribunal. Loss of money to the Bank may be a ground for determining the quantum of punishment. In view of the case law cited (supra), even in absence of any financial loss to the Management Bank, the conduct, i.e:, indiscipline, insubordination and dereliction in duty of a Bank employee are by itself sufficient to do away with his service as a Bank employee. The Disciplinary Authority, taking into consideration his length of service as well as past service records etc. imposed punishment of compulsory retirement so that he could get his retiral benefits. Learned Tribunal lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspect and interfered with the quantum c punishment, which is unwarranted. 12. In that view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the conclusion of learned Tribunal so far it relates to punishment (at paragraph 13) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, set aside the conclusion of learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of punishment and restore the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 10.06.2006 imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the writ petition is disposed of. S. Panda, J. - I agree.