JUDGMENT : S. G. PANDIT, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42824 of 2011, by which the writ petition was allowed, the first respondent is in appeal. 2. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 02.11.1999 passed by the first respondent and order dated 28.02.2011 in Appeal No.295 of 2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner-Smt.Gowramma joined the services of the first respondent-Society on daily wages as clerk-cum-typist and she was regularized as such on 19.04.1983. She was further promoted as First Division Assistant on 19.10.1987. The first respondent, by order dated 16.04.1999 kept the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.31,647/-. It is the case of the petitioner that due to pressure of work, discrepancy crept in, while maintaining the entries in the cash book, which was not intentional but was a mistake. Due to discrepancy, there was excess cash and the said mistake was informed to the first respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner having found excess amount remitted the same to the account of the first respondent. The petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 15.05.1999 alleging misappropriation of a sum of Rs.36,331/- on different dates between 12.08.1998 to 07.01.1999 and the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation. The petitioner submitted her reply on 21.05.1999 denying the allegation of misappropriation and explained that difference in amount was due to mistake which was on account of pressure of work and the petitioner has deposited the entire amount with the first respondent. Not being satisfied with the reply, by notice dated 16.06.1999, the first respondent appointed enquiry officer to hold enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her defense statement on 24.06.1999. Based on the explanation of the petitioner, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges. It is stated that the enquiry officer without following the procedures concluded the enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with notice dated 09.09.1999 and the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 04.10.1999. The first respondent, by order dated 02.11.1999 imposed the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. It is stated that the enquiry officer without following the procedures concluded the enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with notice dated 09.09.1999 and the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 04.10.1999. The first respondent, by order dated 02.11.1999 imposed the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner raised dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (for short 'the KCS Act') before the second respondent. Both the parties led evidence before the second respondent. The second respondent considering the material on record before him, by his order dated 19.02.2007, allowed the dispute and modified the order of dismissal to that of punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and further ordered for reinstatement with other consequential benefits. 3. The first respondent aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 19.02.2007 filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.295 of 2007. The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 28.02.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the award dated 19.02.2007 passed by the second respondent holding that the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled against respondent No.2/petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal filed instant writ petition before this Court. This Court, considering the entire documents on record held that the second respondent has rightly modified the punishment of dismissal to that of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and confirmed the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 is in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent No.2 and also learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Perused the appeal papers. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal whereby the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner was confirmed. It is contended that the petitioner has admitted the allegations and she has deposited the alleged misappropriated amount. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal. For the proved misconduct of misappropriation, the appropriate punishment would be dismissal or removal from service. In view of the admission made by the petitioner, nothing more was required to prove the allegations. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal. For the proved misconduct of misappropriation, the appropriate punishment would be dismissal or removal from service. In view of the admission made by the petitioner, nothing more was required to prove the allegations. Even then the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and every opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend her case. Thus prays for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner/second respondent submits that the punishment of dismissal for the allegations made against the petitioner would be grossly disproportionate and hence the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and restored the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect imposed by the second respondent. It is stated that due to pressure of work, there was discrepancy in maintaining the cash book which showed excess cash. Immediately on coming to know of the same, the petitioner informed her superiors and remitted the amount to the first respondent's account. It is also stated that similar allegations were made against other employees also and they were punished with lesser punishment of withholding increments, but only against the petitioner punishment of dismissal was imposed. It is also submitted that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has not followed the prescribed procedure while conducting the enquiry. Thus prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, on perusal of the order of punishment passed by the first respondent-appellant, award passed by the second respondent and order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and restored the order of punishment as modified by the second respondent i.e., withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The order of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous. But, the order passed by the second respondent granting back wages needs to be modified. The petitioner would not be entitled for back wages for the following reasons: 8. The petitioner joined services of the respondent- Bank as a daily wager and subsequently her service was regularized as Clerk-cum-Typist from 19.04.1993. She was issued with show cause notice on 15.05.1999, alleging misappropriation of Rs.31,331/-. The petitioner would not be entitled for back wages for the following reasons: 8. The petitioner joined services of the respondent- Bank as a daily wager and subsequently her service was regularized as Clerk-cum-Typist from 19.04.1993. She was issued with show cause notice on 15.05.1999, alleging misappropriation of Rs.31,331/-. The explanation of the petitioner was that she was working for the last 17 years without any blame and without any mistake. It was only a discrepancy occurred in the entries of the cash book and immediately on noticing the same, she informed the first respondent and had remitted the difference amount. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued show cause notice alleging misappropriation. It was the case of the petitioner that due to discrepancies the mistake had happened and immediately on coming to know the same, on informing the first respondent she has deposited the alleged amount. That is taken as admission by the Enquiry Officer and held the charge as proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the appellant-first respondent imposed the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. 9. When the dispute was raised before the second respondent, both parties led their evidence before the second respondent. The witness examined on behalf of the Management has admitted that the petitioner deposited the misappropriated amount before the show cause notice was issued to her. Further the witness admitted that similar allegation of misappropriation was made against other employees of the Society, i.e., Sri.Devegowda - Rs.39,747/- Sri.Purushotham Achar - Rs.3,648/- Smt.Bhagyalakshmi - Rs.11,957/- and Sri.Adimurthy - Rs.63,189/- and further stated that on recovery of the said amounts, those persons have been continued in the services of the first respondent-Society. The second respondent finding fault in the enquiry procedure and taking note of the fact that there was no intention of misappropriation by the petitioner, modified the punishment of dismissal to that of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal reversed the award of the second respondent and confirmed the order of first respondent. Taking into consideration the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner has admitted the misappropriation and has remitted the same, observed that no more evidence is required to prove the charge. The Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent could not have substituted the punishment imposed by the first respondent. Taking into consideration the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner has admitted the misappropriation and has remitted the same, observed that no more evidence is required to prove the charge. The Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent could not have substituted the punishment imposed by the first respondent. The Tribunal having noticed that other four persons against whom same allegation of misappropriation was made, were continued in service after recovery of the said amounts, ought not to have disturbed the award passed by the second respondent. The contention that the first respondent Bank has lost confidence in the petitioner cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Bank had lost confidence in the petitioner, the same would apply to four other employees from whom misappropriated amounts were recovered and continued in service. More over, from the sequence of events, it would be clear that the petitioner had no intention of misappropriation and material would indicate that as contended by the petitioner it was only a discrepancy in maintaining the cash book. When it had come to the notice of the petitioner, on informing the appellant-first respondent, she has deposited the amount with the first respondent. From the enquiry report, it is seen that the enquiry officer appears to have not recorded any evidence, but only on the statement made by the petitioner has submitted the report. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking into the nature of charge and the treatment meted out to the petitioner when compared to other four employees of the first respondent-Society, it amounts to discrimination between the equally placed employees. The allegation against the petitioner as well as the other four employees were identical and as such, the respondent- Society could not have discriminated between the other employees and the petitioner. Imposing of punishment of dismissal of petitioner for identical allegations retaining the other four employees in service would definitely amount to discrimination. Hence, we are of the view that the punishment as modified by the second respondent from dismissal to that of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. Imposing of punishment of dismissal of petitioner for identical allegations retaining the other four employees in service would definitely amount to discrimination. Hence, we are of the view that the punishment as modified by the second respondent from dismissal to that of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. But the petitioner would not be entitled for the back wages as awarded by the second respondent for the reason that the petitioner has not worked during the said period and to some extent the petitioner is negligent in carrying out her duties as First Division Assistant. The petitioner while performing her duties admits to have committed mistake but the said mistake would not warrant major penalty of removal or dismissal from service. The learned Single Judge has observed that the second respondent based on evidence and material placed before him has come to the correct conclusion that enquiry conducted was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the punishment of removal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges alleged against the petitioner. 11. While upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and confirming the order passed by the second respondent, we deny the back wages awarded by the second respondent. Except the back wages, the petitioner would be entitled to all other benefits flowing from the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the second respondent. 12. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands disposed off. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence the same is rejected.