JUDGMENT : ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4860 of 2003. 2. Heard Sri A.Krishnam Raju, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, for the respondent-employee. 3. It has been contended by the appellants that the respondent-employee was initially employed as a Clerk with the Appellant-Bank in the year 1978 and the respondent had indulged in serious irregularities in taking loans and thereafter issuing cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured and the said act of the respondent-employee was construed as misconduct. As the respondent-employee was incurring debts and not clearing them and was damaging the image of appellant-bank, the Disciplinary Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings and after conducting detailed enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was pleased to impose punishment of warning for the minor misconduct and imposed another punishment for gross misconduct for doing acts that are prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant-Bank vide Clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement and imposed major punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-employee has preferred an Appeal, and the Appellate Authority was also pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the respondent vide order dated 24-01-2001. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement for violating the clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement, as respondent-employee has acted prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant-Bank and the reputation of the Appellant-Bank was at stake and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement for the proven misconduct on the part of the respondent-employee in the domestic enquiry. The respondent-employee had challenged the order of compulsory retirement before this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No. 4860 of 2003 and the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the compulsory retirement, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and directed that the respondent-employee be reinstated into service with back-wages, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The learned Single Judge had passed the following Orders which are as follows: “31. Consequently, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent by order dated 30.01.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 24.01.2001 is set aside. The learned Single Judge had passed the following Orders which are as follows: “31. Consequently, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent by order dated 30.01.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 24.01.2001 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with back wages. However, long ago, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. The respondents are therefore directed to treat the petitioner as if he continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation and accordingly pay him the retiral benefits together with back wages, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the learned Single Judge has erroneously awarded back-wages to the respondent-employee, as admittedly, the respondent-employee never worked from 2002 till he has attained Superannuation and if back-wages are reduced, the ends of justice would be met. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed compulsory retirement against the respondent-employee for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 31-07-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4860 of 2003. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee has contended that the allegations levelled against the respondent-employee is that he has taken certain loans and he could not clear the loans within the stipulated time. Admittedly, the respondent-employee has cleared off the loans and no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant-Bank and the Disciplinary Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo on 02-06-2010, which reads as follows: “Syndicate bank Zonal Office: Hyderabad Industrial Relations Section Ref. No. CGS/HTD/200/41 Date: 02-06-2000 Sri D. Srinivas, Clerk, No. 280417 Girveal Branch. Dear Sir, CHARGE SHEET: “It is alleged against you as under: That while working as a Clerk at our Golconda Branch, you have issued few cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in the SB a/c on which hey were drawn. The following circumstances appear against you: That while working there as such, you were in the habit of issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in your account on which they were drawn. As a result of your issuing cheques without maintaining adequate balance in your account, the said cheques were returned unpaid on presentation. The following circumstances appear against you: That while working there as such, you were in the habit of issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in your account on which they were drawn. As a result of your issuing cheques without maintaining adequate balance in your account, the said cheques were returned unpaid on presentation. The details of the cheques which were returned unpaid for want of funds are given below: Cheque No. & Date Amount Rs. Date of Return Reasons for return of cheque 1. 826474/14.3.99 2000/- 16.03.99 Insufficient funds 2. 094073/28.2.99 1015/- 31.03.99 -do- 3. 826473/28.2.99 9260/- 3.4.99 -do- 4. 940736/30.3.99 1015/- 3.4.99 -do- 5. 940737/30.4.99 1015/- 7.5.99 -do- 6. 940740/30.7.99 1015/- -do- By your above act of issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in your SB Account, you have not only tarnished the image of the bank in the eyes of the public but also committed an offence under Section 138 of NI Act. You have also violated the guidelines issued by the Head Office in this regard vide its Circulars No. (i). 270/80/BC/PD/92/IRD dt.26.9.90 (ii). 80/88/BC/PD/14 dt.21.3.88, (iii) 90/94/BC/PD/22/IRD dt.15.4.94. It is also observed from the records that no two earlier occasions also, you were issued with the Charge Sheets and awarded with suitable punishments, for similar acts of issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in the SB A/c. on which they were drawn, the details of which are given here below: 1. Chargesheet No. CGS/HYD/98/111 dt.28-8-99 was disposed of vide proceedings No. PRS/ DGM/ HYD/ 98/80 dated 26.8.98 and awarded with the punishment of “warning”. 2. Charge Sheet No. CGS/HYD/99/25 dt.23.8.99 was disposed of vide Proceedings No. PRS/ DGM/ HYD/ 2000/3 dt.5.1.2000 and awarded with the punishments of “warning” and “reduction in basic pay for a period of one year”. Being a bank employee and aware of the consequences of issuance of cheques without balance, you ought to have ensured availability of funds in your account before such issuance. Further your acts also indicate that you are showing scant regards towards the instructions of your higher authorities. Your above act amounts to Misconduct under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. You are therefore charged for committing acts of minor misconduct of “incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive” vide Cl.19.7(1) and gross misconduct of “doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank” vide Clauses 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. Your above act amounts to Misconduct under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. You are therefore charged for committing acts of minor misconduct of “incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive” vide Cl.19.7(1) and gross misconduct of “doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank” vide Clauses 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. You are hereby called upon to submit your explanation to the above Charge Sheet within 7 days of receipt of the same, failing which the matter will be proceeded further without any reference to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K.S.Kudva) Dy. General Manager. CC to: 1. The Branch Manager, Sirvel branch 2. CM:ZO:PS(WW):Hyderabad 3. AGM:HO:IRD(W) 4. RM:RO:Hyderabad Cuddapah 5. Master file 401 (M).” 7. A perusal of the charge memo would abundantly make it clear that only one charge memo is issued and very strangely, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed two set of punishments arising out of the same charge memo i.e., the respondent-employee was warned by the Disciplinary Authority for the minor misconduct of incurring debts to the extent considered by the Management as “excess” and in the next limb of the punishment for the very same act, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed major penalty of “compulsory retirement” by invoking Clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement, which would amount to imposing two punishments for single charge memo, which amounts to double jeopardy and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition and was pleased to set aside compulsory retirement order passed on 30-01-2000 and also Appellate Authority order dated 24-01-2001 and the learned Single Judge has rightly directed that the respondent-employee be reinstated into service with back wages since the respondent-employee had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2000 itself. The learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent is entitled to be treated as in service till he attains age of superannuation and pay all retiral benefits including back-wages. 8. The learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent is entitled to be treated as in service till he attains age of superannuation and pay all retiral benefits including back-wages. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee has further contended that since the respondent-employee has not worked from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation, he would forego 50% of back-wages in order to give quietus this pending case and the learned counsel for the respondent had contended that though the Writ Petition was allowed in 2014, no benefits are disbursed to the respondent in view of the pendency of the present Writ Appeal and in order to give quietus, the respondent is willing to forego 50% of the wages. This Court is of the considered view that admittedly, two punishments were imposed on the respondent-employee i.e., he was warned and another is major penalty of compulsory retirement and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent-employee with the following observations: "28. But, here the question is not as to whether the quasi judicial authorities have followed the principles of natural justice or whether the punishment imposed is outrageously disproportionate. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is that the acts complained of against the petitioner do not at all constitute misconduct and initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is arbitrary illegal and capricious. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was unnecessarily made to face the enquiry and suffered the punishment of compulsory retirement without committing any misconduct. If the Court arrives at the conclusion that the very initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner is arbitrary and bad in law, it can certainly exercise its powers of judicial review to set aside the order. Therefore, I see no substance in the contention put-forth by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank that since the enquiry has been proceeded with by following the principles of natural justice and the punishment not being shockingly disproportionate, this Court is not supposed to exercise its powers of judicial review. 29. Therefore, I see no substance in the contention put-forth by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank that since the enquiry has been proceeded with by following the principles of natural justice and the punishment not being shockingly disproportionate, this Court is not supposed to exercise its powers of judicial review. 29. For what all discussed hereinabove, contracting debts to a tune of few thousand rupees in a span of three months, issuing cheques in respect of the said amounts and repaying them soon-after their dishonor was brought to the notice of the petitioner, does not constitute any misconduct even in general terms. It is not understandable as to how the act of the petitioner is prejudicial to the interests of the bank. This Court therefore is of the view that the petitioner was unnecessarily subjected to disciplinary enquiry even though he is not guilty of any kind of misconduct even in general terms and initiating enquiry against the petitioner itself is arbitrary and bad in law. The entire proceedings relating to the enquiry are therefore vitiated and basing on such proceedings, no punishment could have been imposed against the petitioner. 30. For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for initiating enquiry against the petitioner, he is kept out of service for several years by imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. Otherwise, he would have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in normal course. 31. Consequently, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent by order dated 30.01.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 24.01.2001 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with back wages. However, long ago, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. The respondents are therefore directed to treat the petitioner as if he continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation and accordingly pay him the retiral benefits together with back wages, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 32. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.” 9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the parties, is of the considered view that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 32. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.” 9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the parties, is of the considered view that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the back-wages which were granted by the learned Single Judge are modified to an extent of 50% of back-wages instead of full back-wages. 10. With the small modification of paying only 50% of back-wages to the respondent-employee, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. The rest of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.