JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has assailed the order of compulsory retirement dated 05.05.2017 which has been imposed as a measure of punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The appeal preferred against the said order on 28.06.2017 has also been rejected vide order dated 26.07.2017. Both the orders i.e. 05.05.2017 and 26.07.2017 have been assailed in the present writ petition. 2. The facts of the case and brief are that the petitioner while working at the Cash Counter in the State Bank of India, Girijapuri Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) was served with a charge sheet on 16.03.2005 where the allegation against him was that he had accepted an amount of 5000/- from one customer namely Raj Rs. 50/- from one customer namely Raj Narayan for depositing the same in his account No.5104. The petitioner discharging the duties of a Cashier accepted the said amount, and made an endorsement in the passbook of the customer but did not enter the said deposit, and no entries were made in Bank’s official records, and similarly another amount of 500 was Rs. 5000/- from one customer namely Raj accepted from a customer and not accounted by him in the Bank’s books. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 16.3.2005 and disciplinary proceedings were conducted and vide order dated 9.3.2006 the petitioner was awarded compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits from service. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner the order of punishment was modified vide order dated 12.6.2006 to stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years with cumulative effect. It has been recorded that a lenient and compassionate view has been taken by the appellate authority as the petitioner has an unmarried daughter and 3 minor children and further an opportunity was given to the petitioner to show improvement in his conduct and reform himself. 3. The petitioner was again subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a charge-sheet was given on 28.07.2016 containing 3 charges. The first charge related to not crediting to customer’s account the amount received by him, and only when the customer complained about the non-credit of the amount, it was refunded to him. 3. The petitioner was again subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a charge-sheet was given on 28.07.2016 containing 3 charges. The first charge related to not crediting to customer’s account the amount received by him, and only when the customer complained about the non-credit of the amount, it was refunded to him. The second charge related to the earlier punishment granted to the petitioner for the misconduct committed by him where he was given stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years with cumulative effect and it was stated that he had been given an opportunity to show improvement in his functioning but has committed similar irregularity again. 4. In the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the impugned punishment order dated 5.5.2017, according to charge no.1 one Pradeep Kumar, a savings Bank account holder, deposited cash of 5000/- from one customer namely Raj 34,000/- over the counter on 26.06.2015. The acknowledgement receipt was issued to the customer but the petitioner retained the cash without crediting the savings account of the customer. It is only when the customer made complaint against the petitioner that he returned the money to the customer on 10/07/2015. The disciplinary authority held that the charge No.1 was proved, and with regard to charge No.2 he returned a finding that the officer was given opportunity to show improvement when previously committed similar act of misconduct, however he has committed similar act of misconduct and imposed penalty in terms of 67 (h) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by means of impugned order dated 05/05/2017. The appeal against the said order of punishment was also rejected by the appellate authority by means of order dated 26/07/2017. 5. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order as well as the appellate order on the ground that previously, the petitioner having been punished by means of order dated 09/03/2006 and again on the same charges has been punished and accordingly the order of punishment is illegal and arbitrary in as much as it suffers from vice of double jeopardy as a person cannot be punished again for the same charge on which he has been punished earlier and also that the punishment imposed is excessive. 6. 6. Sri Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned orders has submitted that on the previous occasion in the year 2005 when the petitioner was working at the Cash Counter in the Girijapuri Branch was alleged to have received 5000 and Rs. 5000/- from one customer namely Raj Rs. 5000/- from one customer namely Raj 500 from the customers and did not credit them in the books of the accounts of the Bank. In the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner all the charges were found to be proved. The petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority taking a lenient view of the matter, imposed the punishment of stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years, with the condition “Please note that should a whiff of inappropriate behaviour be observed about you in future, no further mercy will be shown. This will also be recorded in your service sheet”. He submits that only a reiteration of the previous disciplinary proceedings have been made in the charge-sheet, and the same charge was not required to be proved in the present enquiry, but provided only a reference to his previous conduct, as it was material for the purposes of imposing the punishment. With regard to the quantum of punishment, he submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank was supposed to show full sincerity, honesty and faithfulness towards the customers, and defalcation of the funds of the customers is a very serious misconduct as it affects the credibility and reputation of the Bank. In the present case, charge sheet was given to the petitioner stating that he has admittedly received the amount from the customers but did not make necessary entries in the Bank records, nor did he inform any higher official of the Bank, and refunded the money only when complaint was made after substantial length of time, and consequently for the repeated misconduct, the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed which is not disproportionate and consequently has opposed the writ petition. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first ground canvassed by the petitioner in assailing the impugned order of compulsory retirement is that he is being punished twice for the same offence, and hence the impugned order is hit by the vice of double jeopardy. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first ground canvassed by the petitioner in assailing the impugned order of compulsory retirement is that he is being punished twice for the same offence, and hence the impugned order is hit by the vice of double jeopardy. Previously, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by means of order dated 16/03/2005 and charge number (i) and (ii) were as follows:- “(i) Jh jkt ukjk;.k tks fd 'kk[kk esa cpr [kkrk /kkjd gSa] us mudks :-5]000@& vius cpr [kkr la[;k 5104 esa tek djus gsrq fn;s Fks fdUrq mUgksaus mDr jkf'k muds cpr [kkrs esa tek fd, fcuk mudh iklcqd esa vuqfpr :i ls izfof"V dj nh (ii) Jherh xkserh nsoh us viuk cpr [kkrk [kksyus gsrq :0 500@& mudks fn;s mUgksauas Jherh xkserh nsoh dk [kkrk 'kk[kk esa ugha [kksyk rFkk Jherh xkserh nsoh dks QthZ cpr ikl cqd lkSsi nh** 9. The customers, who were affected by the conduct of the petitioner, had made a complaint to the Bank making allegations against him for receiving the money and issuing a receipt for the said amount but the same was never entered in the books of accounts of the Bank. Though subsequently after the complaint, the amount was returned back to the customers, but the enquiry officer found both charges to be proved and it was established that the petitioner had acted malafidely with the intention of defrauding the customers of the Bank, and no satisfactory explanation could be given by him for his conduct and accordingly the disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. While deciding the appeal, the appellate authority took a lenient view of the matter considering the fact that the petitioner had an ailing mother of 62 years, one daughter of marriageable age, and 3 minor children, and consequently reduced punishment to stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years cumulatively, with a condition that “Please note that should a whiff of inappropriate behaviour be observed about you in future, no further mercy will be shown. This will also be recorded in your service sheet”. 10. This will also be recorded in your service sheet”. 10. Subsequently, when the petitioner was posted as Customer Assistant at Fatehpur, Barabanki Branch from 19/07/2011 to 19/09/2015 he was given chargesheet on 28/07/2016 with the first charge that he did not credit to the customers’ account the amount received by him for being so credited. The customer made a complaint, and only then the petitioner refunded the amount to him. Charge No. 2 stated that previously also have been punished for similar charges and plenty of compulsory retirement was given to him with stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years cumulatively by the appellate authority, and despite being given an opportunity to show improvement in his functioning and conduct, again committed similar irregularities/ mistake. 11. The petitioner after due inquiry has been awarded with the punishment of compulsory retirement, and the appeal preferred by him against the order of punishment has also been rejected which orders have been impugned in the present petition. 12. The issue to be decided is as to whether the charge no.2 in the chargesheet dated 26/07/2016 pertaining to the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in the previous disciplinary proceedings, would amount to punishing the petitioner for the same charge again? 13. To decide this question one will have to go into both the charges themselves. In the year 2005 when the petitioner was working at the cash counter in the Girijapuri branch he was alleged to have received 5000 and 500 from the customers and did not Rs. 5000/- from one customer namely Raj Rs. 5000/- from one customer namely Raj enter them in the books of the Bank for which he was punished, and the condition was also imposed which was recorded in his service sheet “that should a whiff of inappropriate behaviour observed about you in future, no further mercy will be shown”. In the year 2015, again disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in charge No. 2 is as follows:- “for similar charges indicating malafides on your part, penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Para 6(c) of memorandum of settlement dated 10/04/2002, was imposed upon you by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 09/03/2006, which was committed to stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years with cumulative effect by the appellate authority. You, therefore giving an opportunity to however, you again committed similar to regular mistake indicating malafides on your part.” 14. The perusal of the above charge clearly indicates that the petitioner has committed the similar misconduct again despite having been warned in the previous disciplinary proceedings of 2005 not to repeat any such misconduct in the future, failing which no mercy would be shown. The charge is clearly distinct from the charge included in the previous disciplinary enquiry. The present charge involves a separate misconduct which has arisen because of the petitioner indulging in a similar misconduct subsequently. This aspect would further be clear when we see that the previous misconduct was not required to be proved in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. Had the previous charge been also proved in the subsequent enquiry, the principle of double jeopardy would come to the defence of the delinquent employee, but a repeated act of misconduct, by an employee may itself be a misconduct, and mention of a charge having been proved in previous disciplinary inquiry, to bring home the charge that the delinquent employee is habitual offender, would not attract principle of double jeopardy. The fact of previous penalty imposed upon the petitioner will be relevant for imposing punishment in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The question whether the previous misconduct of an employee can be taken into consideration in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings is no longer res-integra and has been concluded by the Supreme Court in the case Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 where it has been held:- “Charge 3 was that the respondent had become habitual in committing indiscipline and disorderliness. A reference was made to two major penalties of deduction of pay and one minor punishment of reduction of seven days' salary earlier. The disciplinary authority found that the respondent did not improve in spite of being punished earlier. The High Court agreed with the contention of the respondent and held that a fresh enquiry cannot be initiated into a misconduct for which a delinquent had already suffered a penalty. The High Court found that any penalty imposed under Charge 3 would amount to double jeopardy. We disagree with the finding of the High Court as we are of the view that the respondent was not being tried again for previous misconduct. The High Court found that any penalty imposed under Charge 3 would amount to double jeopardy. We disagree with the finding of the High Court as we are of the view that the respondent was not being tried again for previous misconduct. As the respondent did not improve in spite of being punished earlier and had become habitual in indiscipline and disorderliness, the disciplinary authority rightly found Charge 3 as proved. The desirability of continuance of the respondent was considered on the basis of his past conduct which does not amount to double jeopardy. In any event, past conduct of a delinquent employee can be taken into consideration while imposing penalty. We are supported in this view by a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra, (2009) 13 SCC 102 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 212, held as follows : (SCC p. 111, para 30) “30. … But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require.” 15. With regard to argument of the learned counsel the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from double jeopardy, is not made out and is accordingly rejected. 16. The next ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of punishment. While imposing the penalty it has been taken into account that the nature of misconduct pertains to financial misappropriation by the petitioner who was an employee of the Bank, where financial discipline, honesty and sincerity are of foremost attributes for the employees. Any breach of the aforesaid attributes would be a misconduct, more serious in the Banking business where customers entrust the Bank with hard earned money, and the job requires all employees to maintain high standards of financial discipline. In the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. A.T.Mane, 2005 (3) SCC 254 it has been held as under:- “12.Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 held as under:- “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 69 ), 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 each 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 charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.” 18. The respondents, on the other hand, have vehemently submitted that there was loss of confidence in the petitioner, and consequently the punishment meted out to him is not harsh. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, 2011 (4) SCC 584 it has been held as under:- “8. When a court is considering whether 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. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, 2011 (4) SCC 584 it has been held as under:- “8. When a court is considering whether 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 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 account holder was an imposter, the Bank can not 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 employees who are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue in its service.” 19. In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , 2021 (2) SCC 612 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “42. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in Banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every Bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.” 20. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.” 20. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would indicate that when a person is employed in banking business, he is duty bound to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity and any infraction leading to misappropriation of funds would amount to a very serious misconduct as such an action may strike at the root of Banking business and the faith of the customers will be impaired. In the present case, undoubtedly on two separate occasions the petitioner was found to have indulged in misappropriation of funds. In the year 2005 after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings he was found guilty and punished and was categorically asked not to repeat the same misconduct. Despite the aforesaid punishment meted out to him the petitioner again indulged in act of misconduct and misappropriation of funds in 2015 which has led to the impugned punishment order. There is no denial of the involvement of the petitioner in both the above acts of misconduct. 21. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that he was not aware of the law. We have noticed that the petitioner is employed in banking business since more than one and half decades, and such defence that he was not aware of the legal principles and law is not believable nor is a valid defence. In the present case, we have noticed that the petitioner deliberately did not credit the money received from the customers in the books of account of the Bank and it is only after complaint was made by the customers that such amount was refunded, which clearly indicates that his intention was not bonafide but a deliberate attempt to defraud the customers. This observation is based upon the fact that during this period neither had he voluntarily refunded the money to the customers, nor had he informed any higher official of the Bank about such incident in case it was under any mistaken belief of fact. In the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement is clearly not disproportionate or excessive considering the repeated misconduct by the petitioner. 22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement is clearly not disproportionate or excessive considering the repeated misconduct by the petitioner. 22. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in consonance with the misconduct committed by him and, hence, does not require any interference by this Court. The petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.