JUDGMENT : The employer as well as the workman challenge the Award in ID No.8/2015 dated 02.05.2022 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in these writ petitions. The workman has filed W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 and the employer has filed W.P.(C) No.27248/2023. 2. In W.P.(C) No.21130/2023, the petitioner-workman states that he joined services under the employer Bank as a Bankman on 01.04.1997. He was suspended from service pending enquiry on 19.11.2012. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 is the chargesheet. Though the petitioner workman submitted reply, the employer proceeded to conduct domestic enquiry. The workman examined six witnesses and marked eight documents. However, Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 22.05.2013, found that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification from the customers and also borrowed money from customers and outsiders, resulting in complaints before various authorities. The Enquiry Officer also concluded that the petitioner had misbehaved with a consumer. 3. The employer accepted the enquiry report and imposed upon the workman punishment of 'dismissal without notice'. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order was rejected. The petitioner therefore raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, which considered the dispute, found that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was in a fair and proper manner and following the principles of natural justice. 4. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider the correctness of the findings of the enquiry officer and the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. By Award dated 02.05.2022 in ID No.8/2015, the Tribunal found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are not in accordance with the evidence available. However, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that it is not possible to state that there is no evidence at all. The Tribunal held that direct involvement of the petitioner is not established in the enquiry. However, there is evidence to show the indirect involvement of the petitioner in all the charges levelled against him. On these premises, the Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal without notice and imposed the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. 5. The petitioner-workman in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 contended that Ext.P2 Award is highly illegal and arbitrary. However, there is evidence to show the indirect involvement of the petitioner in all the charges levelled against him. On these premises, the Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal without notice and imposed the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. 5. The petitioner-workman in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 contended that Ext.P2 Award is highly illegal and arbitrary. Having found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the enquiry and directed the 2nd respondent to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the charge. Instead, the Tribunal converted the punishment of 'dismissal without notice' to 'removal from service with superannuation benefits'. 6. The workman further contended that there was no material on record for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the workman had indirect involvement in the allegations raised against him in the chargesheet. The Tribunal failed to consider as to what extent the petitioner is involved in the allegations. The Tribunal also failed to consider whether such involvement warrants the extreme punishment of termination from service. The Award in ID No.8/2015 is therefore liable to be set aside, contended the counsel for the workman. 7. The employer-Federal Bank Limited has filed W.P. (C) No.27248/2023 challenging the very same Award. The counsel for the employer submitted that the workman has been found to play as a middleman for the customers to obtain loan from the Bank. There were sufficient materials to conclude that the workman has been receiving illegal gratification from the Bank's consumers. The workman thus indulged in very serious misconduct compromising integrity and honesty. Though there were eye witnesses to evidence that the petitioner has received bribe, those witnesses were prevailed upon by the workman and at the final stage of the domestic enquiry proceedings, those witnesses retracted from their statements. 8. Nevertheless, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that there is sufficient materials to conclude that the workman had involvement in the irregular activities. The conclusion showed that the workman had compromised his integrity and honesty threatening the very banking business of the employer. The Tribunal therefore decided to impose extreme penalty on the delinquent workman. Accordingly, the Tribunal substituted the penalty of dismissal without notice by awarding removal from service with superannuation benefits. 9. The conclusion showed that the workman had compromised his integrity and honesty threatening the very banking business of the employer. The Tribunal therefore decided to impose extreme penalty on the delinquent workman. Accordingly, the Tribunal substituted the penalty of dismissal without notice by awarding removal from service with superannuation benefits. 9. The Award passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with on any of the grounds urged by the workman. The counsel for the employer-Bank submitted that considering the gravity of the offences committed by the workman, the Tribunal ought to have imposed the penalty of dismissal from service itself on the workman. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner-employer in W.P.(C) No.27248/2023. 11. The charge against the workman as contained in Ext.P1 order dated 19.11.2012 is that the workman had taken bribe / illegal gratification from customers, that he had misappropriated excess money from a customer for obtaining PAN Card, that he had misbehaved with a customer, that he had indulged in lending and borrowing of money from customers in violation of the extant instructions of the Bank ultimately resulting in complaints before the Police and other authorities and that he had incurred excessive debts and had not repaid the amount borrowed, resulting in customer complaints against him, which has tarnished image and reputation of the Bank. 12. The statements of facts in support of the charges are as follows: “2. a) Shri.Sabu C.P., Nambikkodathparambu, Mamangalam had approached Branch Edappally through Shri.Reghu for a loan, but the loan was not sanctioned from the Bank. Thereafter, Shri.Reghu told Shri.Sabu that Branch has sanctioned a loan in the name of another person and if a property was given as security for the said loan, the amount needed by Shri.Sabu will be given by the said borrower and accordingly Shri.Reghu introduced one Shri.Paul Moolan to Shri.Sabu. Branch had sanctioned an ODCC limit of Rs.5 lakhs to Shri.Paul Moolan in the name of M/s Moolan Electricals and Sanitaries on 19.09.2005. As advised by Shri.Reghu, Smt.Suba Sabu, wife of Shri.Sabu mortgaged the property located at Arayankavu for the ODCC Limit of Rs.5 lakhs sanctioned to Shri.Paul Moolan. As per the understanding and being the consideration for extending collateral security, Sri.Paul Moolan handed over Rs.1,50,000/- to Shri.Sabu by way of cash cheque. As advised by Shri.Reghu, Smt.Suba Sabu, wife of Shri.Sabu mortgaged the property located at Arayankavu for the ODCC Limit of Rs.5 lakhs sanctioned to Shri.Paul Moolan. As per the understanding and being the consideration for extending collateral security, Sri.Paul Moolan handed over Rs.1,50,000/- to Shri.Sabu by way of cash cheque. For arranging the fund/loan, Shri.Reghu had accepted Rs.10,000/- from Sri.Sabu and Rs.25,000/- from Shri.Paul Moolan immediately on sanction of loan. The amount of Rs.25,000/- was received by Shri.Reghu by way of cash cheque issued by Shri.Paul Moolan in the name of one Shri.Roy on 20.09.2005, ie. next day after disbursing the limit. The cheque was written by Shri.Reghu and he had signed on the reverse of the cheque acknowledging receipt of cash. Shri.Sabu had repaid the amount to Shri.Paul Moolan by remitting Rs.1,80,000/- into his SB account on 25.07.2008 and transferring the same to the loan account in the name of Moolan Electricals. However, Shri.Paul Moolan failed to remit the remaining loan amount and hence the property mortgaged by wife of Shri.Sabu was implicated in the case filed by the Bank. Thereafter, in September 2012, Shri.Sabu remitted Rs.1,15,000/- more to the loan account of Shri.Paul Moolan so as to get back the property mortgaged to the Bank. The account was settled on compromise on 03.11.2012 and during the period of negotiation for compromise, Shri.Reghu has further demanded Rs.20,000/- from Shri.Sabu. b) Shri.Reghu had accepted Rs.300/- from one Shri.Selvam Raj for obtaining a PAN Card through his relative Shri.Babu from Federal Bank. As there was inordinate delay in obtaining the PAN card, Shri.Selvam Raj visited the branch and enquired with Shri.Reghu in the presence of others, about Rs.300/- given by him for obtaining PAN card. Even though the charges for taking a PAN card was Rs.94/- only, Shri.Reghu had taken more money than required to obtain a PAN card from Shri.Selvam Raj and misappropriated the balance amount. c) Shri.Reghu had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from one Smt.Nagaratinam about 2 years back, which was not repaid. Smt Nagaratinam has submitted a complaint to the Branch Manager, stating that she was staying in the house of Shri.Reghu on rent for some time and that about 2 years back she had lent Rs.30,000/- to Shri.Reghu for repledging gold ornaments belonging to wife of Shri.Navas, who is a friend of Shri.Reghu, for completing Shri.Reghu's house construction. Smt Nagaratinam has submitted a complaint to the Branch Manager, stating that she was staying in the house of Shri.Reghu on rent for some time and that about 2 years back she had lent Rs.30,000/- to Shri.Reghu for repledging gold ornaments belonging to wife of Shri.Navas, who is a friend of Shri.Reghu, for completing Shri.Reghu's house construction. Smt.Nagaratinam had lent money to Shri.Reghu considering his status as an employee of the Bank. However, Shri.Reghu had not repaid the amount inspite of repeated requests and also complaints were filed by Smt.Nagaratinam before police and Kerala State Legal Services Authority. She has also complained that Shri.Reghu had called her husband to Shri.Navas's house in the pretext to repay the money and tried to falsely incriminate him in a criminal case alleging atrocities against women. d) Shri.Mathew N.J., proprietor of M/s Nereveetil Auto spares, who is having several accounts with the branch had lent Rs.5 lakhs to one Shri.Antony, introduced by Shri.Reghu and on his assurance to pay back the amount in case of non payment by Shri.Antony. Shri.Reghu had given a signed blank cheque to Shri.Mathew as security for the loan. However, neither Shri.Antony nor Shri.Reghu has repaid the amount borrowed, inspite of repeated requests made by Shri.Mathew. e) Shri.Bobby T Pappachan, Bankman, Br. Edappally has complained that as requested by Shri.Reghu he had lent Rs.10,000/- to Shri.Navas, a friend of Shri.Reghu in October 2010. Shri.Reghu had given a cheque signed by Shri.Navas on the same day as security to Shri.Bobby. He had also assured to Shri.Bobby that Shri.Navas was getting a deposit of Rs.10 lakhs within 10 days and he can use the cheque to get back the money and the balance amount would be deposited with the branch. When Shri.Navas failed to repay the amount after due date, Shri.Bobby enquired the matter and Shri.Navas told him that Shri.Reghu had taken the money and he is not responsible for returning the money. f) Shri.Sivarajan, who was having several accounts with the Branch had done the truss work of Shri.Reghu's house, about an year back. In spite of repeated requests made by Shri.Sivarajan, Shri.Reghu has not paid the charges/cost for the truss work in full. Shri.Sivarajan had also told Smt.Srilatha K., Clerk of the Branch that even after one year, Shri.Reghu has not paid the balance of Rs.4,000/- for the truss work done at his house. In spite of repeated requests made by Shri.Sivarajan, Shri.Reghu has not paid the charges/cost for the truss work in full. Shri.Sivarajan had also told Smt.Srilatha K., Clerk of the Branch that even after one year, Shri.Reghu has not paid the balance of Rs.4,000/- for the truss work done at his house. g) Shri.Reghu has not paid the full amount of cement purchased by him from the shop of Shri.Joshy C.C., partner of M/s Chingamthara Agencies, an account holder of the Branch. An amount of Rs.2,000/- is due to be paid by Shri.Reghu to Shri.Joshy CC. h) Shri.Sebastian D'Silva, one of the customers has complained that Shri.Reghu had insulted and used very impolite language against him when the former visited Branch on 13.08.2011 to remit fees for his son studying in Assissi Public School. Consequent to the complaint, Shri.Reghu visited Shri.Sebastian's house and apologized for the incident.” After conducting domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer concluded that the workmen had accepted illegal gratification from customers and also borrowed money from customers and outsiders, resulting in complaints before various authorities and also that the workman had misbehaved with the customer. 13. The workman filed ID No.8/2015 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam invoking Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By order dated 14.02.2020, the Tribunal held that the enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner. After holding so, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the dispute. By Ext.P8 Award dated 02.05.2022, the Tribunal held that enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner. As regards the charges, the Tribunal concluded that the findings of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are not based on the complete evidence available on record and to that extent, the findings are perverse. The Tribunal, however, found that the involvement of the workmen in all incidents involved in the charge sheet is apparent from the available evidence. The Tribunal held that though there is no evidence that the workman had taken the bribe, the involvement of the workman in the loan arrangement of Sri. Sabu C.P. and Sri. Paul Moolan is very much evident in the records available in the enquiry file. 14. The Tribunal also found that in the charge involving the complaint of Smt. Nagaratinam, though the allegation that the workman has borrowed Rs.30,000/- from Nagaratinam is not established, his involvement in the transaction is very much evident. Sabu C.P. and Sri. Paul Moolan is very much evident in the records available in the enquiry file. 14. The Tribunal also found that in the charge involving the complaint of Smt. Nagaratinam, though the allegation that the workman has borrowed Rs.30,000/- from Nagaratinam is not established, his involvement in the transaction is very much evident. Though Sri. Sivarajan, Sri. Raghu and Sri. Sebastian D'Silva gave statements withdrawing the complaints, the fact remains that some amount was outstanding to Sri. Sivarajan and Sri. Raghu and there was an incident of misbehaviour with the customer Sri. Sebastian D'Silva. 15. The Tribunal held that it is not possible to state that there is no evidence at all. Though the direct involvement of the workman is not established in the enquiry, there is evidence to show the indirect involvement of the workman in all the charges levelled against him. The Tribunal therefore modified the punishment “Dismissal from service without notice” and converted it into “Removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as may be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment”. 16. While modifying the punishment, the Tribunal observed that though the direct involvement of the workman is not established in the enquiry, there is evidence to show the indirect involvement of the workman in all the charges levelled against him. The question therefore is whether the Tribunal is justified in imposing the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits, on the workman. Ext.ME3 series is a statement given by the workman to the investigation team, directly or indirectly admitting the charges levelled against him. The workman, however, later retracted the statement stating that it was taken under coercion. 17. Though charges levelled against the workman are found to be not proved entirely, the Tribunal has found that the workman is involved in all incidents. In respect of the loan arrangements of Sri. Sabu C.P. and Sri. Paul Moolan, the Tribunal has found that there is very much evidence of the workman's involvement. The same is the conclusion of the Tribunal in respect of the charge involving the complaint of Smt. Nagaratinam. In respect of the complaints involving Sri. Sivarajan, Sri. Raghu and Sri. Sebastian D'silva, the Tribunal found that there is evidence available against the workman. 18. The same is the conclusion of the Tribunal in respect of the charge involving the complaint of Smt. Nagaratinam. In respect of the complaints involving Sri. Sivarajan, Sri. Raghu and Sri. Sebastian D'silva, the Tribunal found that there is evidence available against the workman. 18. The charges contained in Ext.P1 also include a charge that the workman has conducted himself in violation of the extant instructions of the Bank ultimately resulting in complaints before Police and other authorities. The conduct of the workman has tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank. 19. It is to be noted that the workman is an employee of a scheduled Bank. A Bank employee is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. Every 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 do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every employee of the Bank. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others v. P.C. Kakkar [ (2003) 4 SCC 364 ] that the very discipline of an organisation more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. 20. In the judgment in State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde [ (2006) 7 SCC 212 ], the Apex Court held that if Bank officer commits misconduct for his personal gains and against interests of Bank and depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. In the judgment in Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and others [ (2003) 3 SCC 605 ] the Apex Court held that if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with by iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. 21. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with by iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. 21. Though the petitioner has been holding the post only of Bankman, it is clear from the available evidence that the workman has got involved himself in various monetary transactions with the customers which has resulted in complaints being raised by the customers. The Industrial Tribunal which has appreciated the evidence has found that the workman deserves punishment. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Award dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in ID No.8/2015. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.