JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was charged with the misconduct of not depositing an amount of Rs.18,000/- into the account of the customer, one Ch.Nageshwar Rao, an employee of Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises. It is alleged that on 05.05.2009, when the said employee of Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises remitted a sum of Rs.40,500/- via two separate pay slips, for Rs.18,000/- intended for credit into savings bank account Nos.16837 in the name of the Proprietor of Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises and an amount of Rs.22,500/- was to be credited to the savings bank account of Proprietor’s wife bearing account No.16838. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.18,000/- was not credited to the account of the Proprietor of Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises. On 06.05.2009, the same was brought to the notice of the Manager of the Bank and upon enquiry on 07.05.2009, the petitioner realised that the excess cash amount of Rs.18,000/- was not deposited to the account No.16837. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner admitted the mistake, however, submitted that there was no fraudulent intention on part of the petitioner. It was a case of oversight and due to rush at the counter. It is also submitted that the amount was remitted by the customer’s account subsequently. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a letter submitted by the customer of the Bank, wherein it was mentioned by him that the cash was received to his account and that he intends to withdraw the complaint filed by him. The said letter is dated 07.04.2010. 4. The respondent issued a charge sheet and the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner admitted the mistake, however, submitted that there was no wilful and malicious intention to defraud the customer. It was categorically stated that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner and there was no illegal enrichment prayed for leniency to be taken. The petitioner admitted the mistake, however, submitted that there was no wilful and malicious intention to defraud the customer. It was categorically stated that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner and there was no illegal enrichment prayed for leniency to be taken. The Enquiry Officer appears to have relied solely on the reply submitted by the petitioner on 06.03.2010 and there appears to be no enquiry insofar as verifying as to what was the footfall at the deposit counter on the particular date to gather additional information with regard to the veracity of the stand taken by the petitioner. 5. The respondents have not filed counter in the matter till date. The learned Standing counsel submits that the admission on part of the petitioner would be sufficient for the respondent-Bank to impose the punishment which is according to the respondent is appropriate. The petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits as will be due under the Rules and Regulations vide proceedings dated 12.06.2010. 6. The petitioner got appointed on Compassionate grounds on 10.08.1998 and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in similar or other misconducts in his service from the year 1998 till the date of charge sheet dated 05.02.2010. Imposing a major punishment without a proper enquiry is not only illegal but also an irrational act on the part of the respondent-Bank. 7. The Order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement was to be fair and reasonable. As seen from the order dated 12.06.2010, the proceedings issued imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement evidently express stigma. In the event, if the order of compulsory retirement expresses stigma, the same would amount to an order of removal or dismissal. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any stigma evident on the face of the order of punishment of compulsory retirement has to be held illegal. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any stigma evident on the face of the order of punishment of compulsory retirement has to be held illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 and J. D. Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Others, AIR 1984 SC 630 , has held that if the officer had not earned any adverse entries, at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, such an officer cannot be put into compulsory retirement on the ground that long years back his performance had been poor. Thus, it is held that the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be quashed if there is no adverse entry for the last five years. 8. As seen from the enquiry proceedings, dated 09.04.2010, the enquiry was conducted in pursuance of charge sheet dated 05.02.2010. The enquiry commenced on 09.04.2010 and concluded on the same day. The enquiry proceedings also do not reveal any adverse service remark as against the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings would indicate that there was no detailed enquiry conducted. The enquiry commenced and concluded on the same day. The entire enquiry was based on the letter of admission of mistake by the petitioner. The petitioner does not also consider the letter addressed by the customer withdrawing the complaint. Such proceedings are detrimental to the charged officers and punishment imposed in pursuance of such proceedings deserves to be set aside. 9. It is also pertinent to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1990 Law Suit (SC) 508, wherein it is held that major punishments cannot be imposed without conducting proper enquiry. 10. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 12.06.2010 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise under Rules or Regulations. It is evident that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not only grossly disproportionate but also shocks the conscious insofar as of the facts of the case are concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. It is evident that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not only grossly disproportionate but also shocks the conscious insofar as of the facts of the case are concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay 50% of back wages to the petitioner. The respondents shall comply with the above directions within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.