ORDER : The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Bank aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai District dated 25.02.2022, whereby, the revision petition filed by the second respondent Workman was allowed by the Joint Registrar. 2. The brief factual background, in which, this writ petition arises is that the second respondent Gnanamari, who was working as Assistant Manager in the petitioner Bank. While so, a charge memorandum dated 20.02.2020 was issued against her. It is essential to extract the charges against the Second respondent Gnanamari and they read as hereunder: Details of the Misappropriated funds: 3. Thereafter, disciplinary action continued and by an order dated 05.01.2021, the second respondent was dismissed from service. As against the order of dismissal, the second respondent preferred the revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 4. The first respondent considered the case of the parties. In respect of each of the charges, detail findings are given. Apart from, the fact that the each and every charge has been duly proved in the enquiry, the revisional authority also considered the revision and the additional explanation of the Workman. It is the primary case of the Workman that subsequently, the misappropriated amount has been paid back to the bank. She therefore also undertakes that she will not further involved in such mistakes. She has been neglected by her husband and struggling with two children, who are studying in second year and third year of engineering and she also has one physically handicapped brother and his wife and children to take care and therefore, she prayed that instead of the capital punishment, she must be given any other punishment. The first respondent considered the case of the workman. The first respondent considered the fact that she was 46 years and therefore, she cannot now get employment anywhere else. The Workman had paid all the balance amount to the Society. No criminal case or surcharge proceedings is pending against the Workman. Therefore, the first respondent considered that dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled and therefore, ordered reinstatement with a lesser punishment of Increment cut for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and the period of non employment was to be treated as treated on the basis of no work, no pay. Therefore, the first respondent considered that dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled and therefore, ordered reinstatement with a lesser punishment of Increment cut for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and the period of non employment was to be treated as treated on the basis of no work, no pay. Aggrieved by the same, the bank is before this court. 5. Ms.Reshmi Christy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank, taking this court through the charges, submitted that the second respondent faces very serious charge. She has indulged in forgery falsification of accounts and withdrawal of the deposit amounts of the customers of the Bank totalling to Rs.22,20,000/- which has been proved to hilt by the bank. The charges are very serious in nature and therefore, the order of the first respondent is erroneous in law. 6. Per contra, Mr.Shanmugasundaram, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the Workman would submit that while imposing the punishment, the condition of the employee should also be taken into account. When the petitioner is a woman aged about 46 years and has been neglected by her husband and finding it difficult to run the life with two children and also with the physically handicapped brother and his family, the Authority has taken a right decision. As a matter of fact, the petitioner herself has categorically pleaded remorse and requested for lesser punishment. Under somewhat similar circumstances, the learned single Judge had considered that imposition of lesser punishment to only be appropriate in W.P.No. 20555 of 2023 and the said order was also upheld by the Division Bench even on an appeal by the Cooperative Society in Writ Appeal No.1156 of 2024. Therefore, this court should also consider the same. Further, it is the case of Mr.Shanmugasundaram that when the order was passed in the year 2022 itself, the Bank did not immediately approach this Court and the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition in WP No.21439 of 2022 and by order dated 25.11.2022, this Court also directed the respondents to consider the representation. Therefore, he would submit that at this belated stage, this Court should not entertain this writ petition. Therefore, he would submit that at this belated stage, this Court should not entertain this writ petition. He would further submit that as against the very same order, a further revision is also submitted by the petitioner bank to the government and they cannot simultaneously invoke parallel remedies and therefore, this court can direct the Government to dispose of the said revision. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material on records of the case. 8. The charges against the workmen are extracted supra. The charges are serious. It is only the order of the first respondent, which shocks the conscience of this court. When somebody is charged for forgery, falsification of the account and signing the customers signature and taking away the customers amount, which is deposited in the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs.22,20,000/-, the authority finds that the punishment is disproportionate with reference to the charges levelled. Something very seriously wrong with the very thought process of the first respondent authority and that shows the level to which the Cooperative Department has become numb to corruption, nepotism, misappropriation and this is the primary reason for the entire cooperative movement being totally destroyed by many of the office bearers and also the higher officials. The purpose of the cooperative movement was with a noble and laudable effort of delivering services with minimum profit and the resultant profit also being equally shared by the members. This mission is now being shattered only on account of these kind of orders. The impugned order is not sustainable. Any action on sympathy will only be the misplaced sympathy. The charges are absolutely unpardonable and no second opportunity is to be given for the said person. 9. Additionally, the first respondent also found that no criminal case is pending and no surcharge is pending. Being a responsible officer, he should have asked the society as to why no criminal complaint was given. It can be understood that the Workman herself has paid the entire amount and therefore, surcharge proceedings was not initiated. However, when it is a case of forgery and misappropriation, certainly the society ought to have given the complaint also. 10. Being a responsible officer, he should have asked the society as to why no criminal complaint was given. It can be understood that the Workman herself has paid the entire amount and therefore, surcharge proceedings was not initiated. However, when it is a case of forgery and misappropriation, certainly the society ought to have given the complaint also. 10. As far as the decision cited by the learned counsel by the Workman is concerned, that is the case of sales woman erroneously giving 35 kilograms of rice and 11.5 kilograms of sugar by making double entry in respect of the same ration card and in respect of such petty theft, when the petitioner shown remorse, and pleaded for mercy and when the mercy was accepted, the court also endorsed the same. The said judgement will not in any manner applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. In view thereof this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: (i). The Impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the first respondent in Revision Petition No.1 of 2021 shall stand set aside and the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 05.01.2021 imposed on the second respondent by the petitioner Bank shall stand restored; (ii). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.