THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18928 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as Attender, in the Karnataka Bank Limited, the 1st respondent herein, at Nampalli Branch, Hyderabad. In the year 1982, he was promoted to the post of Clerk and posted at Adoni. He was transferred to the Secunderabad Branch in the year 1986. It is stated that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of collecting amounts from thrift groups and to remit the amount collected by them to the Bank. The petitioner is said to have failed to remit certain amount collected by them within time. A charge sheet was issued to him on 03.09.1997, alleging that he resorted to acts of temporary misappropriation. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that even before any action was initiated, he remitted all the amounts by 19.07.1997 and that the discrepancy occurred, on account of the lack of proper infrastructure. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not weigh with the 1st respondent. Through an order, dated 03.10.1998, the 1st respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. The departmental appeal preferred by him was rejected. Thereafter, he approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, by filing L.C.I.D.No.8 of 2001 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 29.11.2001, directing that the petitioner be paid a sum representing salary for nine months, in lieu of reinstatement. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award. Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the minor lapse in remitting the collected amounts within time occurred, on account of lack of proper infrastructure and even the thrift groups were not regular in payment of the amount. She contends that much before the 1st respondent initiated action, the petitioner remitted the entire amount and the minor lapse of delay in remittance of the amount ought not to have resulted in dismissal of the petitioner, denying him not only the livelihood, but also the benefit of about 21 years of past service rendered by him. Though the 1st respondent is served with notice, it has not chosen to enter appearance. The charge against the petitioner is of temporary misappropriation. The charge sheet as well as the resultant enquiry reveal that the petitioner remitted the amount, that was tendered by him for a short period, together with interest. The period of misappropriation is said to be between 05.04.1997 to 16.05.1997. The amount involved is Rs.33,000/- and it was remitted between 10.05.1997 and 19.07.1997. Misappropriation, whether temporary, or otherwise, is a grave act of misconduct. However, the gravity would depend upon the manner in which the subsequent deposits came to be made. In case the amount is deposited after the acts of temporary misappropriation are indicated by the employer, in one form or the other, hardly the employee deserves any sympathy. Where, however, the remittance is made without any intervention, or accusation, a different approach is warranted, though such acts cannot be countenanced. The circumstances become relevant, in the context of choosing the punishment to be imposed for such misconduct. The petitioner rendered about 21 years of service, before he was terminated. The Labour Court itself took the view that the petitioner deserves some relief. However, it faltered in granting such a relief. The award of nine months salary does not fit into any of the parameters. The discretion to be exercised under Section 11-A of the Act must bring about a situation where the punishment imposed on an employee would be commensurate with the acts of misconduct. Though the petitioner does not deserve to be reinstated, the benefit of about 21 years of long service rendered by him must not go waste. It is not as if any acts of misconduct were attributed to him at any stage of his service, or that the bank has sustained any financial loss. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment imposed against the petitioner is modified to the one of compulsory retirement. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner to the one of compulsory retirement, and if the salary for a period of nine months, as directed by the Labour Court, was paid to the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted against the amounts payable, on account of his being retired compulsorily. If there exists any scheme of payment of pension, petitioner shall be entitled to it, in accordance with the scheme. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.12.2010. GJ