THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 959 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order, dated 18-01-2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24134 of 2002. 2. The respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier with the appellant – Bank and he received news that his brother had fallen from a tree in his native place and was hospitalized and in a critical condition. 3. Under these circumstances, the respondent withdrew an amount of Rs.8,350/- from the Bank and left a blank cheque towards reimbursement. The next day, the respondent returned after visiting his brother and remitted the amount of Rs.8,350/-. 4. In the meanwhile, it came to be noticed by the appellant – Bank that the respondent had withdrawn the aforesaid amount unauthorisedly. A departmental enquiry was held against the respondent and thereafter he was removed from service. 5. A departmental review was filed but that was also rejected since there was no provision for a review. Under these circumstances, the respondent approached this Court for relief. 6. The learned single Judge found that there was no doubt that the respondent had committed misconduct by withdrawing the amount unauthorisedly but noted the very peculiar circumstances viz., that the brother of the respondent had fallen from a tree and was in the hospital in a critical condition. It was also noted that the respondent had left a blank cheque towards repayment of the withdrawn amount and in fact, no financial loss was therefore caused to the appellants. Apart from that, on the very next day, the respondent deposited the amount in question. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge found that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, it was directed that the matter be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment, but that punishment should not be cessation of service. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the discretion of the disciplinary authority ought not to be fettered and the learned single Judge has gone wrong in this regard. 8. We are in agreement that any order of cessation of service on the facts of this particular case would clearly be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The respondent did not act mala fide, nor was any financial loss caused to the appellant-Bank. 9. Under the circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, but leave it open to the appellants to impose such other punishment that may be deemed appropriate other than cessation of service as already directed by the learned single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16-11-2011 ks W.A.No.959 of 2011 Page 2 of 2