HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD W.P.NO. 785 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus to call for the records in proceedings SP.No. 203/97/VLC dated 17.12.98 and to set aside the same. The brief facts are as follows: The Petitioner while working as Staff Assistant, was placed under suspension by orders dated 24.3.1997 by the respondent. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 07.07.1997 was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 19.7.1997. After conducting an enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 5.10.1998 calling for his explanation as to why he cannot be awarded the punishment of “lowering of basic wages to the minimum level”. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 3.11.1998. But, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing he was imposed with the punishment of ‘lowering of basic wages to the minimum level’ and with a further punishment of suspension for the period from 25.03.1997 to 16.08.19998 should be treated as Privilege leave and the balance may be treated as loss of pay. The Branch Manager, Dwarakanagar Brach, had made a report stating that the petitioner, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, Category-V employee of the Bank had tampered the records fraudulently and committed forgery of signatures of passing officers of the Branch and committed misappropriation to a tune of Rs.1,50,000 intentionally. CHARGE: That Sri K.Suryanarayana Murthy, Cat.V Employee now under suspension while working as Clerk, Dwarakanagar Branch has tampered the records fraudulently and committed forgery of signatures of Passing Officers of the Branch and thus misappropriated Bank funds to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- intentionally. As per Chapter XIII of the I.T.Award provision, if an employee of the Bank is held guilty of gross misconduct he will be held responsible for imposing certain punishments. The further case of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on him is not under the rules as he had not been paid the Subsistence Allowance of 75% whereas the Rule says that for a period of 6 months, Subsistence Allowance shall be 50% of the Pay+D.A.+H.R.A. and beyond 6 months, 75% is to be paid to the employee. He further submits that through out his entire suspension, he was paid only 50% of the Subsistence Allowance and therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for the remaining 25% of the Subsistence Allowance. Without paying the said amount, if the respondent imposes any punishment, it is liable to be set- aside. The further case of the petitioner is that he is not served with both the preliminary and final enquiry report along with the show cause notice. Though the charge sheet dt.7.7.97 reflects the gross misconduct under items 4 (d) and (k) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII, but the punishment imposed under the impugned order dated 17.12.1998, is for the items 4 (d) and (j) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent has imposed punishment against him on the apprehension that he had accepted his misconduct and had repaid the misappropriated amount with 18% interest. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit are false. The contention made by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the punishments specified in the IT Award are not exhaustive and are merely illustrative. That, when the Disciplinary Authority is vested with the power to impose major penalties such as “dismissal from service”, it is always open to impose any reasonable punishment as the Disciplinary Authority deems fit. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioner that the employee cannot be inflicted with a punishment which is not envisaged under the rules, are contrary to the well established principles of laws. Heard both sides. The General Manager/Disciplinary Authority issued proceedings in SP.No.203/97/VLC dated 17.12.1998, order which reads as follows: “The basic wages of the employee are lowered to the minimum level with immediate effect. The period of his suspension from 25.03.1997 to 16.08.1998 is however treated as Privilege Leave to which he is eligible and balance if any as on loss of pay”. The enquiry against the petitioner appears to have been proceeded under the provisions of 4 (d) and (j) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the provisions of 4 (d) and (j) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII which reads as under: iv) of the Disciplinary Proceedings “By the expression “Gross Misconduct” shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part of an employee. d) wilful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers; j) doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss. Relying on the provisions of item (v) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is not envisaged in the said provision and therefore, it amounts to violation of the provisions itself. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the provisions of (v) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII which reads as under:. “An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may: a) be dismissed without notice; or b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him or c) be fined; or d) have his increment stopped; or e) have his misconduct condoned and merely discharged On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the punishments notified under the above provision are not exhaustive, but they are only illustrative and apart from that, the punishments notified under the provisions are major in nature whereas the punishment imposed against the petitioner is a minor one and therefore, there is no bar to impose the punishment impugned herein. A perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counter filed by the respondents makes it clear that he accepted the charges. But, however, in order to conclude the proceedings, the authorities have followed the procedure under the provisions by way of issuing show cause notice and conducting an enquiry. The main attack of the petitioner is that since he was not paid the subsistence allowance as per the eligibility, the authorities cannot conclude the proceedings and impose punishment and apart from that, the punishment imposed against him, is not envisaged in the provisions of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings become vitiated. The impugned proceedings goes to show that the petitioner has admitted the guilty before the Branch Manger, Dwarakanagar by way of the letter dated 20.3.1997 submitted by him. It is also seen from the impugned proceedings that the writ petitioner paid the misappropriation amount to the Bank on 21.3.1997 with interest at 18%. The letter written by the petitioner itself shows his admission as to the guilt. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed against him is to the effect “The Basic Wages of the employee are lowered to the minimum level with immediate effect. The period of his suspension from 25.3.1997 to 16.8.1998 is however treated as privilege leave to which he is eligible and balance if any as on loss of pay” and the same is not envisaged under the (v) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII and therefore, the punishment imposed against him is beyond the provisions of the said Act. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is a minor in nature and though the nature of the punishment imposed against him is not envisaged under the provisions of (v) of the I.T. Award Chapter XIII, the same cannot be construed as beyond the said provisions. But, it has to be examined as to whether there are any irregularities in conducting the enquiry. But, there are no such procedural irregularities while conducting the enquiry. Considering the gravity of the offence and involvement of the quantum of misappropriation, I am of the view that though the punishment imposed against the petitioner is not envisaged under the provisions, the same cannot be said as beyond the said provisions and it also cannot be said that the power of the disciplinary authority has been exhausted in the light of the provision in question, in as much the punishment imposed against the petitioner, is a minor one. Therefore, the proceedings of the respondents-authorities from the stage of issuing notice till the conclusion of the proceedings, are sustainable in view of the absence of any lacunae in that regard and as such, no irregularities can be attributed in that regard. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 25th November, 2010. PNV