1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 5-8-2003.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The respondent was working as an Attender at the Kudregundi Branch of the appellant Bank. He was charge sheeted for gross misconduct inasmuch as he had colluded with one of the Branch Managers and enabled grant of a fictitious loan in the name of one Shri Ramakrishna, the real beneficiary being a person named B. Raghava. During the inquiry, the respondent admitted that he had prepared the loan agreement. He admitted that he had made the relevant entries in the ledger. He admitted that he had prepared the relevant credit and debit slips and also the withdrawal slip and also prepared DP note and the other documents required for the purposes of the loan. It was admitted that he had prepared these documents knowing that he had no authority to prepare these documents or to make any entries in the ledgers.

3. After the proper inquiry, the respondent was found guilty and his services were terminated. The respondent raised a dispute. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore dismissed the claim.

4. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court found that the misconduct had been proved but on a mistaken notion of sympathy held that the correct punishment should be reinstatement without any back wages and without continuity of service except continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits.

5. The Division Bench has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

6. In our view, a gross misconduct of this nature does merit termination. We fail to see what other type of misconduct would merit termination. It is not for the courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature with the decision of the disciplinary authority so long as the inquiry has been fair and proper and misconduct proved. In such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment. In any case on such a misconduct, it could never have been said that termination of service is not the appropriate punishment.

7. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and restore the order of termination of service.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.