KRISHNAJIVAN NATHALAL SHAH Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Chief Cashier of the respondent-Bank at its Branch Office at Gandhi Ashram. On 9.1.1988, Auditors of the Branch came for inspection to verify the records and the cash. It was found that there was shortage of cash of nearly Rs. 85,000/-. The respondent-Bank initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had committed misappropriation. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Authority held that three was shortage of cash, but as it was not misappropriation or embezzlement, the petitioner did not deserve any punishment. The petitioner contended before the Enquiry Officer that on the relevant date, he was not felling well and he informed this fact to the Branch Manager and as he was the only Cashier, he was directed to perform his duty and between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., the petitioner had to complete the cash transaction and, according to the petitioner, one person came to the Bank and he requested for exchange of Notes to be used for payment of salary to workmen and while exchanging these Notes, the petitioner might have given Rs. 85,000/- in excess and he is not sure of various denominations and it happened because the petitioner was in a sick condition. When the Auditors came, the petitioner himself said the same and found serious mistake in the cash and then only, it struck to him that the person, who came for exchange of Notes, had taken the excess money and the petitioner lost his equilibrium of mind and rushed in search of that person and as he was previously known to the petitioner as a person of Himatnagar side, the petitioner went there, but he was unable to find the whereabouts of that person and at Himatnagar, the petitioner's physical condition worsened and due to hypertension and angina, he had to be admitted in a hospital. The petitioner also contended that within two days, the petitioner's wife made good the entire loss sustained to the Bank.

(2.) . The Enquiry Officer opined that as there was only shortage in cash, the petitioner may be reinstated in service and the disciplinary proceedings be drooped. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with this suggestion and the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority any by an order dated 4th January, 1990, the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment of dismissal from bank's service awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from the bank's service is challenged before us.

(3.) . In the Special Civil Application, it is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the respondents have violated the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and that the respondents had not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the point of punishment. It is also contended for the petitioner that though requested, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him. The petitioner has also alleged that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority are perverse and he has also alleged that Regulation 8.8 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was violated by the respondents. It is also alleged that Regulation 8.5 of the aforesaid Regulations of 1976 is clearly ultra vires Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.