NARAYAN C T Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling or the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent, dated March 30, 1995, and the impugned order of the third respondent, dated December 30, 1994, and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here under: According to him he was appointed as a clerk on February 20, 1961 and was promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale I on October 1, 1977 in the first respondent-bank. The Cathedral Currency Chest is one of the money currency chests set up a few years ago mainly to off-load the huge volume of currency work from Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to different public sector banks. He was issued with chargesheet on August 24, 1994 alleging that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 30,000 on July 30, 1993 in the bins in vault in the currency chest of Cathedral Branch, that the cash was previously verified and found correct by the RBI Inspectors on October 27, 1992 and that between October 27, 1992 and July 30, 1993 he functioned as key custodian for sometime. He submitted his reply on October 15, 1994. The third respondent arbitrarily came to the conclusion that his explanation was not convincing, and without holding any enquiry held him liable for the loss of Rs. 30,000 jointly or severally with other Joint custodians for various periods. By his non-speaking order, dated December 30, 1994 imposed penalty of recovery of loss to the extent of Rs. 3,340 to be recovered from his monthly salary in instalments of Rs. 500 commencing from January, 1995. This penalty was imposed in terms of Regulation 4(a) read with Regulation 8(l)of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (D & A Regulations for short). Aggrieved by the said order he preferred an appeal before the second respondent without applying his mind, the second respondent dismissed his appeal by an order dated March, 30 1995. In such circumstances, having no other remedy has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents Assistant General Manager has filed counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Cathedral Branch and at the relevant time he was joint custodian of the key relating to the vault at the currency chest of the Cathedral Branch. On July 30, 1993, it was revealed that there was cash shortage of Rs. 30,000 in the bins in vault at the currency chest of the Cathedral Branch. Earlier, cash in the vault was verified and found correct by the RBI Inspectors on October 27, 1992. Between that date and the date of detection of loss as above, i.e. on July 30, 1993 the petitioner functioned as custodian of the cash vault for some time. Accordingly, after show-cause notice and after considering his explanation, since his explanation was not satisfactory and convincing, the disciplinary authority imposed on the petitioner, a minor penalty of recovery of the proportionate loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 3,340 to be recovered from petitioner's monthly salary commencing from January, 1995. The petitioner and 8 other officers who were joint custodians of the currency chest and holding, the key were also imposed the same minor penalty and the loss of Rs. 30 000 was ordered to be recovered from all the nine officers including the petitioner in equal proportion. The punishment imposed under Regulations 4(b) and 8(1) of the Regulations are perfectly in order. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.