ANIL KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, INDIA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE VIGILANCE CELL, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Driver-cum-Peon in the Indian Bank and posted in Branch Tijori district Meerut at the relevant time, has sought the quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Assistant General Manager by which he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 4th June, 2011 by which the appeal filed by him for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. It transpires that on 5th May, 2009 directions were issued to the petitioner, when he was deputed as a Cash Peon in the Currency Chest of the Bank at Meerut, to carry forty bundles of Rs. 100/- notes from the Chest Vault to the Sorting Hall. In the evening cash shortage of Rs. 10,000/- was detected in the cash withdrawn from the Chest Vault and when even after physical search and questioning of the staff, the whereabouts of the shortage could not be determined, CCTV footage was viewed in which it was seen that the petitioner was pocketing one section of Rs. 100/- notes. A charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2009 was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner for misappropriation of cash on 5th May, 2009 while he was working as a Cash Peon in the Meerut Currency Chest and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6th July, 2010 that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. A letter dated 7th July, 2010 was then sent to the petitioner by the Chief Manager of the Bank requiring the petitioner to submit his comments on the said report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a reply and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order dated 30th September, 2010 dismissing the petitioner from service, which order is as follows:

(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 4th June, 2011, the relevant portion of which is as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact there was no shortage of cash in the Bank on 5th September, 2009 because when the cash vault was closed in the evening, a report was submitted by the Officer of the Bank to the Headquarters of the Bank as also the Reserve Bank of India in which shortage of cash was not mentioned and if there had been any shortage of cash a First Information Report would have been lodged. He has also submitted that infact Smt. Santosh Kumari Cashier had given the packet of Rs. 100/- denomination to the petitioner for removing the pins and it is this packet which was kept by him in the pocket which act was seen in the CCTV footage. It is also his contention that the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated as the petitioner was not provided all the cassettes of the CCTV footage.