ARVINDKUMAR HIRALAL MEHTA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) The petitioner joined the service as a clerk in the first respondent bank from 11th december 1964.

(2.) MR. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset submitted that in the present case the petitioner had specifically asked for certain documents which according to Mr. Deshmukh would have clearly established that the petitioner could not have been charged for gross negligence. He further submitted that the rules of natural justice require production of the said documents which the petitioner sought from the Bank from february 23, 1983. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer was not right in rejecting the application made by the petitioner. According to Mr. Deshmukh, the said documents were relevant for the purpose of the said enquiry. Mr. Deshmukh, thereafter submitted that even on merits of the case, it is not in dispute that there was shortage detected at the close of business hours on September 8, 1981. He further submitted that the locking arrangement of the cabin, where the head cashier has to work, was itself defective. He further submitted that the charge of gross negligence levelled against the petitioner could not be drawn as a matter of inference merely on the basis of the fact that the petitioner was a head cashier on the relevant date and that there was shortage of huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He further submitted that in the said charge-sheet no details have been given as to under what circumstances the Bank had charged the petitioner for the gross negligence. He further submitted that merely because the petitioner could not repay the shortage till the date of the charge-sheet could not be the ground of alleged misconduct. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that even the representative of the bank who was examined as witness of the Bank had categorically deposed that the petitioner was diligent and hard working and even on September 8, 1981 the petitioner had taken all the requisite steps which the head cashier was required to take and that the normal procedure which was required to be followed by the cashier was duly complied with. He further submitted that the evidence on record particularly of the witnesses on behalf of the workman has established ultimately that from time to time it was pointed out to the management that the locking arrangement of the cabin was not satisfactory and it was possible for outsider to reach the cash box in the cabin. Mr. Deshmukh further submitted that the arrangement was faulty and this was established by the witnesses who have deposed on behalf of the petitioner as the said witnesses have worked at the relevant time in the said Crawford Market branch. Mr. Deshmukh further submitted that in any event the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate as the evidence on record indicated that the petitioner had put in long and meritorious service; that he was a diligent employee; and in the absence of any evidence of gross neglect he could not have been punished with dismissal. Mr. Deshmukh further submitted that even the police investigation came to be dropped as there was no evidence of misappropriation.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Talsania, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, pointed out that once it is established that the amount was in the custody of a head cashier which amount was given to him in the morning after following due procedure as indicated above, it was the duty of the head cashier to account for the said shortage of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He further submitted that the Bank was entitled to draw an inference of gross neglect from two circumstances, namely, that the petitioner was a head cashier and that he was in the custody of the amount on September 8, 1981 when the shortage was verified. He further submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the locking arrangement of the cabin was faulty. Mr. Talsania also drew my attention to the unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Dattatray Trimbak Kulkarni v. State Bank of India decided on March 11, 1992 in Writ Petition No. 4132 of 1983 and submitted that the facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the present case and submitted that the present writ petition should be dismissed.