BABANRAO BUDHAJIRAO NANEKAR Vs. ADINATH SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 31st July, 1985, made in Application (BIR/lcb) No. 364 of 1983 and two orders dated 5th January, 1987, made by the Industrial Court, Pune, in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1985, both under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner was employed in the first respondent Bank from 28th November, 1973 as a Peon. On 1st May, 1980, he was promoted as a Clerk. From 18th August, 1981, the petitioner was required to work as a Cashier-cum-Clerk. I am informed at the bar that the grade of clerk and Cashier-cum-clerk is identical, except that the clerk who is to work as Cashier-cum-clerk is paid a Cash Handling Allowance. On 22nd June, 1982, during a transaction, the petitioner made an over-payment of Rs. 10,000/- to a party by name Deccan Trading Co. which had encashed a bearer cheque in the sum of Rs. 45,000/ -. Instead of paying the sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the said party, the petitioner paid over Rs. 55,000/ -. The excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- consisted of one bundle of 100 hundred-rupee currency notes. On the same day, after the transactions were closed and the cash was tallied, the shortage in cash came to light. While it is the case of the petitioner that the shortage was actually discovered by him and brought to the notice of Assistant Manager, Jasdekar, it is the case of the first respondent that it was Jasdekar who noticed the shortage of cash and sought explanation therefore from the petitioner. However, that may be, the fact remains that after the shortage of cash was noticed, Jasdekar scrutinised the cheque against which cash payment was made on that day. On the reverse of the cheque of Deccan Trading Co. , he noticed the denomination and number of notes paid. From this, he discovered that there was a mistake in totalling. While the sum total of the amount written on the reverse side of the cheque should have been Rs. 55,000/-, the amount written on the reverse side of the cheque as total was Rs. 45,000/ -. Jasdekar deduced that the over-payment must have been made to the representative of Deccan Trading Co. It is alleged that the petitioner seemed very reluctant to the idea of immediately contacting the representatives of Deccan Trading Co. to recover the over-payment of Rs. 10,000/ -. Ultimately, as a result of the vigorous efforts of both the petitioner and Jasdekar, the representative of Deccan Trading Co. was contacted late at night. He feigned ignorance of over-payment and stated that the money had been sent over to a Bombay Party and, if the Bombay party confirmed that there was over-payment, the over-payment would be accepted. A complaint was lodged with the Police and the representative of Deccan Trading Co. produced a bag, alleged to be a bag in which the cash payment drawn from the Bank the previous day had been carried. He alleged that the cash amount had been left intact inside the bag. However, when the bag was opened, the numbers and the denominations of the currency notes inside the bag did not tally with the denominations and numbers noted down by the petitioner on the reverse side of the cheque and also noted on a slip of paper for the benefit of the Police. Though the total amount of cash inside the bag was Rs. 45,000/-, and the representative of Deccan Trading Co. maintained that that was all that was drawn from the Bank, he buckled down under intensive questioning by the Police and subsequently admitted over-payment of Rs. 10,000/ -. He agreed and undertook to return the said over-payment of Rs. 10,000/- if the petitioner gave an admission in writing that the over-payment was the result of mistake on the part of the petitioner. Such a writing was given by the petitioner and the over-payment of Rs. 10,000/ was recovered from Deccan Trading Co.

(3.) THE petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 8th July, 1982, in which, after alleging the facts constituting the incident and alleging that the petitioner had not shown interest in recovery of the amount, it was alleged that the conduct of the petitioner gave rise to a suspicion that he was acting with a dishonest intention or with gross neligence. He was asked to show cause thereagainst. By a reply dated 4th August, 1982, the petitioner denied that the incident as alleged in the show-cause notice had happened at all. He also denied the misconduct alleged against him. A detailed inquiry was held against the petitioner, where at the petitioner was present and was given full opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. As a result of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, by his report dated 24th December, 1982, found the petitioner guilty of -