DENA BANK Vs. D KUNDADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no. 1 who is appearing in person.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference CGIT No. 1/12/1995 whereby CGIT was pleased to hold that the finding of Inquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of the charges of embezzlement and defrauding the bank was perverse and was not sustainable on the basis of acceptable evidence on record. Brief facts are as under:-

(3.) The respondent was working with the petitioner bank since September 1991 as Typist-cum-Clerk. On May 15, 1991, he was posted as a Cashier at their Dongri Branch on which date one account holder viz. S. M. Jewellers deposited cash of Rs. 50, 000/- alongwith the pay-in-slip. The details of the cash particulars were written on the reverse of the pay-in-slip. The respondent accepted Rs. 50, 000/- and put the stamp of cash received on the pay-in-slip. On the same day, again S. M. Jewellers deposited Rs. 20, 000/- by filling pay-in-slip. On the second pay-in-slip also, the cash particulars were mentioned as 50 x 200 instead of 50 x 400. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent advised the person who came to deposit the amount to correct the cash paid denomination as 50 x 400 and the pay-in-slip was released by putting a stamp cash received. The case of the bank is that one S. T. Suryavanshi who was also clerk working in the said branch reported for duty late at about 11. 25 a. m. On the same day, therefore, the Branch Manager advised him not to sign the muster and to go home. According to the petitioner-bank, the respondent called him to his cabin and handed over 200 notes of Rs. 50 the sum of Rs. 10, 000/- and he advised the said clerk Suryavanshi to hand it over at his residence. The case of the petitioner bank is that in the evening, the respondent informed the officer in-charge about shortage of cash of Rs. 10, 000/-. It was, therefore, alleged that the respondent had misappropriated Rs. 10, 000/- out of Rs. 50, 000/- received from S. M. Jewellers by taking advantage of cash particulars which were wrongly written by them at the back of the pay-in-slip dated September 14, 1991 i.e. Rs. 50 x 200 instead of Rs. 50 x 400 Rs. 50, 000/- correctly. The respondent informed the manager by letter dated September 24, 1991 that he was ready to pay shortage of cash of Rs. 10, 000/-, however, reiterated his stand that shortage was due to less remittance by the person who had deposited the said cash on behalf of the said party S. M.: Jewellers. Three days thereafter on September 27, 1991, the said clerk S.T. Suryavanshi by letter dated September 27, 1991 informed the management that the first respondent had given him one packet and asked him to give the said packet at his residence. Thereafter, on October 11, 1991, the first respondent was suspended and charge-sheet was issued to him on November 4, 1991. The first respondent filed his reply dated December 7, 1991. An inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer by report dated September 14, 1992 held that the charges against the first respondent were established and he was guilty of the said charges. On September 21, 1992, report and the findings 'were submitted and explanation was asked from the first respondent. On October 8, 1992, the respondent submitted his explanation. Show Cause Notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on December 2, 1992 asking the respondent why a proposed punishment of termination should not be imposed upon him. After reply was given by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal without ; notice with immediate effect. An appeal which was preferred by the respondent to the appellate authority was dismissed on August 10, 1992.