GODDALA JHONSON BABU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner joined in the service of the State Bank of Hyderabad and subsequently he was promoted in the same bank and finally he was working as Chief Associate of Cash In-charge of 4threspondent bank. Subsequently, the said State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India and now he was working in the respondent bank till the petitioner's service was terminated. While he was working in the 4threspondent bank, on 5/12/2019, his branch manager informed the petitioner that he has undergoing training program from 5/12/2019 to 7/12/2019 at SBILD, Machilipatnam and he was directed the petitioner to relieve the same and handed over the cash in-charge as on that date to Associate Smt. D. Prabhavathi and Haritha. Accordingly, the petitioner was handed over the cash and securities to above said persons as directed by the 4th respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner relieved by the 4threspondent and he had undergone training program at SBILD, Machilipatnam. It is submitted that, after completion of the said training program, when the petitioner was returning to his house, the said D.Prabhavathi called him through phone and informed the petitioner that there was a shortage of Rs.12,00,000.00. Immediately, the petitioner went to the bank on 8/12/2019, and verified the cash and cash book registered, which is signed by the 4threspondent on 7/12/2019 and found that there was a shortage of Rs.12,00,000.00 and instructed her to adjust the same in next working day, otherwise, he will inform to 4threspondent and other higher officials. However, the 4th respondent made a complaint. Basing on the said complaint, the 3rdrespondent herein initiated departmental proceedings while issuing the show cause notice on 28.5-.020 raising certain irregularities while working Cash-in-charge of the as 4threspondent bank from 1/6/2019 to 11/12/2019 and also ordered enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer. Later, after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 29/9/2020 and the same was served upon the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice as well as enquiry report on 7/10/2020. Further it is stated that the 3rdrespondent herein afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and recorded the evidence of both sides and also basing on the enquiry report, finally passed an order of Dismissal from service without notice and also forfeited gratuity amount to an extent of Rs.7,00,000.00 caused loss to the bank and other benefits which he entitled as per Rules vide orders dtd. 26/11/2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2ndrespondent herein raising several grounds. But without considering the grounds which were raised in the appeal, the 2nd respondent passed an order of rejecting the appeal by confirming the findings of the 3rdrespondent vide orders dtd. 5/2/2021. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, as per Sec. 4 (6) (a) & (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Employer is entitled to forfeit the Gratuity amount to the extent of loss caused to the Bank due to misconduct of the employee. It is stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein have passed orders after due consideration of the evidence of the Petitioner herein. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent in its order dtd. 5/2/2021, specifically mentioned that explanations submitted by the Petitioner are not acceptable after duly considering the same and that they have passed the said orders after considering the facts and evidences independently. The allegations made by the Petitioner herein are purely intentional and to shift his negligence/responsibility to others. It is established in the enquiry that the Petitioner failed to deposit the correct cash balance of Rs.55,92,711.00 as at the close of business on 10/12/2019. Instead the Petitioner handed over Rs.48,92,711.00 only to the Joint Custodian with shortage of Rs.7,00,000.00. Joint Custodian immediately informed about shortages to the Branch Manager. It is further stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, on the basis of evidences on record, found that there was no difference in the cash balances held in the Branch on 9/12/2019. Thus, there is no question of carry forward shortage of cash balance to 9/12/2019. So, the cash shortage was on 10/12/2019 as stated, the petitioner is solely liable and responsible. It is submitted that, there was no shortage/difference of cash on 9/12/2019, and the question of verifying cash balance register from 5/12/2009 to 07/12/2019 does not arise. It is submitted that the charges were duly established / proved based on the evidence and other material papers.