PRONAB KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : This writ, application is, directed against the disciplinary proceeding including the order of dismissal in terms of the charge-sheet dated 21.10.86. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported order of removal being Order No. Cal Br /1 /87 dated 19.1.87 being Annexure 'G' to the petition.

(2.) The facts of the present case, in brief, are that at the material time the petitioner was posted at the Calcutta Main Branch of the Bank and worked as Officer-in-Charge of the Extension Counter at the Head Office. The counter was run by the petitioner along with the two cashiers, two and one peon. The petitioner was required to supervise the work of Extension Counter including passing of cheques of the Accounts of Staff office and other miscellaneous vouchers pertaining to the Head Office. The petitioner's main functions in the Extension Counter may be summed up follows :- i) to maintain the staff Savings Account of the Head Office and Miscellaneous expenditures account of the Head Office Staff. ii) passing of vouchers, cheques and other miscellaneous payments. iii) to take cash out of the vault as per appropriate requirement of the day and to distribute the same to the Cashiers for payment. iv) after the payment is completed and the cash is tallied as per daily vouchers and cheques on Savings Banks Account the remaining cash is handed over to your petitioner by the two cashiers for keeping in the vault. The petitioner being the custodian tallies the same with the cash balance of the previous day and the payment made on the day and after being satisfied, the same is kept in the vault. All necessary entries therefore are made day-to-day.

(3.) There were two grievances which will be dealt with later on. The petitioner was discharging his duties in the Extension Counter. His service was not blemished nor any complaint was received against the petitioner from any quarter. On 9th October 1986 i.e. the last working day before the Puja holidays at or about 3.00 p.m. two officers from the Calcutta Main Branch, namely, Sri Kapoor, Deputy Operational Manager and Sri Soumitra Mondal paid a visit to the Extension Counter of which the petitioner was in charge. The said officers checked the cash vis-a-vis the payment vouchers. It was detected that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was found short of the actual amount. Subsequently the two officers namely Sri Biswaroop Basu, Manager (Personnel) and Sri R. M. Kapoor, Deputy Manager (Administration) of the Head Office, were deputed to carry out a checking of cash at the Head Office, Extension Counter, who in turn just carried out the formalities, and got the cash balance signed by the petitioner. Since their day's business was not closed and the undisturbed amount was not made over to the petitioner till that time, the petitioner had no knowledge of the said shortage inasmuch as the entire transaction save as passing the cheques and vouchers by the petitioner was made by the cashiers of the said counter. The petitioner being in charge of the said Extension Counter proposed in writing to the Assistant General Manager viz. the respondent No.4 that he would liquidate the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- on his own within ten days from the date. This gesture of the petitioner to shoulder the entire burden was only to save the petitioner's subordinates from being harassed and/or from any disciplinary action inasmuch as the petitioner had good faith in them. Respondent No.4 became convinced with the statement made by the petitioner and instructed the petitioner in the interest of the Bank to make arrangement for liquidation of the same on the said date. As the petitioner had no capacity to liquidate the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- the petitioner approached to the petitioner's two colleagues of the said bank viz. Smt. Kakali Mukherjee and Sri N. Das, both officers of the Head Office, who issued two withdrawal slips for Rs. 40,000/-. The two withdrawal slips were not accepted by the: respondents and instead the petitioner was made to sign a suspense account voucher adjusting within the ten days shortage of Rs. 40,000/-. The day's transaction was not recorded by the petitioner save and except passing of vouchers. On the same date i.e. 9th October 1986 at about 5.30 p.m. the petitioner by a Memo bearing No. Ref./AGM/Est. dated 9th October 1986 was placed under suspension for the shortage of Rs. 40,000/-. Immediately after service of the order of suspension the petitioner was detained by the respondents in the office and a report was sent to the Hare Street Police Station. The Police Officers from the Hare Street Police Station attended the office soon thereafter. The petitioner earnestly requested the respondents including the Police Officers to send a message to the petitioner's elder brother Sri Probhat Kumar Mukherjee, an Advocate of the Calcutta High Court that he might arrange for the said short payments to save the petitioner from the said unfortunate affairs. The said request was acceded to and the petitioner's elder brother attended the office at about 10.30 p.m. and after ring he expressed his desire to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in cash and 32,000/- by cheque which could be encashed after the Puja vacation. The Bank authorities demanded money in cash which was not otherwise readily possible to procure during the night. The petitioner was taken to police station. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail on 14.10.1986. The petitioner already signed a suspense account voucher for adjusting said sum of Rs. 40,000/-. This aspect was not also disclosed to the petitioner's elder brother. On 23rd October 1986 the petitioner was served with Memo No. Est/520 dated 21.10.1986 issued by the respondent No.4 by the said Memo the petitioner was directed to show cause in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the said charge-sheet as to why appropriate disciplinary action as contemplated in Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976 should not be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner's letter dated 9.10.86 as contained in Annexure 'A' reads as follows: "I am to state that there is a shortage of Rs. 40,000/- in Rs. 100/- denomination which was detected by Inspecting Officer deputed from H.O. as also from Calcutta Main Branch at the time of closing. I undertake to repay and make good the shortage for the amount of Rs. 40,000/- within a period of ten days from this date."