ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. PRONAB KUMAR MUHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Allahabad Bank is directed against the judgment and order dated June 26, 1991 of the learned Single Judge setting aside the disciplinary proceeding and order of removal of the respondent

(2.) Shortly stated the facts are that at the material time the respondent was posted at 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 respondent along with two cashiers, two clerks and one peon. He was required to supervise the work of the Extension Counter including passing of cheques, of the Accounts, of Staff of the office and other miscellaneous vouchers pertaining to the Head Office. On October 9, 1986, being the last working day before the Puja Holidays, at or about 3.00 p.m. two officers from the Calcutta Main Branch paid a visit to the said Extension Counter of which the respondent 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 Manager (Personnel) and the Deputy Manager (Admn) of the Head Office were deputed to carry out checking of cash at the Head Office, Extension Counter, who in turn just carried out the formalities after getting the cash balance signed by the respondent. According to the respondent, since the day's business was not closed and since the undisbursed amount was not made over to the respondent till that time, the respondent had no knowledge of the said shortage inasmuch as the entire transaction save and except passing of the cheques and vouchers by the respondent made by the cashiers of the said counter. The respondent being in charge of the said Extension Counter proposed in writing dated October 9, 1986 to the Assistant General Manager of the Bank that he would liquidate the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- on his own within ten days from the date. This gesture of the respondent to shoulder the entire burden was only to save his subordinates from being harassed and/or from any disciplinary action inasmuch as the respondent had good faith in them. It is the case of the respondent that the said Assistant General Manager was convinced with the statement made by the respondent and instructed him in the interest of the Bank to make arrangement for liquidation of the same. As the respondent had no capacity to liquidate the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- he approached his two colleagues of the said bank, both officers of the Head Office, who issued two withdrawal slips for Rs. 40,000/-. The two withdrawal slips were not accepted by the Bank and instead the respondent was made to sign a suspense account voucher adjusting day's shortage of Rs. 40,000/-. The day's transaction was not recorded by the respondent save and except passing of vouchers.

(3.) On the same day, i.e. October 9, 1986, at about 5.30 p.m. the respondent was placed under suspension for the shortage of the sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Immediately after the service of the order of suspension, the respondent was detained by the Officers of the Bank in the office and a report was sent to the Hare Street Police Station. The Police Officer from the Hare Street Police Station attended the office soon thereafter. The respondent earnestly requested the Bank including the Police officers to send a message to the respondent's elder brother Sri Pr,obhat Kumar Mukherjee, an Advocate of this Court, so that he might arrange for the said short payments to save the respondent from the said unfortunate affairs. The said request was acceded to and the respondent's elder brother attended the office at about 1.0.30 p.m. and after hearing he expressed his desire to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in cash and Rs. 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 respondent was taken to the Police Station. The respondent was thereafter released on bail on October 14, 1986. The respondent already signed a suspense account voucher for adjusting the said sum of Rs. 40,000/-. This aspect was not also disclosed to the respondent's elder brother.