STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BALAI CHANDRA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE appellant was working as a messenger Boy in the State Bank of India in Beliaghata Branch, Kolkata at material times. One customer of the bank approached the Deputy cashier with a bag containing currency notes for being deposited in his account. The Deputy Cashier sent the bag through the Messenger Boy in Counter No. 5 where Mr. Kamalesh Mukherjee was entrusted to work on that day. The respondent handed over the bag to Kamalesh. Kamalesh asked him to watch the bag and left the room to collect a pen from one of his colleagues. The tenderer of the money was also asked by the Deputy cashier to approach counter No. 5 for receipt. Before Kamalesh could return and the tenderer could approach counter No. 5 it was alleged that fourteen currency notes of 100 rupee denomination were removed from the packet as after counting a sum of rupees 1400 fell short. Since there was no other person present at the material time to guard the said bag the respondent was charged with the offence of removal of the said sum. His pockets were searched wherefrom fourteen currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were recovered along with small notes amounting to rupees 98.

(2.) HE was proceeded with departmentally. He was also afforded opportunity to defend his case. Before the enquiry officer three witnesses were produced by the management. The respondent examined himself apart from one of his colleagues. The enquiry officer in his report exonerated him from the charges. The disciplinary authority differed with the finding of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority passed a reasoned order recording reason for disagreement and sent a copy of the same to the respondent for his comment as and by way of a second show-cause notice. The respondent replied to the same by dealing with all the points of difference on merits. His principal contention was that kamalesh should have been examined being a relevant witness. The deputy Cashier was also not examined and such non-examination vitiated the proceeding. At the end he prayed for acceptance of the report of the enquiry officer or else to order for a fresh enquiry. Pertinent to note, he did not demand any personal hearing before the disciplinary authority.

(3.) THE disciplinary authority after considering his explanation passed an order of dismissal from service.