RATTAN LAL GARG Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the inquiry report dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P -2), punishment order dated 28/30.7.2010 (Annexure P -4) and appellate order dated 20.6.2011/8.11.2010 (Annexure P -11).

(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent -bank in the year 1977 and had unblemished record of service. On 17.10.2008, Brij Lal Meena was entrusted with the duties of Cashier. At about 2.30 P.M., Brij Lal Meena received a phone call regarding illness of his son and he requested the petitioner for permission to go to his native place. Petitioner deputed Meena Kumari to handle the duties of the cashier. Brij Lal Meena, after counting the cash, handed over the charge to Meena Kumari. At the end of the day, Meena Kumari found that there was excess cash to the tune of Rs.35,000/ -. Despite efforts, the difference could not be tallied and the amount of Rs. 35,000/ - was kept in double lock almirah. However, petitioner received charge sheet dated 1.8.2009. The inquiry officer vide his report, held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved as he had kept excess cash in his possession. The punishing authority vide impugned order Annexure P -4, imposed major penalty on the petitioner i.e. removal of service. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had failed to account for the excess cash. Petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceedings. As per the evidence on record, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was liable to be upheld.