The court established that disciplinary actions must be based on timely and substantiated allegations, and that intent to commit wrongdoing is essential for establishing misconduct in employment-related cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent - Bank in the year 1979 and was promoted as a Cashier in the year 1991.

2. On 29/3/2014, a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation relating to three allegations.

3. The first allegation was that on 17/12/2012, the petitioner had accepted cash receipt of Rs.5, 500.00 from one Sri. K.Raghavendra Reddy and he had not given the correspondent credit to the account, and though there was a signed challan dtd. 17/12/2012, the account was credited only on 18/12/2012. It was stated that a complaint was made by the customer in this regard and on 8/2/2013, the customer reiterated and confirmed his earlier complaint.

4. The second allegation was that on 3/9/2013, there was excess cash of Rs.200.00 that was not reported by the petitioner and said amount related to the transaction made with respect to the SB Account of one Master B.Rohit Kumar, in respect of which the cash voucher was found with the day's vouchers but the entry was not found in the cash report and e-VVR portal. Furthermore, it was stated that on 5/9/2013, the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.200.00 from his SB Account and credited a sum of Rs.250.00 to the account of said Master B.Rohit Kumar and had completed the aforementioned transaction.

5. The third allegation was that on 30/12/2013, the petitioner had made a cash payment of Rs.1, 07, 600.00 to Sri A.Mallanna Gouda, but while making the payment there was a shortfall of Rs.10, 000.00 and the entire excess amount available with the petitioner was not revealed. However, on the same day, the petitioner had telephonically informed the customer about the short payment of Rs.10, 000.00 and had asked him to collect the same from him. It was stated that the petitioner had not accounted the excess amount available with him in full and had credited only Rs.5, 000.00 to the sundry deposit instead of Rs.10, 000.00.

6. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21/4/2014. However, the Disciplinary Authority took the view that the reply given by the petitioner was unacceptable and proceeded to frame three charges identical to the allegations made in the notice referred to above. For the purpose of convenience, the charges are re-produced herein:

"1. That on 17/12/2012, you accepted a cash receipt of Rs.5500.00 from Sri.K.Raghavendra Reddy, SB account customer-A/c No.776598278, without giving corresponding credit to the account. A signed challan reflecting the date as 17/12/2012 is available along with the day's voucher. The account is credited only on 18/12/2012. A complaint is made by the customer in this regard. Further on 8/2/2014 the customer has reiterated and confirmed his earlier complaint.

2. That a cash excess of Rs.200.00 was not reported by you on 3/9/2013 in the transaction made in the SB Account of Master of B.Rohit Kumar. Cash voucher in the account of Master B.Rohit Kumar is found with the day's vouchers. The entry is not found in cash report and e VVR portal.

On 5/9/2013, you have withdrawn Rs.200.00 from your SB account number 573540443, credited an amount of Rs.250.00 in account 6158218459 of Master B.Rohit Kumar by routing it through Sundry Deposit and completed the above transaction.

3. That on 30/12/2013, you made a cash payment of Rs.1, 07, 600.00 to Mr.A.Mallanna Gouda-SB a/c 6148306175. You have reportedly given him a short payment of Rs.10000.00. You have not revealed the entire excess amount available with you after completion of payment transaction. On the same day you telephonically informed the customer about short payment of Rs.10000.00 in the payment made to him in this transaction and the balance excess cash was available with you and to collect the same from you. You have not accounted for the excess amount available with you in full and credited only Rs.5000.00 to sundry deposit instead of Rs.10000.00 on 31/12/2013."

7. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation on 14/6/2014.

8. As regards the first