JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel respresenting the bank.

2. The petitioner, a clerk cum cashier in the respondent bank, has been visited with an order of punishment by the disciplinary authority on 31.1.2003. Dismissal under the said order has been assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Appeal of the petitioner against the order of dismissal has also been rejected on 28.6.2004. It is these two orders which are impugned in the instant writ proceedings.

3. Factual background leading to the order of dismissal is that the petitioner was served with a charge memo by the authorities on 30.3.2002. The charge memo is in relation to a period when the petitioner was posted as Clerk cum cashier in Kurthol branch of the respondent bank. The allegation against the petitioner have broadly been enumerated into four charges. Various acts of misappropriation of the funds available in the branch are attributed to the petitioner in connivance with the Branch Manager of the bank. Specific instances have been given whereby the petitioner in connivance with the Branch Manager has misappropriated the amounts by making out drafts in the name of fictitious account holders and by making payments without any cheque or vouchers.

4. Proceedings were thereafter conducted before the enquiry officer. Enquiry concluded by submission of enquiry report which is dated 19.7.2003. Article I of the charge memo has been held to be partly proved. The remaining three articles of the charge memo have been held to be proved. Upon submission of enquiry report a second show cause notice dated 31.10.2003 was issued to the petitioner by Assistant General Manager-cum-disciplinary authority. The petitioner responded to the same on 30.1.2004. Upon consideration of petitioner's response to the second shoe cause the petitioner has been visited with the order of punishment dismissing him from service.

5. Against the punishment order the petitioner has preferred a memo of appeal before the Deputy General Manager of the bank who is the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated 28.6.2004 has upheld the order issued by the disciplinary authority and rejected the petitioner’s appeal.

6. It is in the aforesaid procedural background that the writ petition has been filed. The submission advanced by petitioner's counsel are that charge memo which has been issued alleging violation of Clause 19.5(j) is not maintainable inasmuch as the said clause is not attracted in the case of the petitioner having regard to the nature of allegation which do not entail any actual financial loss. Petitioner;’s Counsel submits that there is no allegation that the various transaction alleged against the petitioner was done for extraneous consideration and as such Clause 19.5(j) would not be attracted and charge memo alleging violation of clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement of 1966 is therefore not maintainable. Clause 19.5(j) reads as follows:-

“By the expression “gross misconduct” shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part of an employee:

(j) doing any prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve bank in serious loss.”

7. Since submissions have been made regarding allegations not coming within the purview of Clause 19.5, the clause has been taken note of.

8. From bare reading of Clause 19.5(j) this Court would find that it is more than obvious that actual financial loss is not a condition precedent for invoking clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement. Merely for the fact that acts are negligent and likely to involve the bank in financial loss, as per clause 19.5(j) is sufficient to attract the said provision. Submission to this extent therefore are incorrect in view of bare perusal of clause 19.5(j). Allegations which have been proved in the enquiry shows that amounts have been withdrawn by debiting others accounts without permission of accou