The court upheld the principle that the imposition of dismissal from service as a penalty for misconduct, particularly in the context of financial institutions dealing with customer funds, may be justified based on the nature of the charges and the admission of wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

1. The petitioner has unnecessarily impleaded respondents by name insofar as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 without alleging any allegation of mala-fide or bias against such of those persons who have been impleaded therefore, petitioner’s counsel is hereby directed to delete their names during the course of the day.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

“(i) For setting aside the order of dismissal dated 16.06.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 in his capacity as Disciplinary Authority in the matter of departmental inquiry held against the petitioner, Head Cashier-II Pusa Farm Branch of the respondent Bank.

(ii) For a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.

(iii) For holding that the major punishment of dismissal from service without notice is against the doctrine of proportionality in administrative law.

(iv) For holding that the punishment of dismissal being disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(v) For holding that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated by non-observance of principle of Natural Justice and has proceeded in a pre-judicial manner without application of mind.

(vi) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may deemed entitled.”

3. The petitioner while working as Head Cashier-II alleged to have committed misdeeds for which he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in framing two charges. The following are the two charges:

vkjksi la[;k&1

“Sri. Manjoj Kumar Thakur was in-charge of Cash Department. On 18.10.2006 he tried to close cash safe by inflating the Cash Balance by an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- Sri. Thakur written the cash memo and inflated the demomination of notes to the tune of Rs. 1,72,000/- and produced the cash memo before Sri. Bharat Bhushan, ABM, Pusa Farm, who was second signatory of the cash memo. During the course of counting the notes, Sri. Bhushan found that amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- was less in the packets of Rs. 500/- and 100/- denominations. After enquiry from Sri. Thakur, he told that he has given Rs. 1,72,000/- to one customer who has assured him to pay the amount by 4 P.M. Thus, Sri. Thakur misappropriated the Bank's fund and tried to conceal the fact.”

vkjksi la[;k&2

“Sri. Thakur borrowed cash from Sri. Bharat Bhushan ABM. Pusafarm from his centconvenient a/c and deposited the amount and cash count be closed on 18.10.2006.”

4. Departmental inquiry was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 16.06.2007 and it was subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority in which also the petitioner had suffered an order on 29.12.2008. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the alleged charges, imposition of penalty would be too harsh. It is submitted that he has rendered 14 years of service. During his entire service, it is an isolated case, therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and its confirmation would be harsh.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that there is no infirmity in imposition of penalty and its confirmation by the appellate authority. The alleged charges are relating to temporary misappropriation of cash of Rs. 1,72,000/-. The charges are that petitioner had lent the amount to one customer Sudhir Kumar Singh on the assurance that he would return the alleged amount at 4:00 pm on 18.10.2006, the date on which the alleged transaction has taken place. Thereafter, petitioner has borrowed money from bank officials and remitted. In other words, it is temporary misappropriation. The petitioner was working with the Central Bank of India. The Bank is dealing with various money transactions with the customers. The petitioner has temporarily misappropriated customers’ money, who have trusted the respondent- Central Bank of India.