Bank employees are required to maintain absolute integrity and uprightness in dealing with customer funds, and any misconduct in handling public money must be dealt with firmly.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the erstwhile Andhra Bank under Clause 6(c) of the Bi- partite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner. The said punishment of compulsory retirement was upheld by the Appellate Authority of erstwhile bank vide its order dated 22.04.2009, which has also been impugned by way of the present petition.

2. Andhra Bank was amalgamated with Union Bank of India w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Thus, Union Bank of India was substituted as respondent in place of erstwhile Andhra Bank vide order dated 06.10.2022.

3. The brief facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner was working as a Clerk at the R.K. Puram Branch of the erstwhile Andhra Bank and he was performing his duties at the cash window. While performing his duties on 10.04.2007, one customer of the bank, namely Sh. Parminder Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- in his savings account no. 11046. The petitioner accepted the said amount and issued receipt/acknowledgment of Rs. 5000/-. Subsequently, when the petitioner tried to enter the amount in the system, he found that the account of the said customer bearing No. 11046 was inoperative. Therefore, the money could not be deposited by the petitioner in that account.

4. The said money was kept by the petitioner with himself.

5. On 01.05.2007, the said customer namely Sh. Parminder Singh came to the branch and stated that he had deposited Rs. 5000/- with the bank on 10.04.2007, but the same was not deposited in his account. On the complaint of the customer, the officials of the branch verified the records and found that there was no such cash received on 10.04.2007. When the customer showed copy of the counter foil, it contained the signature of the petitioner. The Branch Manager of the bank called the petitioner and enquired about receipt of the cash. The petitioner accepted that he had received cash from the customer and further stated that he retained the cash with him since the system did not accept the receipt, as the account was inoperative.

6. The said money was then deposited in the Sundry deposit account maintained by the bank.

7. The Branch Manager thereafter requested the customer to make his account operative. Upon the application of the customer, his account was made operative on 05.05.2007. Thereafter, the amount was transferred to his account from the Sundry Account.

8. On 05.05.2007 itself, the Branch Manager reported the matter to the Zonal office. Thereafter, the zonal office forwarded the complaint to the head office of the bank vide its letter dated 16.05.2007.

9. Petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide order dated 20.06.2007.

10. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 22.09.2007 was issued to the petitioner. The following charges were framed against the petitioner:

"Articles of Charge:

It is alleged against you that while working as clerk at R.K. Puram (New Delhi) branch you have committed serious irregularities. The lapses/irregularities that have come to light so far and detailed in the Statement of allegations (annexure-I) would indicate that:

An amount remitted by the customer, for crediting to his account, was misappropriated by you: by not accounting for the same in the books of Bank.

The above acts committed by you are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitute gross misconduct as per clause 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.

... ... ... "

11. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner. The inquiry officer by his report dated 23.06.2008 held that the allegations against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a notice dated 27.08.2008 to the petitioner for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and treating the suspension period as not spent on duty. The petitioner submitted