The court emphasized the bank's loss of confidence in the appellant and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, citing the appellant's failure to follow banking procedures and exercise honesty and integrity.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is arising out of an judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 12285/2009 titled Dhara Singh Vs. Union Bank of India, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order dated 22.11.2008 by which the penalty of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the appellant, as well as the order dated 22.04.2009 by which the appeal of the appellant before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court was an employee serving in Andhra Bank. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the By-partite settlement dated 10.04.2002 (Disciplinary Regulations).

3. The facts also reveal that the Andhra Bank was amalgamated with Union Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2022.

4. The appellant at the relevant point of time was working as a clerk at R. K. Puram Branch of the erstwhile Andhra Bank and was in charge of receiving cash deposit from the customers at the cash counter.

5. On 10.04.2007, Sh. Parminder Singh - a customer who was holding Account No. 11046, deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 in his account and an acknowledgment/counterfoil of the pay-in-slip, was given to the customer by the appellant.

6. The appellant did not deposit the amount in the account of Sh. Parminder Singh and, on 01.05.2007, Sh. Parminder Singh came to the Bank and informed the authorities that he has deposited Rs. 5,000/- in his bank account on 10.04.2007, however, the same amount has not been credited in his account. He formally lodged a complaint and informed the Bank Manager. It is was brought to the notice of the authorities that the appellant did receive the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from Sh. Parminder Singh and did not deposit the same in the account of Sh. Parminder Singh nor in the sundry account maintained by the Bank.

7. The appellant, only when it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the amount has not been deposited in the account of Sh. Parminder Singh, informed the authorities that the account of Sh. Parminder Singh was inoperative. After a complaint was lodged by Sh. Parminder Singh, the appellant deposited the amount on 01.05.2007 in the sundry account.

8. On 05.05.2007, the Assistant General Manager informed the General Manager regarding the conduct of the appellant and regarding the discrepancy in the cash receipt of the appellant and the matter was in-turn forwarded by the General Manager to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Andhra Bank, Vigilance Department, Hyderabad on 16.05.2007.

9. The appellant was placed under suspension on 20.06.2007 and finally a chargesheet was issued on 22.09.2007. The appellant was granted time to file reply to the chargesheet and he did file a reply denying the charges leveled against him. The reply was filed on 03.012.2007. The disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry office and the enquiry officer after following the principles of natural justice and fairplay submitted an enquiry report holding the charged as proved on 23.06.2008.

10. The findings of the enquiry officer were communicated on 26.11.2008 and the disciplinary authority finally passed an order of compulsory retirement on 22.11.2008. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal on 26.03.2009 before the competent Appellant Authority, and vide order dated 22.04.2009, the appeal was dismissed by the competent disciplinary authority.

11. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2008 of punishment of compulsory retirement and dismissing the appeal vide order dated 22.04.2009 had preferred a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition against which the present LPA has been filed.

12. The operative paragraphs i.e. Paragraph Nos. 34 to 40, of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:

"34. The mere fact that the customer in question had de