Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Back Ground:

1. Appellant Maya Devi was working as a Head Cashier in a branch of the respondent Bank: State Bank of Travancore. In October, 2000, Maya Devi wanted to go on leave. When she was handing over the charge to another employee, Maya Devi's cash balance showed a shortage. To have the shortage confirmed, another official counted the money in Maya Devi's custody and found that Rs. 45,500/- was short. As the Head Cashier—Maya Devi—and the Deputy Manager are the joint custodians, they made good the loss. Yet the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against both the employees. We confine to the proceedings vis-à-vis only Maya Devi.

2. Not satisfied with the explanation given by Maya Devi, the Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer, who upon enquiry, submitted a report. Acting on the report, the disciplinary authority had found charges of major misconduct proved against Maya Devi and recommended for her summary dismissal. Aggrieved, Maya Devi took an inter-departmental appeal, in which the punishment was modified to that of compulsory retirement: to be discharged with all superannuation benefits. Further aggrieved, Maya Devi raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam in I.D. No. 191 of 2006.

3. Through an award, dated 25.03.2008, the Industrial Tribunal has upheld the punishment imposed on Maya Devi and refused to interfere. Further aggrieved, Maya Devi filed W.P.(C) No. 30526 of 2008, which a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed through a judgment dated 23.01.2015. That is why Maya Devi is before us in this intra-court appeal.

Submissions:

4. In the above factual backdrop, Sri Adarsh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously contended that the enquiry has been perfunctory, and the findings are unsustainable. Drawing our attention to the facts, he has also submitted that though as may as five charges have been framed against Maya Devi, not even one could be established. He has also submitted there has never been an allegation of misappropriation; the entire allegation, in fact, concerns only the alleged negligence. Taking us to the defence set up by Maya Devi, Sri Kumar has submitted that even the Enquiry Officer has found that all along there had been shortage of cash—even before Maya Devi became the Head Cashier. Just because Maya Devi made good the loss, he further contends, it could not be concluded that she was negligent.

5. On the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Sri Kumar would contend that all findings are in Maya Devi's favour, save the solitary one that she neglected to handle the cash. At any rate, he would further contend that the punishment inflicted on Maya Devi is grossly disproportionate. Sri Kumar, to support his contentions, has relied on Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others (2006) 4 SCC 713). As to the manner of enquiry and the perfunctory findings said to have been rendered by the Enquiry Officer, he has placed reliance on G.V. Aswathanarayana v. Central Bank of India (ILR 2003 Kar 3066), Ramani v. Karuvatta S. Co-Op. Society (1993(2) KLT 681), Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454) and Natavarbhai S. Makwana v. Union Bank of India and others (1985) II LLJ 296 Guj).

6. Per contra, Sri P. Ramakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that in the face of Maya Devi's admission that there was a cash shortage, it requires little reasoning that she had been negligent in discharging her duties. He has also submitted that the very fact she has made good the loss speaks volumes about her negligence. He has taken us through the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer to emphasize that the shortage of cash is not by oversight—and not even by any bona fide mistake.

7. To put it differently, Sri Ramakrishnan contends that when the shortage was pointed out by another employee, Maya Devi, who counted the money, falsely persisted that there