The termination of employment must be objectively scrutinized to determine whether it was for reasonable cause or misconduct, as per the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960.

V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.

1. The appellant was working from September 1965, as an Accountant of the Kozhikode Branch of the United Commercial Bank, represented by its General Manager, the 1st respondent. Certain irregularities in the working of the Bank were detected. Charge-sheet in respect of these were served on the Manager and the Cashier of the Branch and also on the appellant. The Manager was permitted to resign; and so was the Cashier, who accepted the allegations against him and made good the amount defalcated. Against the appellant, by Ext. P-l communication dated 14th November 1967, instances of "irregularities, negligence, frauds, misappropriation and failure of duty" were listed in thirteen paragraphs and explanation called for. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the appellant explanation. At the outset it expressed the appellant sincere regret for the fraud which happened at the Kozhikode Branch while he was the Accountant. He explained that these could not be noticed by him owing to the practice followed at that Branch where the supervisory work was distributed among the Manager and the Accountant, the Chief Cashier and the Additional Officer. He offered explanation seriatim in regard to the specific instances mentioned in the letter. Ext. P-2 runs to more than three pages of closely typed matter. Among other things, he stated that if any further clarification was required or if any one is deputed to investigate the veracity of his statement, he hoped to be able to give convincing proof verifying the registers and vouchers. He wound up by stating that he was extremely sorry for the irregularities and misappropriations which occurred in the Branch and prayed to be excused for his deficiencies and lapses. This was followed by Ext, P-3 which we may extract in full:

"We refer to your letter of the 25th November, 1967 in reply to the charge-sheet No. SM-898/67 of the 14th November 1967. We have gone through your letter under reference and find, after due consideration, that your reply is very unsatisfactory.

The various acts of omission, commission, negligence, irregularities etc., committed as Accountant of Kozhikode Branch and enumerated in the charge-sheet dated the 14th November, 1967, resulting also in loss to the Bank, warrant dismissal from the Bank service. However, taking a lenient and sympathetic view having regard to your future career, we hereby merely terminate you from the Bank service with immediate effect. This is without prejudice to the Bank right to recover from you in respect of loss and/or damage resulting from your acts of omission, commission and irregularities as Accountant of Kozhikode Branch.

We are instructing our Kozhikode Branch to pay you a month emoluments in lieu of notice.

The appellant preferred an appeal against Ext. P-3 order under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. Ext. P-4 is a copy of the written statement of the Bank before the Appellate Authority, and Ext. P-5, a copy of the re-joinder filed by the appellant. In paragraph 3 of his re-joinder, the appellant stated that the termination was virtually a punishment, and that his services were terminated illegally, arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Paragraph 10 stated that the termination was not for reasonable cause; that the charge and explanation called for were on the basis of misconduct, and the ostensible termination for reasonable cause was because the Bank was unable to sustain the charge. He further alleged that the termination was a pure and simple case of victimisation. By Ext, P-6 order, the Appellate Authority found that the termination was for reasonable cause, under the first limb of section 18 (1) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, and not a termination for misconduct, under the second limb thereof. The appeal was therefore dismissed. There was a contention that the appellant was occupying a managerial post and therefore the appeal was not competent a