ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant who is the writ petitioner suffered the order dated 18th July 2012 of removal from service passed by the Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank.

2. The aforesaid order of punishment was affirmed by the appellate authority vide an order dated 5th December 2012.

3. These orders were challenged by the appellant in WP(S) No. 6628 of 2013, without success.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an employee of the respondent Bank, while posted at Brambay branch in the capacity of Clerk-cum-Cashier was served the charge memo dated 31st December 2009. The charge against him is that on 12th December 2008 he reported late for duty so the Audit Officer could not open and verify the cash balance in the morning. However, at 11:05 AM, on verification of the cash balance it was found that cash was short by Rs.33,470/-. The actual cash in the vault was Rs.2,44,567/-whereas the closing balance of cash as per Daily Cash Balance Book of 11th December 2008 was Rs. 2,78,037/-. It was further found during the verification that denominations of cash in the Bank varied from the denominations as per Daily Cash Balance Book.

5. The appellant filed his reply and denied the charges levelled against him but a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. At one stage, an application dated 11th October 2010 was filed for change of the Enquiring Officer who, according to the appellant, was biased against him. However, the Enquiring Officer was not changed and by the letter dated 21st October 2010 the appellant was intimated that the Enquiring Officer has been advised to proceed fairly.

6. Thereafter the enquiry proceeding was further conducted by the same Enquiring Officer and the enquiry report dated 7th January 2011 was submitted by him. The appellant objected to the enquiry report through representation dated 19th January 2011 on the ground that the enquiry was concluded without affording him an opportunity to produce his witnesses and without supplying documents to him.

7. The disciplinary authority reopened the enquiry and directed the Enquiring Officer to re-start the enquiry, in which the appellant did not participate. Finally, a second enquiry report dated 3rd November 2011 was submitted in which the charge has been found to be proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18th July 2012 passed an order of removal from service which, as noticed above, was upheld by the appellate authority.

8. Aggrieved with the aforementioned orders, the appellant filed WP(S) No. 6628 of 2013.

9. The writ Court observed that, even if the plea raised on behalf of the delinquent employee that cheques for Rs. 23,000/-and 10,000/-were presented and encashed is accepted, the shortage of Rs.470/-remained unexplained.

10. In the aforesaid background, the writ Court has held as under:

“6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature.

It is also noted that during verification, the denomination of actual cash was found varied from that of the cash in the Daily Cash Balance Book. Even if the arguments of the petitioner, so far as Rs.33,000/-is concerned, is accepted, there is no explanation with respect to Rs. 470/-.

Further, looking to the way enquiry has been conducted, viz. on intervention of the authority of the Bank, enquiry was reopened wherein the petitioner chose not to participate, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice.

The second show cause was also issued, to which the petitioner filed his reply and taking into consideration all the documents and discussing entire aspects of the matter in detail, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service.

The Appellate Authority has also passed the order after discussing all the related facts and it appears that there is application of mind on behalf of the Appellate Authority.

The