JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.18 of 2015 and quash its award dated 08.08.2016.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award of the 1st respondent dated 08.08.2016 made in I.D.No.18 of 2015, in and by which, the 2nd Respondent was directed to be reinstated within two months with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are, in short, referred to as Bank and Employee respectively (for State Bank of India/Petitioners and Antony Mary/R2).

3. It was the case of the Bank that pursuant to the death of the husband of the Employee in harness, the Employee was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground and in the year 2007, the Employee was working in the Palayamkottai Branch, in which CCTV cameras were installed to videograph the movement of staff members as well as customers. The Branch was also provided with a state of art counting machine, which can count currency notes without even removing the tag, besides having the currency chest of Reserve Bank of India in the Branch.

3.1. It was further case of the Bank that currencies remitted would be categorized in Sections (100 pieces) with a currency slip with the initial of the Clerk and Officer of the Branch, who make the section. As such, on 07.06.2007, the Postmaster of Palayamkottai Head Office, maintaining an Account with the Branch presented a Government Cheque for payment and out of the payment made, one Section of Rs.100/- note was found missing. The Bank conducted a thorough search of the missing bundle, which ended in vain and thereafter, on verification with CCTV Camera, it was found that the Messenger Thangavelu had counted 9 out of 10 Sections of Rs.100/- denomination and he left the place leaving one Section of Rs.100/- denomination in the counting machine itself. On seeing the left over bundle, the Employee removed the currency. The Officials of the Bank rushed to the residence of the Employee for an enquiry and the Employee denied the whole thing. Later on, the Employee voluntarily remitted Rs.10,000/- and the same was paid to the Complainant.

3.2. It was also the case of the Bank that a charge memo was issued to the Employee for misappropriation of Rs.10,000/- lying in the counting machine and she gave a reply to the charge memo denying the charges. In the enquiry, 12 documents were marked as Exhibits and the Head Messenger was examined and on the side of the Employee, 3 witnesses were examined. The Compact Disc showing the stealthy removal of the currency by the Employee was also marked as Prosecution Ex.1 and Cash Officers, Special Assistant and Deputy Cash Officer were cross-examined as D.Ws.1 to 3, who all deposed against the Employee. The Compact Disc contained only a portion of the recordings captured on 07.06.2007 and the Employee insisted for production of the entire day’s CCTV recordings without assigning reasons as to what for she wanted it.

3.3. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire documents and evidence, submitted a report, stating that the Employee was guilty of charges and based on the said report, on 31.12.2011, the Employee was dismissed from service. The Employee preferred an appeal against her dismissal, stating entirely different versions inter alia to the extent that she had handed over the note packet to the Deputy Head Cashier. However, the her plea was rejected and her dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

3.4. It was stated by the Bank that the Employee was also booked under Penal Provisions in C.C.No.40 of 2008 and the Criminal Court acquitted her on 03.04.2014, which has no bearing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as the Employee had not examined her witnesses before the Criminal Court.

3.5. It was further stated by the Bank that the Employee raised an Industrial Dispute on 21.07.2014 under Section 2(A)(2) of the Indu