A bank employee responsible for the custody of cash is held strictly liable for shortages arising from negligence; subsequent voluntary and contemporaneous admissions of such negligence constitute sufficient evidence to justify dismissal from service without requiring further proof of dishonest intent.

1. The Petitioner was employed as a Head Cashier at the Saket Branch, New Delhi of Respondent No. 1, i.e., Bank of Baroda. The Petitioner had rendered long service of about 21 years. However, on 10th March, 2016, a discrepancy was noticed in the cash account, inasmuch as the opening balance and the closing balance did not tally, resulting in a reported shortage of INR 10,88,850/-. The Cash Department was being handled by the Petitioner and, since the cash shortage had occurred while the cash was under his custody, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner. This was followed by disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in an order dated 31st October, 2016, holding substantially all the charges levelled against the Petitioner to be proved.

2. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31st October, 2016, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed by order dated 13th March, 2018.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking interference with the disciplinary action and the orders passed against the Petitioner.

4. Mr. Shakil Akhtar, counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions:

4.1. The Petitioner had rendered about 21 years of unblemished service as a Head Cashier with the Respondent Bank, earning regular increments and promotions, and that no allegation of dishonesty or misconduct had ever been levelled against him prior to the alleged incident. This long and blemish-free service history strongly militates against any inference of deliberate misappropriation or dishonest intent.

4.2. The alleged cash shortage of INR 10,88,850/- cannot be attributed to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and, at the highest, the incident reflects an inadvertent human error arising out of exceptional work pressure. On the date in question, the branch witnessed an unusually high volume of cash transactions, nearly 120 transactions as against the normal 50–75, and the Petitioner was also under personal time constraints as he had to attend family marriage ceremonies of his nieces scheduled for the evening of 10th March, 2016.

4.3. The cash handling on 10th March, 2016 was not the exclusive responsibility of the Petitioner. In the morning, the Petitioner and the Joint Manager-cum-Accountant, Mr. N.K. Agnihotri (Respondent No. 4), jointly opened the safe and withdrew INR 21 lakhs for disbursement. Later in the afternoon, both officials again jointly opened the safe to withdraw INR 75 lakhs for handing over excess cash to the Currency Chest staff, thereby demonstrating shared custody and responsibility.

4.4. During the process of handing over cash to the Currency Chest staff, and owing to confusion between sorted and unsorted currency, the Petitioner inadvertently handed over INR 20 lakhs instead of INR 10 lakhs, resulting in the Currency Chest staff leaving the branch with INR 85 lakhs against a voucher of INR 75 lakhs.

4.5. Upon verification in the evening, the Petitioner discovered the shortage of INR 10,88,850/-, re-checked the cash, and immediately informed the Branch Manager, Ms. Shweta Kumar (Respondent No. 3).

4.6. Of the total shortage detected, the sum of INR 10,00,000/- stands duly explained on account of the inadvertent excess remittance made to the Currency Chest. The residual amount of INR 88,850/- could have been lost due to excess payment to customers or access by other staff members, including Currency