ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the learned District Judge – II, kanchipuram, in CMA No. 8 of 2012, the petitioner filed this petition.

2. The fact reveals that the petitioner herein was worked as Assistant thereafter as a Cashier in the Kanchipuram Central Cooperative Bank, Pallavarm( in short 'bank'), from 01.10.2008 to 01.04.2012, in the course of that time one Murthy/third respondent herein worked as a appraiser on contract basis from 01.07.2009 to 12.03.2011 in that bank and his work was to certify the authenticity of the jewels which produced by the customers. During his tenure, the third respondent without knowledge of the employees of the branch sanctioned 155 gold loans to his known customer of the branch for a sum of Rs.71,35,500/- by obtaining fake jewels and utilized the loan amount for himself. Thereby, the third respondent caused a sum of Rs.71,35,500/- loss to the bank. Hence the second respondent lodged a complaint before St.Thomas Mount, Police station, in crime No. 57/2011. Thereafter, Sub Registrar, Kanchipuram, ordered for enquiry based on the bank's complaint and notice also issued to them and the petitioner also replied to that notice, after enquiry, the Sub Registrar, Kanchipuram, fixed liability on her and other employees. Thereafter, challenging the enquiry proceedings the petitioner filed CMA No. 8 of 2012 on the file of the sub tribunal cooperative society at Kanchipuram. Thereafter, the first respondent submitted a final report under Section 87 of the Act. Challenging the same, she preferred an appeal, the main objection before the appellate Tribunal was that the third respondent herein/appraiser with the help of some of the regular customers pledged the fake gold jewels and obtained loan and caused a loss to the bank but the enquiry officer without considering the above facts in the case fixed the liability on this petitioner and others as such is totally erroneous and liable to be set aside. Further, she also contended that as a cashier the petitioner has not having any technical qualification to verify the quality or authenticity of the jewels, the appraiser is only having the said knowledge and he is bound to verify the authenticity and quality of the jewels. Her only work was only to deposit the loan amount in the customers account based on the certificate issued by the appraiser/third respondent herein accordingly, she did her work but without considering nature of the work enquiry officer erroneously fixed liability on her and other employees of the bank as such is totally unfair and liable to be set aside.

3. On perusal of records and evidence, charges were framed against each of the employee as well as reply submitted by them and the Court below finally held that as per the report 150 jewel loans were given to the customers based on the spurious jewels and some of them were employees and also one individuals get gold loans for 32 times and another individual get gold loan for 18 times which is contrary to the by laws of the bank as per the circular of the bank, employees of the bank more particularly assistant and manager as well as cashier are also responsible to verify the jewels as well as particulars of the borrowers before distributing the loan but the case in hand they were not discharge their duty promptly even facts shows that they are also having knowledge about the factious single individual thereby the employees namely branch manager, cashier and assistant who were committed wilful negligence in discharging their duties. Due to their wilful negligence it caused loss to the bank and confirmed the enquiry report given by said registrar.

4. Challenging the same one of the employee/petitioner preferred this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned judge failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner's duty and responsibility is only to verity number of jewels are being kept in the pocket and sealed the jewels prop