Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate v. ANIL KUMAR ANR

active in the trade union. It was urged that there was no wrongful gain to him or loss to the bank, as the entire amount of ₹ 60,580 was deposited into the school’s account on 08.08.2006, which the school has confirmed by withdrawing its earlier complaint. It was also submitted that even assuming that there was delay in remitting the amount by the respondent/employee, the said act should not have been visited by termination of his services, which is quite disproportionate to the act alleged to have been committed by the respondent/employee. It was also submitted that the memos served on him, that is, Annexure P-8 and P-9, do not refer to any Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 misconduct or misappropriation, but only say that he had committed certain acts of “omission and commission” which would also substantiate his case that there was no serious charge against him warranting a major penalty of dismissal.The learned counsel for the respondent/employee has placed reliance on the dictums in UB Gadhe vs. GM Gujarat Ambuja Cement AIR 2008 SC 99; Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 373; Taj Services, Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal 1999 SCC OnLine Del 815;and Calcutta Port Shramik Union vs. The Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 2168.

5. Heard both sides

6. A perusal of the materials on record show that, on

20.04.2006, the respondent/employee was not working asacashier in the bank. Despite the same, he received the amount and issued 16 cash deposit receipts for the same. He also issued counterfoils, Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 i.e., parent’ copies of the receipts under his initials and also affixed the seal of the branch office.The fact that an amount of ₹ 60,580/- was received by the respondent/employee is admitted by him. He also admits that on the relevant day, he was not assigned the duty of a cashier.According to him, as there was a big rush in the bank, on the oral instructions of the manager of the bank, he had received the same. However, there are no materials to support the said allegation.

7. I will assume a moment respondent/employee was, infact, directed by the manager to receive the cash. His further explanation is that on 20.04.2006, as there was rush at the receipt counter, he received the fees of the children of his friend Rajesh Goyal from the latter’s servant. He returned the parent’s copy of the receipt after affixing the receipt stamp to the servant, as he was told that Goyal was in a hurry. As he was well-acquainted with the Goyals, he gave a duly stamped Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 receipt to the latter and asked his servant to wait so that he could count the money. While counting the money, he found that some notes were ‘defective’ and so he asked the servant to change them. However, the servant returned and told him that Goyal had left and that his mobile was not responding. So he returned the challan copies and the money to the servant and asked him to bring the ‘proper cash’. Due to heavy work, he forgot to take back the parent’s copy and to cancel the receipt stamp. He thereafter forgot about the incident as he had been transferred to another branch. Later, in the month of July, when the matter came to his notice, he advised Goyal to contact the school and the bank. It was only then it came to his notice that the servant had not informed Goyal about the non-receipt of the cash. The slip/challan copies were recovered from the servant’s room. Thereafter, Goyal realised the mistake on the part of his servant in not depositing the school fees and gave a letter regretting the incident to the DAV. Realising the mistake, the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 DAV also withdrew their complaint.

8. To prove the aforesaid defence, the respondent/employee relies on the testimony of DW1, recorded during the course of the domestic enquiry. The respondent/employee himself contended before the Tribunal that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated as the principles of natural justice had not been complied with. Accepting this contention, the Tribunal found the enquiry to be vitiated and permitted the management to adduce fresh evidence to prove the charge. However, the respondent/employee never led any evidence to prove his defence. Neither Rajesh Goyal nor his servant was examined to prove the defence. In such circumstances, it can only be held that the defence has not been established.

9. Further, withdrawal of the complaint by the DAV is not enough to exonerate the respondent/employee of the charge of misconduct, especially when the organization in which he was working was a financial institution. Moreover, the argument that Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 the memo served on the respondent/employee does not specify any misconduct and hence the charge is defective, also cannot be countenanced. The purpose of framing a charge is to give notice to the party regarding the allegation that he has to answer. Annexure P-12, i.e., the chargesheet, is quite clear as to the charge that he had to answer. The respondent/employee has no case that he had not understood the charge against him. He is seen to have understood the charge against him and contested the same. No prejudice is seen to have been caused to him due to the memo only containing the terms ‘omission and commission’.

10. The argument that the punishment of dismissal awarded is disproportionate cannot be countenanced for a moment, as the respondent/employee was working in a financial institution where there cannot be a compromise on the integrity of its employees.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the Tribunal went wrong in reversing the order of dismissal of the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59 respondent/employee from service. Hence, the impugned Award is accordingly set aside. The action of the management in terminating the services of the respondent/employee is upheld.

12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed. CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 14, 2025 p’ma/er Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9689/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:00:59