Shri D.Raja v. 1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.2.The Management of Indian Overseas Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 02-08-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUWRIT APPEAL No.3431 OF 2003Shri D.Raja...Appellant-vs-1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.2.The Management of Indian Overseas Bank, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, 762, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002....RespondentsAppeal against the order, dated 04.03.2003, made inW.P.No.12264 of 1999 on the file of this Court. Writ Petition filedunder Article 226 of the constitution of India to call for therecords of the first respondent in connection with the award dated9.11.98 passed in I.D.No.158 of 1994 and quash the same andconsequently direct the second respondent Management to reinstatethe petitioner in service with backwages and all other attendantbenefits.For appellant : Mr.V.Prakash, Sr.Counsel for Mr.P.ChandrasekaranFor respondent No.2 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad J U D G M E N TS.PALANIVELU,J.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of alearned single Judge of this Court, made in W.P.No.12264 of 1999, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whereby the dismissal of the appellant from service was confirmed.2. The facts, which led to the filing of this WritAppeal, are as follows :2.1. Appellant was appointed in Indian Overseas Bank on25.06.1979 as a Shroff/Godown Keeper in N.N.Kandigai Branch andcontinued to serve as a permanent employee till his date ofdismissal on 31.08.1987.2.2. On 01.03.1986, one Nagaratnam, an account holder ofthe said bank, came to him and handed over Rs.45,000/-, asking himto credit Rs.40,000/- to his S.B.Account No.189 and also toS.B.Account No.2 of his brother, under a premise that he gaveRs.40,000/- to the appellant. After Nagaratnam left the counter,the appellant found Rs.45,000/-, however, as per the request of thesaid Nagaratnam, he credited Rs.40,000/- to both the accounts. Heprepared two challans, one for Rs.25,000/- for Account No.189 andthe other for Rs.15,000/- towards Account No.2. At about 10.00 p.m.on the same day, one Gajendra Naidu, brother of Nagaratnam, went tothe residence of one Rama Govindan, a co-employee of the appellant,and asked about the crediting of Rs.40,000/- alone in the bankaccount, for which he responded that he knew nothing. So, both ofthem immediately went to the house of one Babu, another staffer ofthe bank, and, on a query, he informed that in both the accounts,Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively were credited.Thereafter, all of them went to the residence of the appellant andasked him about the remaining Rs.5,000/-, for which he stated thathe kept the said amount of Rs.5,000/- in his table drawer and hewould return the amount. Subsequently, they left for their houses.However, one Govindasamy Naidu, another brother of Nagaratnam, wentto the house of the appellant at 03.00 a.m. on 02.03.1986 and toldhim that money was urgently needed for him, for which he wouldbring the Branch Manager from Tiruttani. Then, the appellantreplied that there was no need to bring the Branch Manager and hewas having money with him in the house and, so saying, he paidRs.5,000/- to him.2.3. On 07.03.1986, Regional Manager of the bank,Vellore, held an inquiry with regard to the incident inN.N.Kandigai Branch and gave a report, after examining all thepersons concerned. 2.4. Thereafter, on 05.05.1986, the bank slapped aletter, chargesheeting and suspending the appellant in a singleproceeding, stating that he was guilty of misconduct in terms ofpara 17.5 (d) and 17.5 (j) of the Bipartite settlement, dated14.12.1966, between the bank and its workmen. The said paras gothus : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "17.5 (d) wilful damage or attempt to causedamage to the property of the bank or any ofits customers.17.5 (j) doing any act prejudicial to theinterests of the bank, or gross negligence ornegligence involving or likely to involve thebank in serious loss."2.5. Appellant was required to submit his explanation inten days. For the said charge sheet, the appellant submitted anexplanation on 13.05.1986, totally denying the charges, statingthat cash was tallied that day and the incident, as alleged, hadnot taken place and that the charge sheet should have been theproduct of some allegations concocted against him, because hebelonged to a depressed class.2.6. Not content with the explanation submitted by theappellant, the management ordered a domestic inquiry. Thereafter,the enquiry officer conducted an inquiry and came out with hisfinding on 25.05.1987, holding that the charges levelled againstthe appellant, except filling up of challans relating toS.B.Account of P.Gajendra Naidu, have been fully established.Thereupon, the management, on 26.05.1987, shot a second show causenotice on the appellant, calling upon him to show cause as to whyhe should not be dismissed from service. For the said show causenotice, the defence representative by name Nagappan, who wasrepresenting the appellant before the enquiry officer, gave a replyon 05.08.1987. The appellant was given a personal hearing andexamined on 14.08.1987 and, thereafter, the management dismissedthe appellant from service, by means of proceedings, dated31.08.1987.2.7. Then, the appellant raised an industrial dispute inI.D.No.158 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. Afterdue inquiry, the said Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant,confirming the penalty of dismissal. Aggrieved over the said order,he preferred a writ petition before this Court and the said writpetition was also dismissed by a learned single Judge. Hence, thisappeal.3. One significant aspect to be borne in mind here is,learned counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal made anendorsement on 29.01.1998 to the effect that "claimant is onlyattacking the finding and the evidence and not the fairness of theinquiry." Hence, there was no need for the Tribunal and thelearned single Judge to discuss the conduct of the inquiry.4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sides, it becomes necessary for this Court to highlight certainfeatures of the incident. The fairness of the inquiry need not besubjected for consideration. There is no re-appraisal of theevidence on record. Concedingly, Nagaratnam, handed overRs.45,000/- to the appellant and he credited only Rs.40,000/-towards two S.B.Accounts as per his request and retainedRs.5,000/-, which was returned back to the brother of Nagaratnam onthe next day. 5. The management raised a stiff opposition against thebona fides of the conduct of the appellant, by stating that had hebeen honest enough, he might have immediately informed the BranchManager about the balance of Rs.5,000/-, which he had retained withhim or he might have deposited the amount into sundry account ofthe bank, for refunding it to the account holder on the next day,but, neither of the courses was adopted by him, which shows thatwith a mala fide intention of misappropriating the amount, theappellant took the amount to his house. 6. The above said contention was denied by the appellant,stating that he was away with the Manager from 01.30 p.m. on01.03.1986 and returned back only by night at 09.30 p.m. It wasalso contended by the management that since the workman/appellantwas with the Branch Manager all the time, he could have informedthe manager about the said transaction.7. It was the explanation of the appellant that sinceNagaratnam was a reputed customer of the bank, he thought it fit todirectly pay back the amount to him either on the same day or thenext day; there was no need to inform the Branch Manager in thatregard and that if the amount was kept in sundry account of thebank, there might be some procedural delay in getting and payingback the amount to Nagaratnam.8. A perusal of the records, particularly, the over-writings on the reverse of the paying-in-challan, which theappellant prepared on 01.03.1986 for Account No.2, would indicatethe dishonest intention on his part. On the front side of the saidchallan, there were no over-writings or inter-lineations, but onrear side, it is seen that the number of currencies has beenaltered from 190 x 100 = 19,000/- to 140 x 100 = 14,000 and 20 x 50=1,000. Subsequently, the figure 190 was scored out and the figure140 was written and, by altering the number of currency notes,Rs.5,000/- was kept back. Further, on a previous occasion also, theappellant credited excess cash of Rs.100/- to sundry account, forwhich he was issued a memo, seeking for explanation as to how thesaid sum of Rs.100/- was in excess. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Before the enquiry officer, Nagaratnam was notexamined and the appellant also did not appear as a witness. Theexplanations adduced by the appellant in cross-examination of themanagement witnesses were not accepted by the enquiry officer. Itis not in dispute that the particulars regarding denominations andnumber of currencies were written by the appellant. Theexplanation on this point does not convince this Court.10. The management, which is a bank engaged in businessof money transactions, must account for the same, with regard toeach and every rupee. It was not the personal money transactionbetween the appellant and Nagaratnam, but, purely an official one.Though the customer left the place after handing over money to thecashier under the impression that he gave Rs.40,000/- alone to him,it was incumbent upon the cashier, namely, appellant to inform thediscrepancy immediately to the Branch Manager and keep the amountin sundry account and reimburse the same, after securing thecustomer, which was not done. In other words, there was aclassical dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant. Had hebeen fair enough, there was another opportunity for him to informthe transaction to the Branch Manager, since he was with him from01.30 p.m. up to 09.30 p.m. on that day. Another circumstance tobe noted is, the appellant had taken the amount to his house andpaid it to the brother of Nagaratnam. Even though he alleged thatthe money was kept in table drawer of the bank, it was not properlyexplained before the enquiry officer nor did he inform his co-employees about the retaining of Rs.5,000/-. It goes withoutsaying, that the cashier holds an important duty of keeping cash ofthe bank carefully and accounting it to the superiors, which theappellant has miserably failed to do.11. The learned single Judge, after considering all theaspects, reached a conclusion that it cannot be said that themanagement has decided to punish the petitioner with dismissalwithout any evidence. This is not the case of "no evidence" northe finding of the inquiry is perverse. Therefore, there is noreason to reconsider the finding as to the penalty imposed on theappellant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the punishmentof dismissal awarded to the appellant is quite proper and find noreason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunaland the learned single Judge, since they were passed on properconsideration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, it suffersdismissal and is dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardixitToThe Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal,Chennai.+1cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, Advocate Sr 48224+1cc to Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,Advocate SR 48250TM (CO)km/18.8.W.A.No.3431 OF 2003