D.Jagadeesan v. Bank of BarodaNo.26 G' Block

Disciplinary Authority and thereby the Order of dismissal of thepetitioner is confirmed.3.00The Order of dismissal is based on an allegation ofmisappropriation of the bank money to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereare some more charges.4.00At the outset, this Court would like to clarify the law inrelation to the limits of the jurisdiction of High Court inentertaining a plea for writ of certiorari under article 226 of theConstitution is well settled. In order to justify the writ ofcertiorari, it must be show that the impugned order suffers from enerror apparent on the face of the record. It is clear that the errormust be an error of law and not error of fact, because an error of factthough serious, though it may be apparent on the face of the recordcannot sustain a claim for writ of certiorari. It is only an error oflaw that justify the issue of said writ, provided, ofcourse they are ofsuch a character as would reasonably be treated as erroneous apparent onthe face of the record. If a finding of a fact is made by the impugnedorder and it is shown that it is based on no evidence that would nodoubt be a point of law open to be urged under Article 226 of theconstitution. 5.00In P.C.Kakkar Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, UnitedCommercial Bank and others 2003 (4) SCC 364 wherein it is held that:"It is settled that the Court should not interfere with theadministrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers fromprocedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of theCourt in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moralstandards. In view of Wednesbury principle the court would notgo into the correctness of the choice made by the administratoropen to him and the court should not substitute its decision tothat of the administrator. The scope of judicial review islimited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not thedecision." 6.00There is no scope for interference, unless the Order is basedon no evidence or error of law and not error of fact and such error isapparent on the face of record. The Court would normally interfere, ifthe punishment imposed is too harsh, but it may be in exceptional andrare cases and in such cases, the Court can impose punishment byrecording cogent reasons.7.00The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution istruly wide but for that very reason it has to be exercised with greatcircumspection. It is not the High Court to constitute itself intoappellate Court over the impugned orders and re-adjudicate upon questionof fact decided by the enquiry authorities, the disciplinary authoritiesor the tribunals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.00In B.C.Chaturvedi V. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, thelarger bench of the Supreme Court of India held as follows :"12.Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but areview of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receivesfair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which theauthority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of theCourt. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct bya public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determinewhether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whetherrules of natural justice are complied with. Whether thefindings or conclusions are based on some evidence, theauthority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry hasjurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact orconclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence.Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of factor evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinaryproceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence andconclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinaryauthority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer isguilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power ofjudicial review does not act as appellate authority toreappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independentfindings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interferewhere the authority held the proceedings against the delinquentofficer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of naturaljustice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the modeof inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by thedisciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If theconclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would haveever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with theconclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make itappropriate to the facts of each case.13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority hascoextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature ofpunishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof oflegal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot bepermitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Unionof India v. H.C.Goel this Court held at P.728 that if theconclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by thedisciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent erroron the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writof certiorari could be issued.14. ...In State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow aBench of this Court of which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy andB.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence,went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal hadpower to appreciate the evidence while exercising power ofjudicial review and held that a Tribunal could not appreciatethe evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of thedisciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that theTribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence tosubstitute its own findings of fact to that of adisciplinary/appellate authority."9.00With this background, I shall now deal with the facts of thecase and discuss on merits and demerits of the rival contentions.10.00 FACTSOn 16.08.2001, the fateful day, an unpleasant incident occurred inthe premises of Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, where thepetitioner is working as a Senior Manager. 10:01 Mr.Jagannathan was the Chief Cashier of the Branch. Thepetitioner as an Officer-in-charge of the verification of the cash,checked the physical cash along with the Chief Cashier. They foundeight bundles of Rs.500/- denominations totalling Rs.50,000/- Afterverification of the cash, the petitioner requested the Chief Cashier tobring the Cash Scroll lying on the table of the petitioner andaccordingly the Chief Cashier went out and brought the Cash scroll.After verifying the cash scroll, the petitioner signed on the same andentrusted the Chief Cashier to keep the cash in the safe room and thepetitioner came out of the room. Within few minutes, the said ChiefCashier returned back to the petitioner and told him that one bundle ofRs.500/- section was missing. The petitioner went inside and verifiedand thereafter not satisfied with his counting, the petitionerrequested Mr.Dhandapani, another employee of the bank for a check.After verification by him, it was found that one bundle of Rs.500/-bundle amounting to Rs.50,000/- is missing. 10:02 According to the management, the petitioner did not take anyfurther steps, however the Chief Cashier Jagannathan made some effortsto trace the cash near the place and thereafter the said Chief CashierJagannathan reported the matter to the Chief Manager of the bank orallyand thereafter in writing. The letter in writing of Jagannathan is at7.30. p.m. The missing of the cash is at about 3.15 p.m. Thereafter,the petitioner addressed a letter in writing to the Chief Manager at8.30 p.m. The timings are very important. 10:03 There was a search in the bank on 16.08.2001 and the missingbundle was not traced. The matter was reported to the superior officeon 17.08.2001. A team of officials by name N.Chandrasekaran, ActingChief Manager, Mylapore Branch and Mr.Kambarajan of the Regional Officecame to the T.Nagar branch and investigated into the facts andcircumstances which took place on 16.08.2001. They met the ChiefManager and they have verified the two letters given by the HeadCashier as well as the petitioner. The strong room was not opened. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and the Head Cashier were advised to stay away from theirroutine work, but available in the bank itself for any deliberationsand they conducted a detail investigation in the bank and interactedwith the petitioner as well as the Head Cashier and recorded theirversions. 10:04 According to the preliminary investigation, the Head Cashierinformed the investigating team that he has received six sections ofRs.500/- from the Receipts Cashier by name Mr.Sambasivarao and he hadmade two sections from his receipts and loose cash. In all he has madeeight sections of Rs.500/- at the end of the day. After tallying cash,he has requested the cash verifying officer that is the petitioner toverify cash. Accordingly, the petitioner came to the cash cabin forverifying cash and the petitioner verified the cash and the petitionerrequested the Chief Cashier to bring the Cash receipts scroll from histable for verifying the final cash balance and after satisfying himself,the petitioner told the head cashier to keep the cash inside safe andwent away. As per his usual practice, the Head Cashier verified thesections in the cash box and found one Rs.500/- section missing andimmediately he brought the same fact to the notice of the petitioner,who called Dhandapani, another officer to verify the cash again. Afterverification, Dhandapani also confirmed shortage of Rs.50,000/- incash. It is the Head Cashier, Jagannathan, who reported the matter tothe Chief Manager at around 4.30 p.m. and all the staff members searchedin and around cash cabin, but could not find the missing cash andthereafter at 7.30.p.m., he gave a written report to the Chief Manager.Till then petitioner has not given any report either orally or inwriting.10:05 While so the preliminary investigation by the investigationteam discloses the following facts when they enquire the petitioner. Thepetitioner admitted that he was called by the Head Cashier to verify thecash and found the same tallying with the final cash balance in the cashbalance book. After signing the cash balance book, he requested theHead cashier to bring cash receipts scroll from his seat to verify thecash balance. After verification, the petitioner left the cabinadvising the Head cashier to keep the cash in the safe room. Thus theversion of the petitioner as well as the Head Cashier is one and thesame up to this stage. After five minutes, the Head Cashier returnedback to petitioner and informed that one section of Rs.500/- wasmissing. Then he requested Mr.Dhandapani to carry out verification ofcash and after verifying, he confirmed shortage of Rs.50,0000/- bundle.Thus there is no inconsistency between the statement of the petitioneras well as Head Cashier. Both of them confirmed that only thepetitioner and the Head cashier were in the cash cabin, at the time ofverification of the cash and no body else were inside the cash room andafter verifying the Head Cashier was sent out to bring Cash receiptsscroll and accordingly the Head Cashier went and brought the Cashreceipts scroll and there after the petitioner directed the head cashierto keep the cash in safe as it is tallied. It is the Head Cashier againverified and found one section of Rs.500/- is missing and immediatelyhe made few and cry. At the preliminary investigation stage, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner as well as the head cashier did not accept having taken themissing cash. 10:06 Since the missing cash was not found, a police complaint waslodged and the Pondy Bazaar Police received the report from the ChiefManager on 17.08.2001. 10:07 Surprisingly, the police neither registered nor investigatedthe case but they started enquiring and made efforts to settle thematter instead of doing the regular police duties as per the mandate ofthe criminal procedure code. The action of the Pondy Bazaar police ishighly objectionable. When the Chief Manager of the bank reported inwriting to the police that the cash was missing in the bank and when acognizable offence of theft is reported to the police, the Pondy Bazaarpolice did not register the case and did not investigate into thematter. It is a clear lapse on the part of the police. Therefore a copyof the order is marked to the Director General of Police, Tamilnadu,Chennai and Commissioner of Police, Chennai to verify, though late, thereasons for the lapses committed by the then police officers, so thatsuch lapses would not repeat in future. The two officials, that isDirector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police have toinitiate necessary enquiry against the concerned officials, for notregistering the case and not commencing investigation, and started doingsome mediation to settle the matter by indulging in a discrete enquiry,which is not permissible under the code when a cognizable offence isreported.10:08 The Pondy Bazaar police took the petitioner as well as theHead Cashier to the police station interrogated and kept them in thePondy Bazaar police station till 4.30 p.m. There after, both thepetitioner and the Head Cashier were brought back to the bank forfurther search and they could not trace any amount. Again they weretaken back to the police station along with two officials, who came asan inspection team and the Chief Manager of the bank and there werecertain discussions and deliberations.10:09 The case record also discloses that the police suggested thepetitioner and Head Cashier to share 50-50 burden and to contributeRs.25,000/- each, so that there shall not be any problem. The ChiefCashier refused to give any amount stating that he is not responsiblefor the missing of the cash and the police can do whatever they like.The Pondy Bazaar police threatened that if they register a case andinvestigate into the crime the officials will loose their job and itwill have a serious consequence. The Head Cashier did not agree andwanted investigation, still the police did not register the case. Thereasons is known only to the then Station Officer only. All these factsare noticed by the Court in the record produced by Bank.10:10 While so the petitioner had given a letter addressed to theChief Manager to the Bank to make good the amount of Rs.50,000/- before25.08.2001. This is a very important document in favour of themanagement and against the delinquent charged officer as the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- The forceful argument is why should he agreefor the same. There is no convincing reply from petitioner. 10:11 Thereafter on 18.08.2001, disciplinary proceedings wereinitiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension inthe public interest. 10:12 In this interesting episode some more scenes have come on tothe screen.10.13 First in the sequence is that the petitioner has issued threecheques in favour of two chit fund company limited and they are receivedby the petitioner's bank for clearing on 16.08.2001, the day on whichthe cash was found missing. The petitioner is having Savings BankAccount No.20048 in the same bank and as on 16.08.2001, the cash balancein the account of the petitioner is less than Rs.100/- whereas, thethree cheques amounting is more than Rs.80,000/- The details of thecheques are:Cheque No.187311 in favour of Shri Ram Chits Private Limited forRs.50,000/-Cheque No.187312 in favour of Shri Ram Chits Private Limited forRs.20,747/-Cheque No.187314 in favour of Mayavaram Chit for Rs.11,750/- When the cheques were received by the branch of the petitioner andwhen there was no sufficient funds, the concerned clerk by nameG.Ramachandran contacted the petitioner and informed about receiving ofthree cheques without balance and the petitioner told him that he willprovide funds partly for honouring the cheque for Rs.11,750 and theother two cheques can be returned with the reason as post-dated. At this stage, it is to note that the cheques are issued on30.07.2001 while so the date is altered as 30.07.2002. The same date hasbeen written once again in the cheque. The petitioner requested Mr.G.Ramachandran, the Special Assistantwho has received the three cheques to return those two altered cheques,as they are post dated and informed that he will provide funds forhonouring the other cheque for Rs.11,750/- and immediately oneMr.Venkataram, whose wife is having SB account with the branch of thepetitioner permitted to transfer Rs.6,500/- from the Savings BankAccount No.22665 of Mythri the wife of Venkataram to the account of thepetitioner and the balance was paid by the petitioner and the cheque forRs.11,750/- was honoured and the other two cheques one for Rs.50,000/-and the other for Rs.20,747/- are returned with reasons post-dated. This incident happened on 16.08.2001 before 3.00 p.m. Themissing of the cash on the same day after 3.15 p.m. These circumstance cannot be ignored at all. At the level ofpreliminary enquiry, at regular enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and by the Appellate authority and by the Court of law, this undisputedfact is to be taken in to consideration while appreciating the casefacts.10:14 The other important incident is that on 24.08.2001, that isone day before the return of amount of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner,there was a strange incident in the bank. One bundle of Rs.500/-amounting to Rs.50,000/- was found on the Accountant's table behind thecomputer and Mr.Sreedhar who is working as an Accountant on that day. Onnoticing the said bundle, the same fact was informed to the ChiefManager of the bank and he has taken instructions from the GeneralManager, South Zone, who personally came to T.Nagar branch and foundthat Rs.50,000/- bundle in a cover and instructed them to keep it inthe current account Sundry Deposit Account in the safe custody. Along with that bundle there was a note which reads as follows:/Jagadeesan your name is spoiled, hard working spoiled, futurespoiled most happy -money returned./Jagadeesan is the petitioner, a well directed drama is introduced.10.15 As promised the petitioner deposited Rs.50,000 with the bankon 25.08.200110.16 After suspension a charge sheet was issued to the petitionermaking the following allegations:01. You have misappropriated/embezzled cash of Rs.50,000/- (onesection of Rs.500 denomination) from the Cashier's till whileverifying the cash balance on 16.08.2001.02. To facilitate your above act you have deliberatelyinstructed the Head Cashier to go out of the cash cabin and tobring cash scroll lying in your seat which was supposed to havebeen verified by you simultaneously along with Cashier's cashbalance book.03.Consequently when cash shortage was reported by the HeadCashier to you, as a Joint Custodian you have neither takenproper care to report the matter to the Chief Manager of thebranch immediately nor taken any remedial step immediately toretrieve the cash. Instead, you asked a Junior Officer to checkthe cash again without apprising him the seriousness of thematter and giving him proper guidance.04. Your above act of misappropriation /embezzlement of cash ofRs.50,000/- was admitted by you on 17.08.2001 by your letteraddressed to the Chief manager giving an assurance to make goodthe loss before 25.08.2001.05.(a) You have issued cheques No.187311 and 187312 forRs.50,000/- and Rs.20,747/- respectively favouring Shriram ChitsTamilnadu (P) Ltd. In your SB account No.200048 with our T.Nagarbranch without providing sufficient funds in your account. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) You have altered the dates of these instruments after thesame were presented in clearing on 16.08.2001 in order to returnthe cheques for a reason other than "insufficient funds" so asto escape liability under section 138 of Negotiable InstrumentsAct, 1881.(c) Furthermore, you have also indulged yourself in tampering ofabove instruments drawn on the branch where you were working onthe said day.06. (a) You have unauthorisedly transferred a sum of Rs.6,500/-on 16.08.2001 from an account of a client of the branch holdingSB account No.22265 to your above account with a view toproviding funds for passing a cheque for Rs.11,750/- issued byyou and presented in clearing on 16.08.2001.(b) You have deposited a cheque No.562055 dt. 24.11.2000 forRs.25,000/- drawn by Mrs.Shanthakrishnan, a customer of the bankhaving SB account No.1242 with M.R.C Nagar branch to the creditof your SB account No.147460 with Mount Road branch on27.11.2000.(c) The above acts also placed you under a pecuniary obligationto persons having dealings with the bank which is prohibitedunder the service regulations.07.You have not managed your private financial affairs properlyand you are incurring debts habitually as is evident from thefollowing transactions in your SB accouts.SB account No.147460 with Mount Road Branch(a) You have issued -22- cheques in your above account during15.09.1999 to 14.02.2001 favouring M/s.Mayavaram Financial ChitCorporation Ltd., aggregating Rs.95,143/-Eg. Cheque No.333621 for Rs.4,658/- debited on 1.09.1999.Cheque No.379153 for Rs.7,500/- debited on 14.02.2001.(b) You have issued -22-cheques during 03.12.1999 to 02.08.2000favouring Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. aggregating Rs.84,268/-Eg.Cheque No.337806 for Rs.2,250/- debited on 03.12.1999.Cheque No.405068 for Rs.4,145/- debited on 02.08.2001.(c) You have issued a cheque No.385103 for Rs.750/- favour inShriram Chits Tamilnadu Ltd. debited to the account on09.05.2001, in addition to the cheques issued by you asmentioned in Serial No.5 (a) above.(d) You have issued cheque No.344073 for Rs.36,150/- and chequeNo.379158 for Rs.12,330/- favouring Shri Raghavendra Chit Funds(P) Ltd. Debited to the accounts on 12.02.2000 and 13.03.2001respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) You have routed through the above accounts cheques drawn inUS Dollars to the extent of Rs.69,100/- on -5-occasions during09.11.2000 to 12.03.2001.(f) You have deposited a cheque to the credit of your aboveaccount for Rs.64,519.10 issued by Standard Chartered Bank on28.11.2000.SB Account No.200048 with T.Nagar Branch(g) You have issued -5- cheques in your above account favouringM/s Mayavaram Financial Chit Corporation Ltd. AggregatingRs.34,583/- during 12.06.2001 to 16.08.2001.Eg.Cheque No.753251 for Rs.7,500/- debited on 12.06.2001.Cheque No.187314 for Rs.11,750/- debited on 16.08.2001.(h) You have issued a cheque No.753254 for Rs.4,500/- favouringStandard Chartered Bank Ltd. debited to the account on23.06.2001.(i) You have issued a cheque No.753253 for Rs.10,000/- favouringCiti Bank Cards debited to the account on 16.06.2001.(j) You have deposited cheques for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.35,000/-on 21.07.2001 and 24.08.2001 respectively drawn by privateparties to the credit of your above account.08. Also your dealings with certain financial institutions likeMayavaram Financial Chit Corporation, Shriram Chits etc. Werenot reflected in your annual return of Assets & Liabilitiessubmitted by you as per Service Regulations as is evident fromthe transactions as mentioned in Serial No. 7(a) to (j).10.17 The charge sheet is dated 11.09.2001. The petitioner has senthis reply on 24.09.2001. A detailed reply is sent denying all theallegations. This is the first letter from the petitioner on thecharges levelled against him. Therefore the court is of the opinion toreproduce the same."Please refer to your letter RO:TN 1:AUD:37/679 dated September11/13, 2001 and reply as under.For item number (1) to (4) of your letter, I deny the chargethat I had misappropriated Rs.50,000/- from cashier's till on16.08.2001.For item number (2), I had requested the cashier to bring thecash scroll as no subordinate staff was available nearby.For item number (3), I had requested an officer who had richexperience in cash department as Head Cashier for verificationexplaining him that Rs.50,000/- was found short. By 4.30 p.m.The matter was reported to the Chief Manager and three to fourtimes I have requested him to make a police complaintimmediately. However, he was contacting Regional Office and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Zonal Office for assistance. Even I contacted both RO and ZOmany times, but got only a vague guidance.For item number (4), the matter was referred to local police andmyself and cashier were taken to the police station for enquiry.The police harassment was so much that it had affected meconsiderably. Owning moral responsibility, I gave a letter thatI will make good the amount before 25.08.2001. This I had givenpurely under pressure.For item number (5), I deny the charge that I have altered thedates of the instruments with a view to escape the liabilityunder section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. I request you to kindlymake the instruments verified by some Handwriting Experts, sothat the same can be proved.For item number {6(a)}, Sri Venkataraman, husband of the accountholder came to the bank by around 12.45 PM and I requested himfor a transfer of funds for Rs.6,500/- for which he agreed andsaid that he will get a confirmation cheque after his wifereturns from Madurai. I understand that the confirmatory chequehas already been collected by the branch.For item Number {6(b)} and {6(c)}, Sri. Krishnan is my friendsince 1975 and he requested for a hand loan of Rs.25,000/- for ashort period. He gave a cheque for the same which was signed byhim only. (I do not know whether it was "Joint-account" withhis wife's name or "single account"). It was towards repaymentof hand loan taken by him.For item number (7), I am a member of The Mayavaram FinancialChit Corporation Limited since 1975 and for your kindinformation I would like to state here that they are notfinanciers but only chit promoters of repute for more than 40years. The chit payments made by me are only savings and notdebts.To help my brother's son who received full fee waiver andscholarship from Vanderbilt University, Nashville for his post-graduation studies, I took a loan from Standard Chartered Bankand now the same will be cleared shortly out of the prized moneyfrom the above mentioned chit savings.For item number {7(c)}, a cheque for Rs.750/- was issued towardsentrance fee and now I have conveyed them that I am notinterested in the membership of the chit, since they havealtered the dates, etc., putting me in lot of problems.For item number {7(d)}, I am regular member in Sri RagavendraChit Fund Private Limited. A cheque for Rs.36,150/- was givenwhen I received my wage revision arrears and other cheque forRs.12,330/- out myself and wife's salary.For item number {7(e)}, USD 1500 was given by my brother's sonby way of 5 cheques towards repayment of loan given to him,which was encashed on 5 occasions.For item number {7(f)}, I have deposited a cheque forRs.64,519.10 issued by Standard Chartered Bank for meeting bybrother's son's travel and other incidental expenses inconnection with his study in U.S. The same will be repaidshortly out of the chit amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For item number {7(g)}, I have issued five cheques as stated forchits in which I am a member in Mayavaram Financial ChitCorporation Ltd.For item number {7(h)}, I have issued a cheque for Rs.4,500/-favouring Standard Chartered Bank towards Card payment.For item no.{7(i)}, I have issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/-favouring Citi Bank Cards for cash withdrawals made for urgentmedical expenses of my parents.For item no.{7(j)}, a cheque for Rs.25,000/- deposited, wasgiven b y Sri Krishnan's friend towards hand loan taken by SriKrishnan.Cheques for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were deposited wereissued by my brother-in-law and co-brother respectively since Ihave to mobilise funds to honour my commitment to payRs.50,000/- before 25.8.2001.For item no.(8), since major part of money invested in MayavaramFinancial Chit Corporation Ltd., and Sri Ragavendra Chit FundPrivate Ltd, belongs to my wife's savings, I felt the same neednot be shown in the Assets and Liabilities Statement. However,I regret the lapse and include the same from current year'sstatements and request you to condone the same.Trust the above explanation will help to prove that I am notguiltyI therefore request you to revoke the suspension order andpermit me to join for duty at the earliestI express my sincere thanks for giving me an opportunity toexplain my position."10:18 Thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated. Charges areframed and the statement of allegations are also issued. The details ofthe documents and the particulars of the witnesses were furnished to thecharged officer and enquiry commenced on 15.05.2002 onwards. Thecharged officer along with his representative attended the enquiry. ThePresenting Officer appeared on behalf of the management. The enquirywas held strictly in accordance with the procedure and witnesses wereexamined on behalf of the management and on behalf of the delinquent.Documents are marked and officially the Enquiring Officer has submittedhis report, holding the petitioner guilty. 10:19 Thereafter the enquiry report was communicated to thepetitioner by the Disciplinary Authority calling for a show cause andthe petitioner gave a detailed reply. After receiving the reply to thesecond show cause notice the second respondent the disciplinaryauthority passed a order accepting the enquiry report and proposed thepunishment of dismissal from service. 10:20 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal.The first respondent Appellate Authority after verifying the facts andcircumstances and considering the plea taken by the petitioner and afterverifying the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the conclusions ofthe Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed thedismissal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10:21 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writpetition.11.00 Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned counselappearing for the respondents.12:00 POINT The point for determination is whether the impugned orders of therespondents are legal and justified or liable to be set aside.12.01 I have minutely perused the impugned order of the firstrespondent. The Appellate Authority stated the facts in brief and notedthe findings of the enquiry and verified the grounds of appeal and madean elaborate discussion on appeal in Page 3 of the order. It is a wellreasoned order. In fact the Disciplinary Authority also has passed avery reasoned order. The allegations levelled against the petitionerare stated, the evidence during the enquiry was highlighted and why theyare accepting the evidence is also mentioned and the reasons areassigned and how the misconduct is established and finally the ordersare passed by both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellateauthority. 12.02 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised thefollowing grounds. It is stated that the report of the Enquiring Authority is perverseand without any evidence. It is a general ground. The attention of theCourt is drawn to the report of the Enquiry Officer. I have minutelygone through the report of the Enquiry Officer. He has mentioned eachand every allegation. For example, the first allegation by the enquiryofficer is that the petitioner has misappropriated/embezzled cash ofRs.50,000/- from the cashier's till while verifying the cash balance on16.08.2001. The Enquiry Officer noted the evidence on behalf of themanagement produced by the presenting officer Ex.P1-(a) is the cashbalance book and it is signed by the petitioner as well as the ChiefCashier. The enquiry officer discussed the behaviour of the petitioneras well as the chief cashier at the time of incident. In the instant case, the Chief Cashier requested the verifyingofficer that is the petitioner to verify the cash and accordingly thepetitioner tallied the cash and at the request of the petitioner, theChief Cashier went out of the cash cabin to bring the cash scroll andafter bringing the cash scroll the petitioner directed the Chief Cashierto keep the cash in the safe and stated that the cash is tallying and hewent out. The chief cashier as per his usual practice counted the cashand found one bundle of Rs.500/- amounting to Rs.50,000/- is missing andimmediately he brought it to the notice of the petitioner. But thepetitioner is not serious about the shortage and directed one Dhandapanito verify and petitioner did not do that job. The chief cashier is thefirst person to report to the Chief Manager about the missing of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cash and not the petitioner and a written report is given by him at thefirst instance and there after the petitioner has given a written reportand there is a delay on the part of the petitioner to report the matterto the Chief Manager. All these facts are discussed in detail. There after on 17.08.2001, after the police report, what allhappened was also discussed by the Enquiry Officer as borne out throughthe evidence of the witnesses. The Head Cashier is examined as PW2.Chief Manager is examined as PW1. Dhandapani PW4. The evidence PW2clearly established that the police suggested to share 50-50 to makegood the loss, but he refused to do so and he is ready to face anyconsequences whereas the petitioner has given Ex.P2 letter. That heshall pay back Rs.25,000/-. This fact has also been discussed by theEnquiry Officer in detail. Thus it is a case where the Chief Cashierrefused to pay a single Paise and ready to face any consequence, whereasthe petitioner has given a letter offering to pay Rs.50,000/- before25.08.2001. He is the scribe of the letter. This letter is given on17.08.2001.12:03 Thus I find no merit in the argument that there is noevidence. The report is clear and cogent on the charges, the evidenceand the findings.12:04 The forceful argument across the bar at this stage beforethis Court is that the letter of petitioner is a tainted letter and itis obtained by force and threat and by false promise that there shall beno action against the petitioner. I am not accepting this the argument. The petitioner is an educatedperson working as a Senior Manger in the bank and he is fully awareabout the consequence of such act committed by him and the problems bygiving such letter. In fact the evidence on record discloses that thepetitioner expressed the doubts that if he give such letter the samewill be used against him, but still he has given that letter. Thereforeit is not as if the petitioner is innocent and he is not aware about theconsequences by giving such letter. It is a case that knowing fullywell the petitioner himself has given Ex.P5 the letter that he will payback the money by 25.08.2001. Ex.P5 letter is prepared by thepetitioner on a white paper with his own pen. No doubt he did not admitthat he had taken away the cash. There is no admission that he hasmisappropriated the amount. The letter is reproduced as it is:"In connection with the cash shortage on 16.08.2001 ofRs.50,000/- I will make good the same before 25.08.2001."Why should he give this letter, if he is not involved in theincident? There are no convincing answers. Though Ex.P5 do not amountto admission of guilt but the various circumstances relied by theEnquiry Officer, accepted by Disciplinary Authority and the AppellateAuthority clearly establish the guilt of the petitioner. Why thepetitioner has submitted that letter Ex.P5 is for him to explain and oneneed not draw any conclusion when there is no acceptable explanation itis held that Ex.P5 is given with consent and there is no force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore it is not correct to state that there is no evidence andthe report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. 12:05 The various circumstances relied by the Enquiry Officer thatthe petitioner has issued two cheques in favour of Shriram ChitsTamilnadu Limited and they were presented for clearing on 16.08.2001 andthere are no sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Hencethey are ought to be returned and infact they are returned unpaid.However with a note that the cheques are post dated and they arereturned at the instance of the petitioner. The evidence ofG.Ramachandran PW3 clearly discloses that the petitioner instructed PW3to return the cheques as they are post dated and on verification of thecheques they are tampered. The year is changed from 2001 to 2002 and onthe cheque the date is written as 30.07.2002 and how the petitioner isable to know about the change of date is another big question and whohas committed this forgery is another offence to be investigated by theconcerned. However there is no such investigation but admittedly thecheque is tampered. The statement of Shriram Chits officials discloseswhen they presented the cheques the date on cheques are 30.07.2001 only.Whereas these dates were tampered enroute. That is from the stage ofReserve Bank of India to the stage of petitioner's bank and why shouldthere be a tampering during the transit of the banks when the ShriramChits has presented the cheque with the date bearing 30.07.2001. Whenthere is no tampering of the date when the cheque was presented to theirbanker. Surprisingly the date is tampered and admittedly the petitioneris not having sufficient funds in his account by the time cheque isreceived by his bank for clearance and on the same day an amount ofRs.50,000/- was missing from the bank and the petitioner participated asone of the verifying officer and his conduct prior to soon after theincident of missing of the cash is very relevant. 12.06 The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that anamount of Rs.50,000/- was found in the bank premises on 24.08.2001 andit is the missed cash and the bank officials have suppressed the sameand even did not reflect the said fact in their charge memos and did notproduce this amount before the Enquiry and did not permit the chargedofficer to summon the said cover during the enquiry and it is nothingbut suppressal of the material fact by the bank officials and by theEnquiry Officer. Therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. 12.07 At request of both, the said cover containing Rs.50,000/- asmentioned above is received by this Court and this Court has opened thesealed cover in the open Court in presence of both parties and foundthat all the notes are loose Rs.500 notes amounting to Rs.50,000/- Atthis stage, it is to be noted that the currency note numbers of themissing bundle are not noted because it is stated that it is notpossible to note the currency numbers of the old currency notes and onlywhen they are received from the Reserve Bank, the numbers can be notedand there is no such procedure. This fact is conceded by the counselfor the writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The fact remains that the numbers of the currency notes of thebundle which was missed on 16.08.2001 is not known to anyone. In suchcircumstances, it is impossible to verify whether the bundle which wastraced on the accountant table on 24.08.2001 is the same bundle whichwas lost or it is a different bundle. 12.08 The evidence on record discloses that there was a thoroughsearch with regard to the missing bundle on 16.08.2001 evening and onthe whole of 17.08.2001. The petitioner also participated in thesearch. They were not able to trace the missing bundle either near thecash cabin, or on the table of the petitioner or in the almirah of thepetitioner or on the table of the Chief Cashier or on the almirah ornear the accountant table or by the side of the computer where thebundle had actually found from 16.08.2001 till 24.08.2001 the bundle wasnot seen in the bank premises. No one knows about the availability ofthe said bundle till 24.08.2001. All of a sudden, this bundle appearedon the table of the accountant. 12.09 Mr.Sridhar the Accountant is not connected with the missingof cash bundle on 16.08.2001, because he has not participated in theverification of the cash. The two persons who are involved in theentire episode is the petitioner and the Head Cashier. The Head cashierhas offered for any sort of investigation or enquiry and infact invitedthe police investigation. Whereas the petitioner did not resort forthat and he has given a letter Ex.P5 offering to pay bak the amount. 12.10 On the next day the petitioner was suspended and thepetitioner was facing disciplinary action. In such circumstances, evenif the amount of Rs.50,000/- is taken away by some third party includingthe Chief Cashier. there is no necessity for those persons to bring backthe Rs.50,000/- and keep it on the table of the Accountant by the sideof computer as if the bundle was found in the bank. The reason is thatthe petitioner is already facing trouble and he was placed undersuspension and his entry to the bank is prohibited and all fingers arepointing at the petitioner only. In such case there is no necessity fora third party, even if he has committed the theft to bring back the cashinto the bank premises as if the missing bundle was found in the bank. 12.11 Therefore it is nothing but a new scene introduced at theinstance of the petitioner or by the well wishers of the petitioner tocreate suspicion that the missing bundle was found in the bank itself.In this drama this scene is created at the instance of the petitionerand this has been rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer as nothing todo with the missing of the cash on 16.08.2001. If this bundle was foundeither on 16.08.2001 or 17.08.2001 during the thorough search of thebank by various people, then petitioner could get some benefit out ofit. But it was planted nearly after a week. 12.12 Therefore the tracing of bundle of Rs.50,000/- in the bankpremises has nothing to do with the misconduct on 16.08.2001 allegedagainst the petitioner. There is no access between the alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ misconduct and the subsequent noticing of Rs.50,000/- bundle in thebank. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioneris rejected on this ground also.The Registry is directed to return back the said bundle ofRs.50,000/- with note to the Bank.12:13 All these aspects have been taken note by the Enquiry Officerand these facts have been established through detailed documentaryevidence and cogent evidence that both oral and documentary evidence.After considering evidence of witnesses, who are subjected for crossexamination by the Charged Officer, the Enquiry Officer gave a specificfinding. There is no violation of principles of natural justice in thiscase. 12.14 When an enquiry is conducted on charges of mis-conduct by apublic servant and when the enquiry was held by the Competent Officer byfollowing the rules of natural justice and the findings and theconclusions of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and the EnquiryOfficer has jurisdiction to conduct the Enquiry and he has every powerand charge to have a finding of a fact, basing on the evidence and theDisciplinary Authority has accepted the said evidence and theDisciplinary Authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent is guiltyof the charges. 12:15 In such circumstances, the Court in its power of judicialreview does not act as a Appellate Authority to re-appreciate theevidence and to arrive at its own findings on the evidence. The Courtcan interfere with the conclusion and can mould the relief so as to makeit proper, if there is inconsistency with rules of natural justice orany violation of statutory rules prescribing the code of enquiry orwhere the conclusions by the Disciplinary Authority is based on noevidence. 12.16 In this case, there is no such irregularity or illegalitycalling for interference by this Court. The Disciplinary Authority isthe sole judge of the facts, where appeal is presented, the appellateauthority has to reappreciate the evidence. 12.17 Therefore this Court is of the opinion that there are nomerits in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner to interferewith the findings of the Disciplinary Authority or the AppellateAuthority. The impugned order is legal.13:00 PUNISHMENTWith regard to the quantum of punishment, this Court is of theopinion that it can examine the same.13.01 The term dismissal or termination of service under theservice law is used always to refer a punitive action. But dismissalfrom service is a capital punishment because it is an economic death ofa workman the employee. Getting a new opening elsewhere and start his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ career is very difficult for a dismissed employee particularly in thepresent days. Infact the real victims are the dependants of thedismissed employee, whose bread winner is rendered jobless not only inthe present establishment but throughout his career. The future of thefamily is bleak and in turn cause great hardship to the society. 13:02 But at the same time discipline is very much essential inevery walks of human life may be in the family or in the society or inthe bank. Corruption, committing criminal offences are very serious.13:03 In the instant case, the various facts and circumstancesdiscloses that the petitioner has put in 30 years of meritoriousservice. It appears there are no charges against him. However thatcannot be a ground to exonerate him. But in this case the petitionergave three cheques and three cheques reached the bank for clearance on16.08.2001 and he was able to secure funds to clear one check amount toRs.11,750/- and two other cheques he was not able to clear. Thereafterthere was a missing of cash amounting to Rs.50,000/- and during thepreliminary enquiry and preliminary investigation on 16.08.2001 and18.08.2001, the petitioner has offered to pay Rs.50,000/- by 25.08.2001.This letter is neither confessional letter nor admitting the act ofmisappropriation. But he offered to pay the amount. In the evidence itwas elicited on his behalf that he offered to pay this amount being asenior officer entrusted with the job. The evidence of Senior Managerof T.Nagar who is the member of the investigating team along withChandrasekaran discloses that the petitioner is willing to give aletter to make good the amount of Rs.50,000/-. The amount ofRs.50,000/- has been returned to the bank and there is no monetary lossto the bank. However act of the petitioner amounts to a grave misconductand he is not entitled to continue in the bank service. But howeverconsidering all the above facts, the Court is of the opinion thatpunishment of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justicebecause the petitioner and his family can lead some respectable life inthe society with the punishment of compulsory retirement rather than thepunishment of dismissal.14:00 RESULT In the result, the writ petition is dismissed however with thepunishment of compulsory retirement and the punishment of dismissal isset aside. No Costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsvki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Executive Director & Appellate Authority.Bank of Baroda, No.26 G' Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (E), Mumbai – 500 051.2. The General Manager (SZ) & Disciplinary Authority.Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch,No.15, Gopalakrishna Iyer Street,T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. W.P.No.35916 of 2003 PPV(CO)RVL 12.02.2007