- (1.)The petitioner, who was appointed as a Driver-cum-Peon in the Indian Bank and posted in Branch Tijori district Meerut at the relevant time, has sought the quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Assistant General Manager by which he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 4th June, 2011 by which the appeal filed by him for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. It transpires that on 5th May, 2009 directions were issued to the petitioner, when he was deputed as a Cash Peon in the Currency Chest of the Bank at Meerut, to carry forty bundles of Rs. 100/- notes from the Chest Vault to the Sorting Hall. In the evening cash shortage of Rs. 10,000/- was detected in the cash withdrawn from the Chest Vault and when even after physical search and questioning of the staff, the whereabouts of the shortage could not be determined, CCTV footage was viewed in which it was seen that the petitioner was pocketing one section of Rs. 100/- notes. A charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2009 was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner for misappropriation of cash on 5th May, 2009 while he was working as a Cash Peon in the Meerut Currency Chest and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6th July, 2010 that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. A letter dated 7th July, 2010 was then sent to the petitioner by the Chief Manager of the Bank requiring the petitioner to submit his comments on the said report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a reply and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order dated 30th September, 2010 dismissing the petitioner from service, which order is as follows:
A charge-sheet No. COL/VG/207/2009 was issued on 4.12.2009 to Shri Anil Kumar for misappropriation of cash on 5.5.2009 while working as cash peon at Meerut Currency Chest.

The cash shortage was detected in the evening of 5.5.2009 and when after physical search and questioning of the staff no whereabouts of the cash was known, the CCTV footage was viewed wherein Sri Anil Kumar was clearly seen pocketing one section of Rs. 100/- denomination. Thus, establishing willful removal with the intention of stealing Rs. 10,000/- by Sri Anil Kumar.

CSE maintains that there was no shortage of cash on 5.5.2009 as such he is not guilty of any misappropriation.

I observe that cash shortage on 5.5.2009 was reported by the then Branch Manager in his letter dated 8.5.2009 addressed to the Circle Head, Lucknow Circle and also supported by the statements of the staff members and other evidence.

The contention of the CSE that the packet removed by him was given to him by Smt. Santosh Kumari certainly does not hold any ground because why this matter was not reported to the enquiry officer white deposing before him on 12.5.2009. Also the CCTV footage at no place shows Smt. Santosh Kumari handing over the packet to the CSE instead it is noticed that CSE was removing packet and keeping inside his own pocket.

I also take into cognizance the CCTV footage which clearly shows the CSE pocketing one section of Rs. 100/- denomination. The body language of the CSE at the time of removing the section is very clear indication of his intention and is irrefutable evidence.

I, therefore, concur with the findings of the EO that the statement of witness Santosh Kumari does not seem to be true.

I have gone through the enquiry records and perused the findings submitted by the EO. I concur with the findings of the EO.

It is, therefore, proved, beyond doubt in the enquiry proceedings that Sri Anil Kumar did misappropriate Rs. 10000/- cash on 5.5.2009.

Another opportunity was given to him during the personal hearing held on 27.9.2010, where in also he failed to present any material evidence as to why a different view should be taken from the findings of the enquiry.

The CSE displayed total absence of integrity and loyalty towards the Bank while misappropriating the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 5.5.2009. By his act the CSE broke the trust of Bank that had been placed on him. Hence the CSE is liable for strict punishment under the provisions of "The Memorandum of Settlement Disciplinary Action and Procedure dated 10.4.2002. Therefore, I hold him guilty of misconduct under clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement-Disciplinary Action and procedure dated 10.4.2002.

In view of the above, and taking into account all relevant facts I impose upon him the punishment of "DISMISSAL WITHOUT NOTICE" under clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement-Disciplinary Action and procedure dated 10.4.2002.

The punishment comes into immediate effect. He will be treated on suspension only from date of suspension till 30.9.2010.

(2.)The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 4th June, 2011, the relevant portion of which is as follows:
The appellant contended that one packet of Rs. 100/- denomination was stapled with pins and Mrs. Santosh Kumari had given that packet to him to remove the pins as packet with pins could not be exchanged. The packet belongs to Mrs. Santosh Kumari and it might not be mixed with other sorting bundles hence, it was pocketed by the Appellant at that time which was handed over to her after removing the pins from the packet. This fact was very much informed to the investigating officer but he did not given place of this fact in his report. The shortage was deposited by the Branch Manager. The shortage amount of Rs. 10000/- was no where mentioned in the record of the Bank. Out of his terminal benefits Rs. 10000/- was deducted and kept in the Sundries account. No where in the records of the Bank any amount is outstanding as due to the Bank from him. He prayed that to get fair and justice from the Appellate Authority and obliged.

After going through all the connected papers I observe the following:

It is neither necessary nor mandatory to file FIR before initiating any DP Action or placing a staff under suspension.

In currency chest, cash shortages have to be made good then and there.

Lodging of FIR is neither mandatory nor necessary to initiate DP action. Since money at Currency Chest is to be made good and no shortage can be reported to RBI, reporting of shortage has not been made.

On 8.5.2009 Branch Manager has reported the shortage of cash as on 5.5.2009 and this is also supported by the statements of the staff members. As shortage of cash could not be traced out, Mr. Ramchandani, Manager brought cash from outside and made good the shortage.

CSE is trying to take shelter under technicalities when the reality is that CSE has admitted his act and the Investigating Official recorded the admission in his report, with due witness. In the departmental enquiry, the said report was placed as Annexure-2, thus rendering necessary evidentiary value to the said admission.

Camera Nos. 4 and 5 of CCTV covered the said incident and the recordings/footage recorded at 10.42.20 on 5.5.2009 clearly captured the acts committed by the appellant, pointed out the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the contention of the Appellant about the absence of coverage by other cameras is not maintainable.

Enquiry Officer has observed in the brief that CSE was seen in CCTV recording pocketing Rs. 100/- denomination currency. It is true that there was a shortage of Rs. 10000/- in the cash which was brought on 5.5.2009 at sorting hall. Non entry in SR II in branch's records or by mere refusal of defence witnesses the truth cannot be denied. Non entry in SR II may be a technical mistake. The statement of Ms. Santosh Kumari is confusing. If CSE had taken the currency for exchange, then why she had not revealed this fact during the initial process of enquiry? There is no mention of this exchanged amount entry in the currency chest record. The recording of CCTV was shown to CSE during the enquiry. Enquiry Officer has finally observed that on the basis of documentary evidence, statement of witnesses and CCTV recordings the charge against the CSE is proved.

The contention of the appellant as to non-adherence to the clauses 11 and 12 of the Bipartite Settlement is not tenable as these clauses are properly adhered to in communicating to the CSE as well as in conducting the Departmental Proceedings.

Though the contention of Ms. Santosh Kumari having given a packet of Rs. 100/- was raised in the enquiry, the same was rejected as it did not have any proof. Enquiry Officer observed that there is no mention of this exchanged amount entry in the currency chest record.

The contention of the appellant that his suspension was illegal as nothing has been done for the prosecution of the appellant is not tenable as Clause in the Bipartite Settlement pertaining to Suspension does not stipulate prosecution as a precondition for placing an employee under suspension.

The Appellant made a representation on 8.3.2011 which is only an after though.

He has repeated what was stated in his earlier appeal dated 15.11.2010.

The Appellant could not produce any valid evidence or any new material facts during the personal hearing held on 8.3.2011 which could warrant reconsideration of the punishment awarded by the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the punishment given by the Assistant General. Manager/Disciplinary Authority is upheld. The Appeal preferred by Mr. Anil Kumar is dismissed as one without merits.

These two orders dated 30th September, 2010 and 4th June, 2011 have been impugned in the present petition.

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact there was no shortage of cash in the Bank on 5th September, 2009 because when the cash vault was closed in the evening, a report was submitted by the Officer of the Bank to the Headquarters of the Bank as also the Reserve Bank of India in which shortage of cash was not mentioned and if there had been any shortage of cash a First Information Report would have been lodged. He has also submitted that infact Smt. Santosh Kumari Cashier had given the packet of Rs. 100/- denomination to the petitioner for removing the pins and it is this packet which was kept by him in the pocket which act was seen in the CCTV footage. It is also his contention that the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated as the petitioner was not provided all the cassettes of the CCTV footage.