Bombay High Court
Dattatray Trimbak Kulkarni vs State Bank Of India, Bombay & Others on 11 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)ILLJ547BOM
JUDGMENT M.L. Pendse, J.
1. The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of India as Cashier in the year 1960. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Cashier on July 23, 1978 and posted at Talasari Branch. The petitioner was charge sheeted along with the Branch Manager and joint custodian on December 17, 1979. The three charges framed against the petitioner were
(a) While working as Head Cashier, in collusion with the Branch Manager, the Petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 10,500/- from the cash held by him in joint custody;
(b) The petitioner as Head Cashier of Talasari Branch failed and neglected to perform his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence; and
(c) The petitioner has borrowed large amounts from the Bank's constituents and other parties in contravention of Rule No. 41(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.
2. Respondent no. 1-Bank appointed S. G. Yardi as the Enquiry Officer and the statements of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner did not dispute that on checking, it was found that an amount of Rs. 10,500/- was missing from the cash available with the Branch. The petitioner could not explain how the amount was found missing but merely suggested that the lock might have been broken because there was not enough security. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that all the three charges were duly proved. The disciplinary authority thereupon accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed order on November 13, 1982 dismissing the petitioner from service in exercise of powers under Rule 49(h) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The delinquent carried an appeal as prescribed under the Rules but the appeal also ended in dismissal by order dated May 25, 1983 and that has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
3. Mr. Mandlik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that though it is undoubtedly true that the cash of Rs. 10,500/- was found missing from the Talasari Branch, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the said loss. The learned counsel suggested that the security available at the Branch was not sufficient and, therefore, it is possible that somebody might have lifted the amount without the knowledge of the petitioner. There is no merit in this submission. There was no complaint whatsoever of any theft or of any foul play in respect of the treasury of the Bank. What was noticed on checking was that certain currency notes were missing from the bundle of Rs. 100/- notes. The petitioner and the Branch Manager were jointly in charge of the cash as well as the pledged gold ornaments and other securities. In accordance with the terms of appointment of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to account for the cash in hand at the Branch and the petitioner could not escape the liability by merely claiming that he cannot explain how the cash was found missing. We are unable to find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mandlik that the charge of mis-appropriation was not established.
4. Mr. Mandlik then submitted that as soon as the cash was found missing, the petitioner reimbursed to the Bank the amount found missing and the petitioner did this on assurance that no action will be taken. We are unable to find any merit in this submission. The Bank did not prosecute the petitioner in a Criminal Court possibly because of the petitioner reimbursing the amount to the Bank, but the fact of reimbursement cannot oust the right of the Bank to hold an enquiry.
5. Mr. Mandlik then submitted that although the petitioner and the Branch Manager were charge-sheeted for mis-appropriation of the amount in collusion and both were found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, the Branch Manager was permitted to retire from service while the order of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner. Mr. Mandlik wanted to know why such a distinction is made while imposing punishment. Now, the order of dismissal clearly sets out that the past record of the petitioner was not without blemish. The petitioner was warned for the acts of misconduct such as engaging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties, borrowing monies and placing pecuniary obligations to the Bank's customers. The disciplinary authority did not find any past blemish against the Branch Manager. In any event, it is not open for this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency of the punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. In our judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition must fail.
6. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.