Allahabad High Court
Sri Krishna Mohan Son Of Shri S.G. ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 20 April, 2007
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 4.6.1973 as Godown Keeper-cum-clerk in the Chowk Branch of State Bank of India. Shshjahanpur. He was permanently transferred to Chandausi Branch of the same district vide order dated 9.2.1980 and was to be relieved on 16.2.80 for joining at his transferred place of posting after availing joining time etc. It is alleged that Sri Amar Nath, the then Branch Manager of Chowk Branch of Stale Bank of India. Shahjahanpur personally visited the place of the petitioner and informed hm vide undated letter (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) that it is not possible to relieve him and also requested him to come to the Bank on 18.2.1980. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the office on 18.2.1980. The petitioner was taken by the Branch Manager for inspection of various godowns which were under the charge of the petitioner when the godown of M/s. Shree Metal Industries was opened, it was found that some materials had been removed.
3. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.2.1980. Charge sheet dated 10.8.1982 was served upon him levelling the charge that:
On the 18th February. 1980 when the Katghar (Moradabad) Branch Manager accompanied by you checked the godown of M/s. Shree Metal Industries. Moradabad, the stocks of Patti Circles. Doll and mug valued at Rs. 88.960/- were found short in your presence. The godown was under your charge and you had been conducting pledge and delivery condition. The last operations of pledge and delivery were conducted by you on the 12th February. 1980 and since that day till the 18th February, no operation was made in the godown. No indication of tampering with the godown lock or otherwise forced removed of stocks was found and obviously you in collusion with the borrowers helped them removing the stocks from godown sureptitiously.
4. After conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.1.1985.
5. The defence of the petitioner was that he was served with permanent transfer order on 9.2.19X0 for being relieved on 16.2.1980 without ensuring that the charge of godown is properly handed over, liven on 16.2.1980 when he was given farewell. Sri A.N. Khanna. P.W. 2 did not indicate if he has to hand over the charge of eodowns before being relieved from the Branch on his transfer order stands cancelled; that the Branch Manager was allowing irregularities in the borrowers account since the beginning by not making proper appraisal, enhancing the limit in hurry, allowing irregular drawing without the primary security etc.; that in view of the fact that godown keys always remain in possession of the Branch Manager, the possibility of their withdrawal without the knowledge of the godown keeper cannot be ruled out and as such the godown key register cannot be deemed to be an authenticated book; that the Branch Manager had knowledge of shortage in the godown before hand that is why after being relieved, he was called upon to join duty on 18.2.1980 and falsely trapped and that the petitioner is m no way connected with the shortage in the godown but the Branch Manager in collusion with the borrower got the stock removed.
6. The enquiry officer, did not agree with the contentions of the petitioner, in his enquiry report dated 27.4.1984 concluded that:
I do not agree with the defence contention that Sri Mohan was not informed at the time of farewell about the cancellation of his transfer orders, which was done under verbal instructions of the Branch Manager (P.W. 2); had it not been so why did Sri Mohan attend office on the 18th February. 1980 and marked his attendance as usual in the Attendance Register (Pex-vii) in token thereof. The responsibility of the Branch Manager cannot be linked with that of godown keeper and if the Branch Manager permitted any irregularity on the account that must be his risk and not that of the godown keeper who has to operate the godown under his charge according to instructions of the Branch Manager. The key register, page 26 (Pex 8) was found in order and properly maintained. No evidence was led to show that the Branch Manager got the stocks removed which was tinder the charge of Sri Mohan. I have considered evidences and arguments of both the parties and on the basis of evidences produced the allegation is conclusively proved.
Sd/- Illegible ( R. Chandra) Enquiry Officer Disciplinary Cases Cell. State Bank of India.
Lucknow, L.H.O.
7. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service vide order dated 11.1.1985. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal 28th February, 1985 before the Chief Regional Manager State Bank of India. Bareilly - respondent No. 2 against his order of dismissal dated I 1.1.1985 which too was rejected vide order dated 29.4.1985 passed by the respondent No. 2.
8. The appellate authority after giving thoughtful consideration to the records, held that the charges on facts against the petitioner are proved. The relevant extracts of findings by the appellate authority are as under:
I observe that Sri Krishan Mohan, the appellant was holding the permanent charge of the Godown in his capacity as Godown Keeper at the Branch. It is evident from the enquiry proceedings that there were procedural lapses on his part as well as on the part of the Branch Manager. The appellant used to go on leave without giving authority letter to any responsible staff member to operate the Godowns during his absence whereas it was obligatory for him to do so. In absence of such authority the Branch Manager and other staff members used to operate the Godowns so that the borrowers would not be inconvenienced. On his resuming duties, the appellant never objected to this and also did not report any shortage or adverse features. This goes to show that he was also not careful towards his duties and did not understand the gavity of his responsibility. On the other hand the Branch Manager also did not periodically inspect the Godown. He had at the onset relieved the appellant without arranging for handing/taking over of charge but had subsequently recalled him for inspection/handing over on the working day following his relief. Consequently, the appellant joined the Branch on 18.2.1980 marked his attendance and thereafter withdrew all Godown keys at 10.30 a.m. Apparently the appllant's transfer had been stayed. Viewing these circumstances it is hard to believe that the Branch Manager deliberately made procedural lapses like not conducting inspections, not arranging of handing over of charge just to trap the appellant at some future date and that too at the time of his transfer, particularly as no evidence depicting strained relationship between the two or ill motives towards the appellant was brought out during the enqiry.
The appellant Godown Keeper had overlooked the fact that he was primarily responsible for the quality/quantity of goods pledged to the Bank till such time these goods were either delivered to the entitled persons or charge was handed over. He joined duties on 18.2.1980 to handover the charge. His argument that he would not have turned up on 18.2.1980 had he been involved in the shortage is therefore, of no relevance.
The appellant's allegations vide his letter dated 22.2.1980 that the Branch Manager took a lock with him to change the lock of the godown in question and visited the particular godown first when there were other godowns on the way have been denied by the P.W. 2 in the enquiry. Further the letter dated 22.2.80 which was a reply to the first memo dated 20.2.80 was received from the appellant on 15.3.80 through registered post along with a covering letter dated 12.3.1980 (PCX -3A) and that too after two reminders. The delay on part of the appellant in submitting his reply and the denial by the P.W. 2 in the enquiry go to show that the allegation of conspiracy against the appellant does not hold good. Also no other evidence were brought in the enquiry to prove the allegations that the borrowers themselves removed the goods.
9. The appellate authority, after going through the records, held that:
The proved fact is that the godown of M/s. Shree Metal Industries was operated by Sri Mohan on 12.2.1980 and thereafter on 18.2.1980 when it was inspected by the Branch Manager in presence of the borrower and the shortage came to light. Although the shortage was detected in Sri Mohan's presence he did not come forth with any explanation of his own. He was asked to explain in writing vide branch memo 20.2.80 and reminder dated 4.3.80 but he did not submit a reply. Later on when it was pointed out to Sri Mohan by the Branch Manager vide memo dated 8.3.80 (PLX-4) that his silence in the matter would lead the latter to understand his complicity with the party, then only a reply vide letter dated 12.3.80 (PHX-3A) was received. In the enquiry also whle replying to a question o( the Defence the P.W. 2 had stated that Sri Mohan kept mum inside the godown and id not give a clear reply for the shortage. The godown was last inspected by Sri K.M.L. Arora, Meld Officer (P.W.I) on 28.12.1979 and that too on a test cheek basis. As per the key register no other person operated the godovvn during the intervening period. The charge, therefore, stands proved in the departmental enquiry.
The appellant's past record has been commended upon in para vii on page 4 of the order dated 11.1.1985. The fact that the police did not find evidences against him does not earn immunity for him from the outcome of the departmental enquiry. The other issues raised in the appeal have been dealt with in the final order dated 11.1.1985. Keeping in view the gravity of the proved misconduct the quantum of punishment is in order. I thus find no reason to differ with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore. I uphold the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and reject the appeal.
I order accordingly.
Sd/- Chief Regional Manor 29.4.85 Appellate Authority.
10. The petitioner being workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raised an industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the following dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 1 under Section 10 of the Act vide notification dated 24th April, 1987:
Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in relation to their Katgarh (Moradabad) Branch in dismissing Sri Krishna Mohan. Godown Keeper-cum-Clerk from service on 1 1.1.1985 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
11. Dismissal of the petitioner from service has been held to be just and proper vide impugned award dated 17.11.1988 passed by the respondent No. I which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
12. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the findings of the respondents are based on no evidence and the impugned order of dismissal is wholly arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. The charge sheet was served upon the petitionre after lapse of more than 24 months and thus, it was vitiated.
13. He urged that the charge sheet contained the signatures of Branch Manager who was not competant to issue charge sheet to the petitioner as only Regional Manager was the competant authority for the same. He invited the attention of the courts to various documents to establish that the respondent No. 2 has recorded categorical finding of fact to the effect that on many occasions, Sri Amar Nath, the then Branch Manager had operated various godowns in eluding the godown, in question, as such the petitioner could not be held guilty of the shortage found in the godown in question on 18.2.1980. Even otherwise, he urged that the keys of the godown in question ill along remained in the custody of Sri Amar Nath and not in the custody of the petitioner.
14. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal grossly erred in overlooking the evidence of Sri K.M.L Arora. Bank's witness who has clearly proved the dubious character and doubtful integrity of Sri Amar Nath. He criticised the award on the ground that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by Section 11A of the Act which empowers the Tribunal to sit in appeal over the conclusions arrived at by the respondent-Bank in the domestic enquiry. He vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the quantfum of punishment imposed by the respondent-Bank, which is highly disproportionate to the alleged guilt. In support of his above contentions, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors. ; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Giria Shankar Pant and Ors. 2000 (87) FLR 877; Anil Kumar Mohan v. labour Court and Ors. 1986 52 FLR 487 and State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma.
15. Counsel for the respondent-Bank defended the order of dismissal of services of the petitioner as well as the appellate order and the award passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal meticulously considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has recorded cogent reaons for arriving to the conclusion. He also submitted that the full fledged departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was afforded lull opportnity to defend himself. After conclusion of the same, the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authroity rightly came to the conclusion that appropriate punishment for the misconduct of the petitioner was dismissal from service which was also upheld in appeal by the appellate Authority. He states that since there the guilt of the petitioner is established by concurrent findings of fact right from enquiry officer to the Tribunal hence no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for.
16. Having heard counsels for the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in proper manner and considered each and every aspect of the matter. The main allegation of the delinquent official was that the Branch Manager was responsible for the loss of goods and that he was not informed about cancellation of transfer order at the time of farewill and the Branch Manager played fraud with him by getting the inspection done in his presence on 18.2.1983. The enquiry officer, in this regard, after considering the reply and evidence on record has submitted a categorical finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence led by both the parties.
17. From the perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority well an the appellalte order, it is apparent that the disciplinary author rightly agreed with the enquiry report by giving cogent reasons that there was no illegality or irregularity in the enquiry and the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The appellate authority also upheld and endorsed the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority while rejecting the appeal.
18. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned award reflects that the Trinunal has considered and decided all the pleas raised by the petitioner, in detail.
19. The case of the workman before the Tribunal was that the charge sheet served upon him was vague and was not accompanied by copies of documents on which management placed reliance. Secondly, the findings of the enquiry officer were based on hearsay evidence. He was not the sole Operator of godown keys and at the relevant time the keys of the godown of were in the exclusive custody of the then Branch Manager. The appeal filed by him was also rejected by the appellate authority by means of a non-speaking order.
20. Per contra, the management justified its action and took a stand that Sri V.V. Mangalvedkar, the authorized representative for the workman is not legally competant to represent the workman as he has not espoused the cause of workman under Section 2A of the Act. Besides the case of the workman has not been espoused by a recognized Union of the Bank, such as the State Bank of India Staff Association and as such the case is not maintainable under Section 2(K) of the Act. According to the management, the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted and that the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer was neither perverse nor it sufferred from any infirmity. It is established law that the appellate authority need not give any reason in the order when it concurs with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. In the isntant case, the appellate authority passed a speaking order. The workman was dismissed from service on the basis of proved misconduct.
21. The Tribunal considered the various contentions of the workman and held that:
9. The first ground taken by the workman is that the charge sheet is vague. Ext. M-1 is the copy of the charge sheet dated 1.8.82 which was received by the workman on 11.8.82. On going through it I do not find it vague in any manner. The charge is as clear as day. Therefore, I find no foce in the first contention.
10. The second contention of the workman is that he was not furnished with the copies of documents relied upon by the management along with the charge sheet and as a consequence of it he was greatly handicapped in his defence. There is no doubt about the fact that along with the charge sheet the workman was not served or furnished any copy of documents. For the first time it was on 18.2.1983, the first time it was on 18.2.1982, the first date on which the inquiry proceedings stalled the Presenting Officer on behalf of the management furnished the list of documents with names of witnesses MI which management would place reliance. At page 3 of the inquiry proceedings of the said date the following sentence appears:
the documents produced in the enquiry were perused by all concerned.
There is nothing to show that the workman or his defence representative ever made any prayer for being furnished with the copies of documents which on being produced by the Presenting Officer were perused by him. In his cross examination, the workman has stated that during the inquiry proceedings he any raised any objection in writing to the effect that the copies of documents had not been furnished to him by the management. Me has further staled that he also raised no objection to the effect that the enquiry proceedings had not been conducted fairly and properly. There is also nothing to show that the workman was in any way prejudiced on account of non furnishing of copies of documents by the management. Having perused the documents about most of which the workman was fully aware, it cannot be said in the circumstances stated above that he was in any way prejudiced. Therefore, in the second contention too 1 find no force.
11. Thirdly, in the written statement submitted on his behalf it has been stated that the request of the defence representative for summoning some of the documents was turned down by the inquiry officer. In this connection, we will have to look to the inquiry proceedings dated 15.3.1983. It appears that a prayer was made before the E.O by the defence representative for orders to the Banks representative to make available (1) Delivery order dated 16.2.1979 of M/s. Karan Singh Balwant Singh (2) Godown Cards of the Godown of M/s. U.P. Tractors. Shree Metal Industries Karan Singh Balwant Singh (3) Recurring deposit slip of Sri Hariom Chhabra, Account No. 256-A Credit vouchers dt. 4.7.1978 and 7.11.1978. The E.O. Allowed the prayer with regard to the production of records relating to Shree Metal Industries and disallowed the same with regard to the production of other records on the ground that they had no relevancy to the charge sheet.
12. After considering the prayer with regrd to the above documents made by the defence representative, I find no irregularity or illegality in the order of the enquiry officer. It is perfectly just ane legal order. In this connection, I would like to refer to workman's reply dated 25.9.1984 copy Ext. M-8 to show cause notice dated 1.8.1984 given to him by the disciplinary authority In para 2(iv) it was stated by the workman that he was relieved from the branch on his permanent transfer to Chandauli Branch vide Branch memorandum dated 9.2.80, by which he stood relieved at the close, of business on 16.2.80. He further writes in the said para that had be been in connivance with the firm in removal of stocks he would not have attended the Bank on 18.2.80 at the request of Sri A mar Nath the Branch Manager for the purpose of checkig of godown. The case of the management before the E.O. was that since checking of the godown looked after by the workman checking could not be made, the Branch Manager informed the workman that he would not stand relieved on 16.2.80 so that godowns could be checked. In his order dated 1.8.84, copy Ext. M-6, the Disciplinary Authority observed that the employee was relieved without making any arrangement for taking over charge of the godown himself. The observation appears to be quite just and proper. Although he was informed that he would be relieved on 16.2.80, the order relieving him could be chaged by the Branch Manager if check by thin he had been unable to the godown of which the workman was the godown keeper. There was no impropriety in it on the part of the Branch Manager.
22. Regarding shortage of the stocks in the godown under the custody of the workman, the Tribunal has concluded in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the award as under:
13. Now I would like to refer to para 2(vi) of the reply of the workman. He writes that the stocks in the godown were found correct on 28.12.79 when the Field Officer physically verified them from the Branch records. They were also found alright up to 12.2.80 when the last operation of the godown was carried by him. The shortage was effected during the period 12.2.80 to 18.2.80. He has admitted the shortage in very clear terms not only in this sub-para but also in sub-para (i). In sub-para (i) he writes that as soon as he entered into the godown of M/s. Shree Metal Industries, on 18.2.80 he was shocked to see that the stocks of substantial amount had been removed from there without any sign of tampering with the lock.
14. Therefore, the simple question to be considered was as to how the shortage had taken place after 12.2.1980 in the godown of M.s. Shree Metal Industries. It had nothing to do with the other records sought to be summoned by the defence representative. There is no plea on the part of the workman that there had been any tampering of the lock put on godown between 12.2.80 to 16.2.80. I, therefore, find no force in this contention.
15. Forthly, it has been contended from the side of the workman that goods from the godown were removed by the firm in connivance with the Branch Manager. There is abslutely no evidence nor any circumstance to support it. Even in his reply copy Ext. M-8, to the show cause notice he did not caste any aspersion on the conduct of the Branch Manage. Rather from sub-para (v) it appears that that the Branch Manager had taken all necessary precautions to safeguard the interest of the Bank. In the said para the workman written that as Sri Amar Nath, the Branch Manager had a doubt on that itegrity of the borrowers, he wrote a d.o. Letter on 17.12.1979 to local Head Office, referring to the unstatisfactory features. He got the property of the partners of the firm equitable mortgage to the Bank for the existing cash credit limit without extending any additional financial accommodation to them. Thus this argument advanced on behalf of the workman also fails. In sub-para (iv) of his reply he described to the borrowers as cheats. According to him it were they who have duped the Bank.
16. That it has been contended that the findings given by the E.O are perverse. I do not agree with it. If there was anythig lacking it was discussed by the disciplinary authority point by point with reference to the points raised by the workman in his reply to the show cause notice. Even an ordinary prudent man would have arrived at the same conclusion.
23. The Tribunal also dealt with the plea of perversity raised by the workman regarding the finding given by the enquiry officer as well as the contention that the order passed by the appellate authority was a non shaking order and the proportionality of the punishment as well as fairness etc., of the domestic enquiry proceedings and held that it required no interference on the basis of facts and circumstances and held that the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the petitioner from service on 11.1.1985 is justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
24. So far as the decision in Kashinath Dikshita (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that Govt. failed to show that no prejudice occasioned to the delinquent employee on account of non-supply of copies of documents the order of dismissal rendered by the disciplinary authority against the employee was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that his case was in any way prejudiced as he was not served with copy of any relevant document, as such, this decision does not help the case of the petitionre. The other decision in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that if the findings are based on no evidence or the findings are totally perverse or legally unteable, the departmental proceedings stand vitiated. In the instant case, the findings are certainly based on evidence and they are neither perverse nor legally untenable, as such, this decision also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. As Niegards the decision in Anil Kumar Mohan (supra), suffice it to say that this decision was rendered in case where order of termination of service was based on proceeding disclosing non-application of mind. That is not the position in the instant case as such, this decision also does not support the petitioner. The last decision relied upon by the petitioner, i.e., State Bank Patiala and Ors. (supra) also is not applicable to the present case as the same was rendered in a case where action of the respondent authorities was violative of the rules. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are altogether different, as such, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable.
25. It is evident from perusal of record that on 18.2.1980 when Katghar (Moradabad) Branch was accompanied by petitioner and checked the godown of M/s. Shree Metal Industries Moradabad, the stocks of Patti Circles, Doll and mug valued at Rs. 88,960/- were found short in his presence. The godown was under his charge and he had been conducting pledge and delivery condtion. The last operations of pledge and delivery were conducted by him on 12.2.1980 and since then till 18.2.1980, no operation was made in the godown. No indication of tampering with the godown lock or otherwise forced removal of stocks was found and obviously the petitioner in collusion with borrowers helped them removing the stocks from godown surreptitiously. The enquiry officer has recorded a categorical finding that it is not believeable that the petitioner was not informed at the time of farewell about the cancellation of his transfer orders, which was done under verbal instructions of the Branch Manager and had it not been so, why did he attend office on 18.2.1980 and marked his attendance as so, in the Attendance Register in token thereof. The responsibility of the Branch Manager cannot be linked with that of godown keeper. The key register page 26 (Pex 8) was found in order and properly maintained. No evidence was led to show that the Branch Manager got the stocks removed which was under the charge of the petitioner. The appellate Authority has also recorded specific finding that the petitioner was holding permanent charge of the godown in his capacity as godown keeper at the Branch and it was evident from the enquiry poceedings that there were procedural lapses on his part as well as on the part of the Branch Manager. The petitioner never report about any shortage or adverse features. He was also not careful towards his duties and did not understand the gravity of his responsibility. He further observed that apparently the petitioner's transfer had been stayed. In the circumstances, he held that it was hard to believe that the Branch Manager deliberatey made procedural lapses like not conducting inspections, not arranging of handing over of charge just to trap the petitioner at some future date. The petitioner had overlooked the fact that he was primarily responsible for the quality/quantity of goods pledged to the Bank till such time the goods were either delivered to the entitled persons or charge was handed over. He joined duties on 18.2.1980 to handover the charge and his argument that he would not have turned up on 18.2.80 had he ben involved in the shortage was of no relevance. He also held that no other evidence were brought on record in he enquiry to prove the allegations that the borrowers themselves removed the goods. He found that as per the key register no other person operated the godown during the intervening period and charge stood proved in the departmental enquiry. From perual of the the award of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that the charge sheet was no vague in any manner, as alleged by the petitioner. Regarding allegation of the petitioner that relevant documents e not supplied to him, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the First date when enquiry proceedings started on 18.2.1982, the setting Officer on behalf of the management furnished the list of documents with names of witnesses on wich management would place reliance. At page 3 of the enquiry proceedings of the said date, it was recorded that the documents produced in the enquiry were perused by all concerned. There was nothing to show that the workman or his defence representative ever made any prayer for being furnished with the copies of documents which on being produced by the Presenting Officer, were perused by him. Even in the cross examination, he stated that during the inquiry proceedings he never raised any objection in writing to the effect that the copies of documents had not been furnished to him by the management. Therefore, he was not prejudiced on any account. The Tribunal also found that enqurity officer allowed the prayer with regard to the production of records relating to Shree Metal Industries and disallowed the same with regard to production of other records on the ground that they had no relevancy to the charge sheet. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the report of the enquiry officer as it was stated by the workman that he was relieved from the Branch on his permanent transfer to Chandauli Branch vide Branch Memorandum dated 9.2.80 by which he stood relieved at the close of business on 16.2.80. The Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner has admitted the shortage in very clear terms not only in paragraph 2(vi) of his reply but also in sub-para 2(i) of the same.
26. Thus, the guilt of the petitioner has been established and there is no illegality of perversity in the orders impugned calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
27. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.