Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner is a dismissed employee and was serving as Special Assistant (Cash-in-charge) / cashier at Thingal Nagar Branch of State Bank of India from 30.06.2010 to 20.10.2015. The 1st respondent was the Disciplinary Authority and the 2nd respondent was the Enquiry Officer who conducted departmental enquiry. One of petitioner's duties is to replenish cash running in lakhs in ATM on daily basis along with an Officer called “Joint Custodian”. The procedure governing the mechanism of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) replenishing cash is stipulated in ATM Manual (June, 2008) which involves fool proof technology and 8 CCTV cameras will be recording and monitoring the act of “Joint Custodians Replenishing Cash”. After loading the cash, ATM would generate a slip called “supervisory and admin slip” which will reflect the balance in the ATM before and after replenishment and this Admin slip is the most important document and should be checked in case of shortage and the slips should be maintained for 8 years as per ATM rules. Earlier when the petitioner was serving as cashier, one Ms.Vanitha who was the Accounts Officer / Deputy Manager was the Joint Custodian, who is the superior officer was the custodian of the hood key of the ATM. But she would never accompany the petitioner but would hand over the hood key and her password voluntarily and would instruct the petitioner to replenish cash along with messenger. CCTV footage would reveal that the petitioner had on several occasions replenished cash in the absence of Ms. Vanitha and always with her knowledge. Also the steps involved in opening the ATM doors would clearly show that it is impossible to open the ATM without the knowledge of Ms.Vanitha. Chapter 13.09 of ATM Manual deals with handling of keys of ATM. There are two doors in an ATM machine to be opened. In step one, the hood key is used to access the inside of ATM. This key is to be kept in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) custody of one of Joint Custodians, handling the Admin Function. This physical key was under the control of Ms. Vanitha. The second step is safe keys can be accessed only after the hood is opened. The safe door has a combination lock. Each joint custodian holds one password and the password should not be revealed to the other. The above two steps would explain that even if the petitioner knows the password of the other joint custodian, it is impossible to open the safe of ATM without the knowledge of joint custodian having the hood key of the first door. Further the signatures of Vanitha in the ATM slip and Back-up Register as per rule together with CCTV footage would prove the dereliction of duty on the part of Ms. Vanitha by ordering her subordinates to do her duty.

5. The respondents have filed a detailed counter wherein it is stated that the affidavit contains no valid grounds and the same is liable to be dismissed, the petitioner comes under the category of Award Staff and as per the terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-2002, the petitioner ought to have file an appeal, without exhausting alternative appellate remedy, the writ petition is filed and is liable to be dismissed in-limine. During the period from 30.06.2010 to 31.10.2015, the petitioner was the Cash In-Charge of SBI Thingal Nagar Branch. The petitioner and Deputy Manager (Accounts) were assigned the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) work of replenishment of cash in ATM of the Branch. As per the procedure, the Accountant has to open the hood of the ATM using the key under her custody and then both the Joint Custodians have to open the ATM vault by using their respective passwords to load cash. After loading cash, amount of Cash Replenished has to be fed in the ATM and print out of Admin Slip has to be taken from the ATM, which will show the Cash balance in the ATM. On 14.08.2015, petitioner was on deputation to Chennai and officiating Joint Custodians Mrs M.P.Lavanya and Mrs.Hamilta were assigned the work of replenishment of cash in the ATM. Officiating Joint Custodian detected cash shortage of Rs.2,50,000/- and reported the matter. On verification it was found that the petitioner had replenished cash in the ATM on 31.07.2015, without being accompanied by Joint Custodian and misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and manually amended the Admin Balance in the ATM to Rs. 12,62,500/- as if the physical balance available was Rs.12,62,500/-, while there was a shortage of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner himself prepared the ATM Cash Back up register in his own handwriting and got it signed by the Joint Custodian Mrs.Vanitha and the Chief Manager of the Branch and based on the ATM Cash Back up Register, got the monthly ATM Cash Verification Certificate dated 31.01.2015 also signed by the joint custodian and the Chief https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) Manager certifying the total cash available as Rs.36,34,500/-. The petitioner made good the shortage of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Bank on 21.08.2015. The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 22.11.2017 with three charges. In the Enquiry, the petitioner was represented by an advocate. In the enquiry PEX 1 to 14 were marked including CCTV footages and 3 witnesses were examined in support of the charges from the Respondent Bank's side and DEX 1 to 34 were marked and one witness was examined by the defence side. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.06.2021 holding all the three charges as proved and after offering the petitioner, a personal hearing, which opportunity the petitioner did not utilize, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissed without notice, treating the period of suspension as suspension only for all intents and purposes, vide order dated 23.07.2021. The the allegation that 8 CCTV cameras recording and monitoring the act of joint custodian at the time of replenishment of cash in the ATM is totally denied as incorrect and the fact remains that there is only one camera installed inside the ATM and the remaining cameras are installed within the premises of the bank, including one in the cabin of Cash-in-charge. The ATM centre is annexed with the Thingal Nagar Branch and running under the same roof, hence the allegations of the petitioner are false. The CCTV footages of these cameras are exhibits in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) enquiry and it was proved as the petitioner has committed the malpractice and it was adjudicated by the 1st respondent. The allegation that the Joint Custodian/Accounts Officer/Deputy Manager namely Mrs. Vanitha was his Joint Custodian and Superior Officer and she was custodian of the hood key of the ATM and she never accompany with the petitioner, but handed over the hood key and gave password voluntarily to replenish the cash along with the messenger and the CCTV footage reveal the allegations of the petitioner that in several occasions he replenished the cash in the absence of Mrs. Vanitha but with her knowledge and the steps involved in opening the ATM doors clearly shows the ATM door cannot be opened without the knowledge of Vanitha and he referred chapter 13.09 of ATM manual in support of his alleged case and even the petitioner know the password of his Joint custodian it is impossible to open the ATM without her knowledge and requires the hood key of the first door and that the signature of Mrs. Vanitha in the ATM backup register, with CCTV footage are alleged to have proved the said Vanitha derelict in her duty, are all strongly denied as misleading incorrect and unsustainable. However the petitioner indirectly admitted the case of the bank that he had entered the ATM with hood key and password on many occasions along with the messenger and that he has cunningly misused and allowed Vanitha to take his help and else https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) nowhere in the affidavit he narrated anything as he refused to the alleged demand of the Vanitha and entered into the ATM in her absence and also he has not made any efforts to report such depiction or his objections to the higher authority. When the petitioner is very much keen and strict in following and expecting the respondent bank shall follow the rules and regulation of the ATM Manual, the petitioner is having duty to report any dereliction of duty either by his superior or by inferior to the higher authorities to protect himself and to protect the interest of the bank. The entire allegation made by the petitioner in his affidavit is nothing but try to draw a parallel line between two wrongful acts, which is never permitted by any law in force. When the petitioner is accusing Vanita for dereliction of duty, it applies to the petitioner who also violated the Rules and Regulations of ATM Manual and followed illegitimate procedures himself and by such act cleverly misappropriated fund and enriched himself. That the allegations on 14-03-2015 the petitioner went to Chennai to receive an award and the officer in charge namely Lavanya and Hamilta replenished the cash in ATM and these two officers alleged to have committed several violations of ATM rules and allowed the messengers to use the Admin Card and without counting the physical cash on 14.08.2015, they alleged to have filed a false complaint to the Chief Manager Mr. Mahendravarman https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) regarding the shortage of Re.2,50,000/- in physical balance and the Chief Manager without verifying the "supervisory slip" and "admin slip" alleged to have concluded a shortage of Rs.2,50,000/ - on 31.07.2015 based on the CCTV footage and demanded the petitioner that the shortage be made good by him and did not make the Joint custodian Mrs. Vanitha accountable for the shortage and he was misled and under threat and coercion paid the said sum of Re. 2,50,000/- on 27.08.2015 and the Chief Manager sent a letter dated 27.08.2015 to the Regional Manager, Tirunelveli that on the alleged advise of the Chief Manager, the petitioner has made good the shortage are all strongly denied as false, incorrect and falsehood invented for the purpose of the casa by the petitioner. The said allegations of the petitioner as if Lavanya and Hamilta have committed serious violations and allowed messenger to use the admin card and without counting the physical cash alleged to have made a complaint and which was admitted during the time of cross-examination and only on the advice of the Chief Manager, he paid a sum of ?2,50,000 are strongly denied as false. In fact, the said Lavanya and Hamilta followed ATM rules and only after proper examination of shortage of cash, as per the rules, they have made the complaint and the petitioner has paid the said amount because of the fact that he has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) misappropriated the cash with malafide intention to cause loss to the bank and hence responsible for the loss.

12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the very basis of the allegation itself is incorrect. For which she relied on ATM cash verification certificate, which is signed Joint Custodian namely the said Ms. Vanitha and the delinquent and further counter signed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:27:37 pm ) the Chief Manager Mr. Mahendra Varman. The said certificate states that the signed parties had physically verified the cash in the ATMs and found that the physical cash in the ATM tallies with the admin cash. The admin slip is pasted in the backup register duly signed by the ATM joint custodians and duly countersigned by the Chief Manager and the balance is stated under: