A domestic enquiry was held against him and three witnesses were examined.
1,000 handed over to respondent numberl in excess, which he flatly denied that on a report being made to the Branch Manager by Smt.
3,000 and odd with the cashier but did number receive the savings Bank pay in slip number the excess amount refunded to her by the Cashier.
2000 Supp 3 SCR 313 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. A charge sheet issued to respondent number 1 reads that at about 11 a.m. on June 23, 1973 Smt.
1 was put under suspension under instructions from Head Office.
Respondent No.
Parul Rani Chowdhury, a customer of the appellant Bank, handed over to respondent numberl a sum of Rs.
The criticism advanced against the award of the Tribunal is that evidence of three witnesses recorded at enquiry being sufficient to record the guilt of respondent No.
On dismissal being made an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Respondent No.
On the receipt of the information he personally went to the cash department and checked the cash but did number find any excess amount therein.
Parul Rani Chowdhury he inquired about the matter that when a preliminary search failed to trace the amount and a physical search of all the employees was being companyducted, respondent numberl threw away the said amount of Rs.
1, the Accountant then started checking him, he personally went out of room and saw the first respondent throwing the bundles of numberes by the side of the wall in the accounts department, the possession of which was taken by him and he questioned respondent No.
I did number adduce any evidence number he examined himself.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
1, that evidence has been ignored and irrelevant companysiderations such as number examination of companyplainant Smt.
1,000 over Rs.
The lady customer did number produce the savings bank pay in slip at the cash companynter but delivered Rs.
This award was challenged by a writ petition which was allowed by learned single Judge of the High Court and the award given by the Presiding Officer was quashed.
1 replied to the said charge sheet by stating that on a memorandum being issued to him directly involving him in an alleged misappropriation of the said sum on June 23, 1973 he was companypelled to sign a statement which he was number allowed to go through even.
l,001.20p that even though respondent numberl received excess amount of Rs.
1,000 with him.
On a further appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that the learned single Judge companyld number have interfered with the award made by the Tribunal and set aside the same and restored the award made by the Tribunal.
He asked the Accountant to check the cash in the strong room and searched the Cashier companycerned whether he has any cash of Rs.
There was numberexcess cash found in the strong room.
I the decision to dismiss him.
However, on examination of the material on record the Presiding officer came to the companyclusion that the finding of guilt against the first respondent was number just on the evidence on record and, therefore, he set aside the same.
At about 1 p.m. the lady with her husband came to him and companyplained that she had deposited Rs.
The Presiding Officer held that the domestic enquiry companyducted was just, fair and proper.
On the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry by a report made finding him guilty of charges against him, on January 27, 1976 respondent number I was asked to show cause as to why an appropriate punishment should number be imposed upon him and he was heard in the matter.
Respondent No.
When at about 4.30 p.m. he asked the Accountant to search the Cashier, respondent No.
Thereafter, he was placed under suspension.
He alleged that he is a victim of serious companyspiracy specially while after his recent promotion from Messenger to Cashier he has looking forward for a bright future and he denied all the charges levelled against him and he claimed to be innocent.
The Regional Manager thereafter companymunicated to the respondent No.
3,000 as told by her to him with two draft application forms.
2,002.40p, he neither refunded the same number asked the customer as to the matter in which the said amount was to be disposited either by depositing the same in the savings bank account or deposit the same in the Sunday deposits account that instead he retained the said money with him with intention of misappropriating the same that thereafter Smt.
On asking the first respondent about the amount received by him he companypletely denied the same.
The amount was received by the first respondent who Was acting as Head Cashier.
Parul Rani Chowdhury returned at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day and demanded the said amount of Rs.
On next Monday he took a statement in writing duly signed by the first respondent and reported the matter to the Head Office and thereafter respondent No.
1 about the same.
1 told him that he had put the money in his socks.
1,000 on the floor that thereby he retained the amount with him with a criminal intent to misappropriate the same and thus lowered the image of the appellant Bank and thus acted in a manner highly prejudicial to the interest of the appellant Bank.
3,002.40p along with two draft applications each for Rs.
