IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT IN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3728 of 2006 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 3728 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Cashier in Andhra Bank. When he was working in Jammikunta branch in Karimnagar District, an inspection was conducted on 23.10.2001. A shortage of Rs.41,050/- was noticed by the inspecting team. Immediately, the petitioner is said to have confessed his lapses in this regard and made good the shortage of the amount. No other explanation was offered. He was placed under suspension on 29.10.2001 and thereafter, charge sheet, dated 29.01.2002, was issued, framing necessary charges. The petitioner submitted a confession letter, dated 23.10.2001. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 16.10.2002, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the enquiry report, the appointing authority passed an order, dated 09.01.2003, directing dismissal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appeal was partly allowed vide order, dated 21.06.2003, converting the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad, and the same was taken up as LCID No.188 of 2003. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 31.03.2005, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, this writ petition. Sri A. Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shortage of cash cannot be attributed to the petitioner and with the sole object of avoiding further complication, the petitioner submitted a letter of confession and deposited the amount. He contends that the inspection took place at the beginning of the bank hours and, it be difficult to imagine that there would be any shortage, particularly, when the cash was to be verified by two officers jointly, under the supervision of the Branch Manager. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Authority was also convinced that the charge against the petitioner is not proved and still he has directed compulsory retirement, instead of ordering reinstatement. Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the bank, on the other hand, submits that this is one of the rare cases, where huge cash irregularity was noticed and the employee had not only admitted his guilt instantly; but also remitted the amount. He contends that the Appellate Authority had shown indulgence and granted substantial relief to the petitioner. The particulars of cash irregularities noticed during the inspection are as under: “1. Rs.40,000/- (From Rs.500/- section No.4 in each of which 20 pieces were found short). 2. Rs.1,000/- (From Rs.100/- in one section of Rs.100/- denomination 10 pieces were found short) 3. Rs.50/- (In one section of Rs.100/- denomination one piece of Rs.50/-was found)” When such a huge cash irregularity was noticed, the petitioner, being the Cashier, owed an explanation. It must be noticed that the inspection took place at the commencement of the transactions. An important aspect of this case is that, not only did the petitioner confess his role in the irregularity, but also had deposited such huge amount of Rs.41,050/-. Virtually, he left nothing to be inquired into, as he admitted his guilt. In the domestic enquiry, the petitioner did not take any different stand. The charge was held proved. The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority had shown indulgence and modified the order of dismissal into the one of compulsory retirement. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter of confession and deposit of cash was done by the petitioner under pressure or occasion cannot be accepted. The reason is that whatever may have to be the circumstances under which the cash came to be deposited instantly, the confession letter was filed nearly ten months subsequent to the date of inspection. Further, during the course of domestic enquiry, he did not state anything to contradict his earlier stand. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any irregularity or defect has taken place in the domestic enquiry. The Appellate Authority had shown sympathy towards the petitioner to enable him to avail service benefits. In fact, an order of compulsory retirement cannot be treated as the one, imposing punishment. The Labour Court has also examined the matter on correct lines. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated: 05.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }