1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7828 OF 2009 1. Chief Executive Officer, Krishna Sahakari Bank Limited & anr. ....Petitioners vs 1. Shri Subhash Ramchandra Patil & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b Mr. Avinash Fatangare for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court have analyzed the entire proceedings and the evidence in considerable detail. I am unable to find any absurdity or unreasonableness in the approach adopted by the concurrent findings of fact and the appreciation of the evidence. 2 2. The Respondent No.1, against whom the enquiry officer made certain findings, was only a clerk in the Petitioner-bank. His immediate superior was one Lakesar who was the Branch Manager. The transactions in respect whereof disciplinary proceedings were adopted pertained, inter alia, to the allegedly unauthorised transfer of funds to the account of one More, who was the son-in-law of the Chairman of the bank. On analyzing the evidence, both the courts have held that the Respondent No.1 had effected the entries pursuant to the directions of the Branch Manager. He admittedly had nothing to gain from making the entries. He admittedly gained nothing, in fact, from making the entries. There was not even a complaint from the constituents of the bank regarding the same. What is important to note is that in the enquiry proceedings, a specific case was put to the Respondent No.1 that the transactions were carried out by him because of the pressure of the Branch Manager, the said Lakesar. 3. The courts cannot be faulted for having been impressed by the fact that the persons in whose favour the amounts were credited were neither related to nor connected with the Respondent. They analyzed the vouchers pursuant to which the entries have been made. There is nothing to indicate any mala fide intention on the part of the Respondent No.1. Thus, even assuming that the courts below at one 3 stage may have proceeded on an incorrect basis that it was admitted that the Branch Manager had received instructions from one Lad and one Polekar, in the overall context, the same would not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact. 4. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.