THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25411 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was working as a Clerk in Rail Nilayam extension counter of Syndicate Bank in the year 1995. Later on, that was converted into a fullfledged branch. A charge sheet dated 20.03.1997 was issued to him pointing out three irregularities viz., that he did not debit the amount covered by a cheque for Rs.5,000/- to his S.B. Account; that he did not handover a cheque for Rs.2,000/- issued for debiting to the account of a customer on 12.12.1995; and that he debited Rs.7,000/- to the S.B.Account No.3732 of the Railways Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the same, the Bank appointed an enquiry officer. Through his report, dated 12.06.1998, the enquiry officer held the charges against the petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 28.09.1998 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of dismissal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 10.02.1999. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the charges framed against him are not true and at any rate very trivial and that the punishment imposed against him is totally disproportionate. He further contends that in the elaborate enquiry, he has substantiated his contention that he did not resort to any acts of misconduct and that there is not even an allegation that he has misappropriated any funds of the Bank. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that though the amount involved is trivial, the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is urged that the proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and that no interference is warranted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: A) did not debit the amount of a cheque for Rs.5,000/- t your SB account, when it ws returned in clearing on 30.11.995. B) did not hand over a cheque for Rs.2,000/- eceived in clearing for debiting to the account on 12.12.95 and did not debit another cheque for Rs.2,000/- received in clearing on 11.1.1996. C) on 30.3.96 debited Rs.7,000/- to SB account no.3732 of Railway Employees’ Co-op. Housing Society. The petitioner filed a detailed explanation to this. The management of the Bank appointed an enquiry officer. A perusal of the minutes of the proceedings before the enquiry, copies of which are filed along with the writ petition, discloses that elaborate and detailed enquiry was conducted. This is not a case, where the petitioner admitted that he committed any acts of misconduct. He offered explanation and in the course of enquiry, every facet of it was discussed at length. The first limb of the charge is that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his personal account without waiting for the clearance of the cheque for that amount. Even assuming that the charge is true, it cannot be said that he has misappropriated the funds of the bank. Out of over confidence or otherwise, he has drawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the cheque presented by him, was cleared by the other bank. The lapse, if any, in this regard cannot entail in a serious punishment of dismissal. Facets (b) and (c) were dealt with in the enquiry together. A perusal of the discussion either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority discloses that almost a mountain was sought to be made out of a mole. It is not as if the petitioner is the authority to clear the cheques or to finalise the accounts of the Branch. He is only a clerk. Entries made by him are subject to scrutiny and approval on every day, by the Accountant or Manager of the Branch. For two years, nothing was pointed out against him. The record does not disclose that any proceedings were initiated either against the Branch Manager or the Accountant. The petitioner was chosen that too by undertaking a great deal of exercise of accountancy. When so many transactions are handled by a clerk, an accidental omission, that too not found fault with, by any supervisory staff, cannot lead to severe punishment. Further, it is not even alleged that the amount covered by the two cheques was in any way diverted to the account of the petitioner or that he has utilized that amount. The inadvertent mistake that was unnoticed, even by the superior officials, cannot entail in deprivation of livelihood of the petitioner. This Court is conscious of its limitations, as to the interference with the quantum of punishment. Even if one approaches the matter with utmost restraint, it emerges that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is unconscionably excessive and disproportionate. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is imposed the punishment of deduction of pay scale to the minimum for the post of clerk, by directing that he shall not be entrusted with any duties involving financial matters and denying backwages. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner is set aside. In the place of it, the punishment of reduction of salary of the petitioner to the lowest of the pay scale for that post is imposed and that he shall not be entrusted with any duties involving financial matters. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement shall be counted for retirement and other benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 22.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25411 of 1999 Date: 22.07.2010 JSU