THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24134 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Anantapur, respondent No.2 herein in the year 1985. Later on, he was upgraded as Clerk-cum-Cashier. He was operating a Branch at Timmapuram, Anantapur District from 14.06.2000 onwards. The petitioner states that on 12.02.2001, he received a message at 2.30 p.m. to the effect that his brother fell from the top of a tree in his native place, Rangachedu and was admitted to Hospital in a critical condition. Since he did not have any other resources, he is said to have taken a sum of Rs.8,350/- from the locker of the Bank, leaving a cheque bearing No.814658 and handed over the amount to the person, who brought the message. The petitioner is said to have proceeded to Raydurgh after office hours to attend the injured brother. On the next day, he is said to have returned to the Branch and remitted a sum of Rs.8,350/-. On 16.02.2001, the management of the Bank placed the petitioner under suspension on the basis of the allegation relating to withdrawal of money. A charge sheet was issued to him on 27.03.2001. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.04.2001 narrating the circumstances under which he has utilized the money and remitted the same on the next day itself. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the management ordered domestic enquiry. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted the allegation against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Respondent No.1 passed an order, dated 04.10.2001, imposing the punishment of removal from service. The review preferred by the petitioner to respondent No.2 was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for review. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Bank itself provided for the facility of overdraft to the officials and the amount utilized by him was remitted on the next day itself. He further contends that to ensure that there is no scope for misunderstanding, he left a blank cheque in the locker also. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. They submitted that the petitioner admitted the charge against him and since the charge of misappropriation of Bank funds is grave in nature, the punishment of removal was imposed. While admitting that the petitioner was given letters of appreciation, reference is made to an order through which the punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed. Heard Smt.Marie Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under: “On 12.02.2001, the Manager was away from the branch on official duty, attending JMLBC Meeting. In view of this, the branch had to be run on single lock and accordingly you were running the branch on single lock. On 13.02.2001, before the commencement of business, when the cash was inspected, by the Inspecting Officer, a sum of Rs.8,350/- was found short when compared to the previous day’s closing balance. You have kept partly blank cheque bearing No.814658 pertaining to your SOD account No.1/2000 duly signed, in single lock. You have only filled up payee’s column. The cheque was un-dated and particulars of amount in figures and in words were not filled-up. The drawing limit of your SOD Account No.1/2000 is Rs.21,200/-. The balance outstanding as on 02.02.2001 was Rs.19,932-06. There are no transactions after 02.02.2001 in your SOD a/c till 13/02/2001 i.e., at the time of verification of the cash by the inspecting officer. The account was having a balance of Rs.19,932-06 and the last entry was on 02.02.2001. Only after the cash was found short you have remitted a sum of Rs.8,350/- at the closing hours of the day and also made necessary entries in the ledger. Thus, you have misappropriated the bank funds to an extent of Rs.8,350/- by resorting to fraudulent means to gain undue pecuniary advantage.” The allegation is that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,350/- and kept a blank cheque pertaining to his account in the single lock. It is also alleged that the petitioner exceeded his drawing limits. The fact that the petitioner deposited the amount on the next day itself was mentioned in the charge itself. In his explanation submitted on 28.04.2001, the petitioner did not deny the allegation. His effort was only to explain the circumstances under which he had to draw the amount. In the course of enquiry also, the petitioner admitted the allegation against him. Technically speaking, the charge against the petitioner is proved, particularly, when he admitted it. However, the respondents were under obligation to take the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner into account. In his explanation, the petitioner submitted that he received a message to the effect that his brother has fallen from a tree and was hospitalized in a serious condition. Obviously to meet the expenditure, the petitioner utilized the amount almost in a distress. The bona fides on the part of the petitioner were evident from two facts, namely that he left a signed cheque in the locker and that he remitted the amount on the next day itself. The petitioner, no doubt, committed an act of misconduct. At the same time, from the background in which that is resorted to, it becomes clear that the serious punishment of removal from service is not at all warranted. It is not as if the Bank stood to any financial loss. The petitioner could have been imposed a punishment commensurate with the allegation against him instead of severe punishment of removal. This Court is of the view that the punishment of removal from service cannot be sustained in law and it should be left open to the respondents to impose any other punishment. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order of removal, dated 04.10.2010, passed against the petitioner is set aside. Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the matter and impose any other suitable punishment upon the petitioner other than any punishment, which brings about cessation of service. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be entitled to be paid any back wages till the date of any order that may be passed by respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 18.01.2011. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl