JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2.The petitioner was working as Cashier at Nawabganj, Branch of Baroda, Bank, Bareilly. He was served charge sheet on a complaint dated 17.2.2004 made by one of the customers of the Bank namely Sri Rafiq Ahamad alleging cash irregularities against the petitioner. The complaint dated 17.2.2004 was later on withdrawn. However, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 19.2.2004.
3. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on a complaint made by Sri Rafiq Ahmad customer of the bank saving bank Account No. 12903-misappropriation of Rs. 30000/- said to have been deposited on 15.10.2003 by him through his agent. The petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of complaint and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice dated 24.3.2004 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) is as under:-
1. While you were working as the "Receipt Cashier" at our Nawabganj branch on 15.10.2003 you were tendered Rs. 30000/-vide pay-in-slip No. 725589 by Mr. Rafiq Ahmad for deposit in his Saving Bank Account No. 12903.
2. The pay-in-slip was not prescribed and yet you accepted the cash and issued duty stamped counter foil of the said pay-in-slip in token of having received Rs. 30000/- to Mr. Rafiq Ahmad. You also made entry of the said receipt in the pass book of Mr. Ahmad without actually entering the receipt of the cashier scroll and without ensuring that the related entry has been-made in the ledger folio of the SB a/c No. 12903, you thus pocketed the said amount of Rs. 30000/-. You thus misappropriated the cash of Rs.30000/-.
3. On 19.2.2004 when Mr, S.C. Maurya, Senior Manager visited Nawabgahj branch to investigate the complaint of Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, you deposited Rs. 30000/- in the SB a/c # 12903 of Mr. Rafiq Ahmad by filling the pay slip yourself.
You are advised to submit your explanation on the above points within 7 days of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer and Bank will proceed further as deemed fit.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and alleged that he had not misappropriated the money but had not deposited it in the bank due to certain reasons. His explanation to the circumstances in which he could not deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30000/- in the bank on 15.10.2003 was detailed in the reply.
5. The explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the bank. Consequently a charge sheet dated 12.6.2004 was issued to him for misappropriation of money deposited by the bank customer Sri Rafiq Ahmad. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet vide Annexure-4 dated 6,7.2004. The enquiry report dated 7.7.2004 was submitted. The petitioner has accepted all the charges voluntarily and unconditionally and since he has accepted all the charges they are held to be proved. The following punishment was proposed to be levied on the petitioner against each of the charge.
6. The petitioner was thereafter afforded an opportunity to show cause against the aforesaid proposed punishment by the Disciplinary authority/Assistant General Manager. By the impugned order dated 30.9.2004 the Disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon the petitioner w.e.f. 30.9.2004. By the impugned punishment order it was held that the suspension period of the petitioner shall be treated as period not spent on duty and he shall not be entitled for increment due during the suspension period.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order dated 30.9.2004 the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected vide order, dated 24.1.2005 by the appellate authority holding that:
I am satisfied with the fact that the enquiry was concluded in a fair manner and the appellant had every opportunity to forward his case and defend himself. The Enquiry Officer was right in concluding the enquiry and submit his findings based on Voluntary and unconditional acceptance of charges by the appellant and the DA has rightly concurred with the finding of the EO in the light of the fact that the appellant himself had admitted his guilt having committed the acts as alleged in the chargesheet No.ROB/04/VIG/SL/155 dated 12.6.2004.
The bank being a financial institution and more so being custodian of public money, the utmost integrity is expected of the employee. The honesty of the employee is a precondition to the employment in the bank and it is not expected that the employee will function with ulterior motive, do acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and misappropriate the customer's money and tarnishing bank's image.
The appellant has not brought out any material to sway me towards plea of innocence. Therefore, considering the case in totality, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed on Mr. Shankar Lal vide order dated 30.9.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority is justified and need not be interfered with.
I therefore, dismiss the appeal of Mr. Shankar Lal.
8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 30.9.2004 and 24.1.2005 passed by the Assistant General Manager and the Deputy General Manager Bank of Baroda, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Cashier in the Bank. He has admitted the misconduct in the explanation given by him in the inquiry as well as before the appellate authority and in the writ petition also. The work of the post of Cashier in a bank is of trust and responsibility.
10. It is not denied that as a Cashier the petitioner ought to have checked the notes before receiving it from the customers and making entry in the pass book. It is admitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the deposit of the money on that date in the bank and if notes deposited by the customer were in soiled conditions he should have made entry of the same in the books of the bank. Even soiled notes are legal tenders and even according to instructions of RBI they are to be accepted. The Bank is precluded from refusing legal tender and has to accept the notes in whatever condition it is. The explanation of the petitioner that the agent of the customer was known to him and when he returned the notes to him after closing the bank on 15.10.2004 he did not cancel the entries in the pass book does not inspire confidence. He did not follow the established procedure of the bank for acceptance and deposit of the cash money. He also did not inform the Bank Manager that during the bank hours he had accepted the soiled notes
11. Apart from the fact that petitioner admitted the misconduct as a mistake and concocted a story to defend himself, A person who has doubtful integrity can not be permitted to work in the financial institution such as bank which works with public faith and confidence.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in punishment order in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated 14.11.2005.