The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of Tranvancore at Pattambi branch, has been discharged from service with superannuation benefits pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner questioned the disciplinary proceedings and penalty by raising an industrial dispute. However, the Industrial Tribunal affirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority and also did not interfere with the punishment imposed. This decision is called in question in this writ petition.
2. To understand the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, it is appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the charge sheet which reads as follows:
"Smt.K.P.Rukkiya, w/o.Shri.K.P.Zaindeen, Kunnampalliyalil House, Sankaramangalam P.O. is maintaining a Savings Bank Account bearing No.PB 7049/63 with the branch. On 20.10.1998 you had W.P.(C) No.15542/2012 2 misappropriated an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the above account. You have posted the withdrawal in the relative SB ledger with the intention of committing fraud though the SB counters at the branch were being looked after by two other clerks and you were looking after the despatch section on that day. You had received cash from the cashier by producing the relative token which you had taken while posting the withdrawal in the SB ledger. Thereafter, you have managed to remove the relative voucher with a view to destroy the evidence of your involvement in the fraudulent transaction. In view of the above fraudulent act the bank is LIKELY TO suffer loss since the bank is liable to make good the amount to the customer, Smt.Rukkiya".
3. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet narrating as follows:
"Smt.K.P.Rukkiya, account holder of savings bank account No.PB 7049/63 approached me with a withdrawal form for Rs.50,000/- signed by her. As there was no passbook with her, I referred the withdrawal to the officer concerned. The Officer authenticated by putting his initial on the withdrawal as that was the practice. Then I posted the withdrawal and issued the token to the party and referred the withdrawal putting it inside the ledger to the Officer for passing the instrument. Subsequently W.P.(C) No.15542/2012 3 as the clerk allotted the savings bank section arrived at the seat I went back to my allotted work at the despatch section".
4. The account holder, Smt.Rukkiya, gave evidence that she had never withdrawn Rs.50,000/-. The withdrawal slip is missing from the Bank. The officer, who was in charge of the cash counter, was also not in a position to state the person to whom she had given cash based on the authorisation of the withdrawal slip. The withdrawal slip necessarily need to contain authorisation from the Manager especially when it was presented without the support of passbook. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the account holder, Smt.Rukkiya, presented the withdrawal slip without passbook. The question is whether the evidence as above would be sufficient to hold one as guilty of the misconduct alleged.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that mere posting of withdrawal of the amount cannot prove the guilt of an employee without any supporting evidence to show that the employee herself had withdrawn the amount. Learned counsel also argued that a finding of guilt cannot be drawn based on presumptions and since W.P.(C) No.15542/2012 4 the posting itself is regular, the petitioner cannot be saddled with any responsibility for the loss caused by some others. Learned counsel further argued that Smt.Rukkiya's version alone cannot be relied on to find that she had not herself withdrawn the amount.
6. The parameters of finding a person guilty in disciplinary proceedings initiated in a criminal case are distinct and different. The enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court entered into a finding of fact. Whether the facts as disclosed above are sufficient to prove the misconduct against the petitioner or not is the question involved in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is only called upon to decide whether the finding as above can be called legally correct or not.
7. No doubt, the court will interfere where the findings are without any evidence or where such findings are so perverse. [See Nand Kishore Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1277), State of Haryana and others vs. Devi Dutt and others ((2006) 13 SCC 32) and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya ((2011) 4 SCC 584)].
W.P.(C) No.15542/2012 5
8. In this case, the petitioner, in clear assertive terms, admitted that Smt.Rukkiya presented the withdrawal slip. The withdrawal was on 20.10.1998. The misappropriation was detected when a similar complaint had arisen in relation to the account of one Abdul Gafoor in the year 2000. As seen from orders, withdrawal from the account was by manipulations and by causing destruction of such withdrawal slips. There is nothing on record to disbelieve Smt.Rukkiya. It appears that systematic fraud had been played to misappropriate the amount from the accounts of the account holders. That must be within the Bank itself. The findings clearly established the above aspects. The petitioner, certainly, therefore pinned for such misappropriation.
9. The petitioner's case that Smt.Rukkiya herself came and presented the withdrawal slip for encashment without passbook has been disproved by the testimony of the account holder Smt.Rukkiya herself. Why should Smt.Rukkiya give such evidence against the petitioner? The sequence of events that had taken place immediately after the presentation of withdrawal slips and the subsequent destruction of the same clearly indicate a fact that the act was done with an intention to misappropriate W.P.(C) No.15542/2012 6 amount from the account of the account holder. The petitioner is the best person to give an account of what transpired if someone else in the Bank is involved in the matter. In the absence of any such claim being put forward, the petitioner alone needs to be suspected. Whether there was any evidence to show that the petitioner had taken away Rs.50,000/- or not is immaterial as it has to be assumed that those who committed fraud is the beneficiary of such fraud. Therefore, there was sufficient materials for the enquiry officer to find the guilt of the petitioner. In fact, the most lenient penalty was given in the circumstances, i.e., discharge from service with superannuation benefits. Therefore, there is no scope for interfering with the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp