WA/428/2024 of THE GENERAL MANAGER Vs The Presiding Officer on 2 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the General Manager, Indian Bank, Head Office, Chennai, being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, challenging the award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.52 of 2011, dated 21.06.2012.

2. The facts of the case are that one R.K.Srinivasalu, Cashier, Indian Bank, Ponnai Branch, Vellore District, a member of the Indian Bank Employees’ Association, had received a sum of Rs.7,503/- from a customer, by name, Babu, who availed a jewel loan and repaid the money to redeem his jewels. The said amount was not properly accounted by the delinquent – Srinivasalu; instead, for the very same serial number 19, he had made a double entry to another remittance of Rs.27,500/- and, thereby, appropriated the sum of Rs.7,503/-. At the end of the day, when reconciliation of the account was carried out, a shortage was found. However, Srinivasalu did not properly account or explain. The next day, when he was confronted by Manager of the bank, he admitted about the shortage and remitted the shortage to the account.

Multiple explanations were given by the delinquent, which led to initiation of departmental proceedings and, ultimately, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. Challenging the same, the Union carried the dispute before Conciliation Officer, which was subsequently referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai. The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court took up the reference in I.D.No.52 of 2011 and, after enquiry, ordered reinstatement of the delinquent into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits but without back wages. The said order was challenged by Management before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.660 of 2013. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 01.06.2023. Thus, it has led to this intra court appeal in W.A.No.428 of 2024, which stood for consideration before us till-date.

3. Lengthy arguments have been placed before this Court on the side of Management as well as Union.

4. Our prime consideration in this matter is two fold : (i) whether the finding of fact by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court need to be interfered with in the appeal, and, (ii) if yes, whether the order of the Labour Court, setting aside the punishment imposed on the delinquent, in toto suffers from perversity to exercise judicial review of the Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. On perusal of records and hearing the submissions made by the counsel, the following facts remain undisputed. On the relevant date, one Babu, customer of Indian Bank, Ponnai Branch, remitted Rs.7,503/- towards final settlement of his jewel loan and he redeemed his jewels. Remittance of money commenced from the delinquent – Srinivasalu and culminated in handing over the jewels to the customer. There was another remittance on the same day for Rs.27,500/-, which had been received by the delinquent – Srinivasalu, and, for remittance of Rs.7,503/- as well as Rs.27,500/-, same serial number 19 was assigned by Srinivasalu. His scroll book maintained remittance of Rs.27,500/-, and not Rs.7,503/-. Counterfoil of challan was not found available, whereas customer’s copy of challan was obtained from customer subsequently, in the course of enquiry. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and the finding of the enquiry officer indicated the explanation of the delinquent that a sum of Rs.7,503/- was paid in excess to one of the customers on the same day, who had withdrawn Rs.1,20,000/-. However, excess of Rs.7,503/- paid could be seen from the denomination written by the delinquent on the back of counterfoil. That was considered in the departmental enquiry and it was found that different explanations given by the delinquent at different points of time indicated his guilt to misappropriate the money entrusted to him and the entry of denomination in challan for disbursement of Rs.1,20,000/- was the sole challan in which the delinquent had entered denomination and, for other receipts or disbursements, he had not followed the same habit. Hence, the element of misappropriation of money entrusted to him was found. Management lost confidence on him and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, whereas the Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the inference of management regarding misappropriation of fund with intention had no basis; the explanation given for not making appropriate entry was probable; that when management had not suffered any pecuniary loss, punishment for the charges framed could not be sustained and, hence, ordered reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

6. We are now expected to balance the loss of trust by the banker and the proportionality of punishment for the lapse of Cashier, who had failed to account the money received. It is not the quantum of money appropriated temporarily or permanently, but it is the trust on the employee that matters is the version of management, whereas the case of the employee-workman is that when there is no intentional appropriation and after realising that remittance of Rs.7,503/- has not properly been accounted, the said money was paid immediately, which has been considered by the Labour Court and also the learned single Judge and, it being a question of fact, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the judicial body. The judgments cited on either side make it clear that judicial review of the administrative order can be interfered with only if the order is perverse and, in so far as the capital punishment slapped on a workman, the punishment must be proportionate and must not be shockingly disproportionate to prove the delinquency, though preponderance of probability is sufficient.

7. As far as charge of theft, misappropriation and act of criminal misconduct, there must be a higher degree of proof. While taking into account those guidelines in respect of this case, we find that the delinquent – Srinivasalu had been entrusted with the responsibility of handling cash on behalf of bank. It is an admitted fact that Rs.7503/-, remitted by Babu, customer of bank, was not duly accounted. If the matter stops with that, we would have thought that there is no perversity in the finding of the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge, who has confirmed the award of the Labour Court. The delinquent had assigned serial number 19 for another payment of Rs.27,500/-. There is another written evidence relied upon by the delinquent, namely, denomination on the back of challan for Rs.1,20,000/-. However, there was an entry of Rs.500 x 15 equal to Rs.7,500/- on the top of the denomination, which, on simple arithmetic, would show that total would be Rs.7,500/- and not Rs.1,20,000/-. A Cashier of rich experience had made a grave arithmetic mistake while writing denomination and he realised the said mistake for his lapse for not accounting Rs.7,503/-. If it is a genuine lapse or negligence, while accounting cash at the end of the day, the said money should have been found in excess. In the alternative, he had claimed that there was shortage of Rs.500/-. But, the next day, when he went to office and was confronted by Manager, he gave a different explanation and also repaid the shortage. He did not stop with that. Now, he claims that had the copy of challan which was marked as Ex.M2 been produced before him at the initial stage, he would have been able to give a better explanation. This ipse dixit explanation given by the delinquent employee was accepted by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge had not gone through the veracity of those explanations.

8. The point which troubles us is, if really Srinivasalu had no bonafide intention to take away Rs.7,503/- on the same day, the said money should have been found in cash drawer and he would have reconciled the account immediately. Even on the next day, when he had remitted the money, he had not said that the said money was found in his possession and remitted. Above all, he also made a fake claim that there was a shortage of Rs.500/- while accounting the cash.

9. In such circumstances, we cannot find fault with Management that they have lost confidence and trust on his employee, who is expected to maintain utmost integrity and devotion. Therefore, unlike other establishments, in banking establishment, where currency and cash is handled, if employee has lost trust and given multiple explanations for his negligence of failure to account properly, management cannot be forced to suffer because of the employee, who is not capable of maintaining integrity. Therefore, we do not find that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, when the duty and responsibility entrusted on the employee has been grossly violated.

10. Coming to the punishment of compulsory retirement, it is stated that the delinquent has been paid regular pension and also all his service benefits. When there is no allegation of victimization, the punishment of compulsory retirement, in view of loss of confidentiality, need to be upheld. Hence, holding that the award of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, suffers non-application of mind and perversity.

11. Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.2893 of 2024 is closed. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DIXIT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DIXIT WA No. 428 of 2024 02-09-2026