Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the inquiry report dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P -2), punishment order dated 28/30.7.2010 (Annexure P -4) and appellate order dated 20.6.2011/8.11.2010 (Annexure P -11).
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent -bank in the year 1977 and had unblemished record of service. On 17.10.2008, Brij Lal Meena was entrusted with the duties of Cashier. At about 2.30 P.M., Brij Lal Meena received a phone call regarding illness of his son and he requested the petitioner for permission to go to his native place. Petitioner deputed Meena Kumari to handle the duties of the cashier. Brij Lal Meena, after counting the cash, handed over the charge to Meena Kumari. At the end of the day, Meena Kumari found that there was excess cash to the tune of Rs.35,000/ -. Despite efforts, the difference could not be tallied and the amount of Rs. 35,000/ - was kept in double lock almirah. However, petitioner received charge sheet dated 1.8.2009. The inquiry officer vide his report, held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved as he had kept excess cash in his possession. The punishing authority vide impugned order Annexure P -4, imposed major penalty on the petitioner i.e. removal of service. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a case of no evidence. The amount in question had been kept in double lock almirah and it could not be said that petitioner was solely responsible for the excess cash in question. Management witness MW -2 had categorically stated that the excess cash was kept in double lock. However, the inquiry officer proceeded to hold that petitioner was guilty of the charge framed against him. Since it was a case of no evidence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Kuldeep Singh versus Commissioner of Police and others, : 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 10', wherein it was held as under: - It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had failed to account for the excess cash. Petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceedings. As per the evidence on record, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner was liable to be upheld.;