C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17266 of 2016 ================================================== RAJNIKANT RANCHHODLAL MAKWANA & ORS. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SAVAN N PANDYA(5600) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 02/07/2025 ORAL ORDER [1] The petitioner filed this petition challenging an order by which the deceased petitioner was imposed with the punishment in the following terms:- "Be removed from service with superannuation benefits (i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity) as would be due otherwise (under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time) and without disqualification for future employment" in terms of Rule No.6 (b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action Procedures for Workmen." [2] The charge against the petitioner was that while he was working at the main branch Kalawad from 09.02.2011 to 28.02.2015, he had picked up a note of Rs.500/- from the cash deposited in the C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 counter by two customers on 20.11.2014 and placed the same behind the counting machine and he had thereafter gone on to inform the customer that there was a shortage. The charge was that as indicated in the video footage, it was found that the deceased petitioner had deliberately placed the notes behind the counting machine which was not visible to the customers and he was therefore guilty of misappropriation. [3] It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner was issued a notice on 23.02.2015 alleging that he was guilty of misappropriation. It was stated in the said notice (Annexure 'C') that while collecting the cash from the customer, he had placed the same behind the counting machine and informed the customer that there was a shortage. To this notice, the petitioner gave a reply in the following terms: - "Forwarded Through Branch Manager Rajnikant R Makwana P.F. No.3542777 State Bank of India BHATIA Date: 04.03.2015 The Assistant General Manager (RBO-3) State Bank of India RBO Office JAMNAGAR Respected Sir, MISUTILISATION OF POST AND IRREGULARITIES OBSERVED C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 With reference to letter no. RAO-III/HR/P&C/424, dated 23/02/2015, I have to submit as under. Sir, I was working at Kalawad Main branch in Cash Department. Sinall machine provided at the counter for counting and shorting. On 20/11/2014, when I was working, two notes each of Rs.500/- found doubtful in receipt of two different customers. Sir, since I am messenger promotee and not having sufficient experience, I told the both the customers that one note is doubtful and require to be check in detail and if found forge I will call them in evening. Customer agreed and gave me the another note to complete their transaction. I have to therefore keep both the doubtful notes separately so that they do not mixed with cash in my counter. So I kept both the notes in my pocket. Later, at evening I rechecked both the notes and found in order, so I called them to collect their notes and returned their notes. Sir, there is no case of misappropriation of customer money. Sir, I worked as a messenger at different branches and after promotion at Kalawad Main branch. Sir, I every perform my duty very sincerely and honestly and in my almost 18 years of service no complaint received against me, neither by customers nor by my supervisors. Sir, I humbly request you to accept my submission. I assure you that I would be work more punctually, sincerely and honestly. Yours Faithfully, (Rajnikant R Makwana" [4] As can be seen from the said reply, the deceased petitioner fundamentally admitted the allegation that he had, in fact, retained two 500/- rupees notes from the customers. He, however, put forth a plea that he had retained the said notes on the ground that they were C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 doubtful and he wanted to verify their genuineness. The deceased petitioner also admitted that he had kept both the notes in his pocket but went on to state that subsequently, in the evening, he rechecked the genuineness of the notes and on being satisfied that they were genuine, he had called the customers and had returned the two 500/- rupees notes and therefore there was no case of misappropriation of customer money. This defence of the deceased petitioner therefore admits the principal allegation that he had returned two 500/- rupees notes of the customers. He however put-forth the contention that he had retained the notes because he was of the view that the genuineness of the notes was to be examined. The inquiry officer on consideration of the materials, especially the video footage, has come to the conclusion that the deceased petitioner was indeed guilty of retaining the money for himself and therefore, was guilty of misappropriation. It may be pertinent to state here that the deceased petitioner did not choose to examine those customers to whom, he had returned the money in the evening. [5] Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the bank ought to have been examined the customers and he ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the customers and since this was absent, the charge could not have been held to be C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 proved against him. In my view this argument cannot be accepted in the light of the admitted fact that the deceased petitioner did not dispute that he had retained two 500/- rupees notes. Once the deceased petitioner admitted the retention of the two 500/- rupees notes and took up the defence that he had returned the same to the customer, it was incumbent upon him to establish his defence as the bank had basically proved its assertion that the petitioner had retained two 500/- rupees notes belonging to the customers. In my view, therefore, the finding recorded by the inquiry officer which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority cannot be found fault with it. [6] Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to place reliance on page '47' on the deposition of the petitioner, a copy which is produced as Annexure-I in which the Presiding Officer had asked question that the cash was delivered to the customer back and the management witness had admitted this fact and this therefore clearly proved that the petitioner had returned the 500/- rupees notes. This argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the customers had given a written complaint dated 15.12.2014 alleging that the deceased petitioner had collected 500/- rupees notes on the premise that there was a shortage in the bundle there C/SCA/17266/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 was given to him. In the light of the complaint, the deposition sought to be relied upon by the petitioner would be of no consequence. [7] Leaned counsel for the petitioner also put-forth a contention that the punishment imposed on the deceased petitioner was disproportionate and he actually would not be getting any benefit though the order of punishment did state that he would be entitled to superannuation benefits, such as retirement provident fund and gratuity since the deceased petitioner is only 19 years of service. In my view, this argument also does not deserve acceptance. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have come to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was proved and having taken into consideration that the deceased petitioner was a cashier and he had fundamentally failed to maintain the trust and devotion expected to be a cashier to be truthful to a customer who had given him money to be deposited to their account, the orders of punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate and I find no reason to entertain this petition and petition therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. (NSSG, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: KUMAR DHARMENDRA(HC01071), GOV, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/07/2025 12:31:26