Dismissal is proportionate where a bank’s head cashier negligently causes substantial cash loss.

The appellant was employed as Head Cashier at Bank of Baroda’s Saket Branch, New Delhi, and was responsible for handling the cash department.

On 10 March 2016, a cash shortage of ₹10,88,850 was reported, following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 31 October 2016 after substantially proving the charges, and the departmental appeal was dismissed on 13 March 2018.

The appellant challenged both orders in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6 January 2026; he thereafter preferred the present intra-court appeal.

He contended that the cash was not under his exclusive control, CCTV footage had not been considered, other officials had not been investigated, and the shortage resulted from an inadvertent cash-handling error and excess payments to customers.

The record showed that he had acknowledged the shortage and furnished two cheques of ₹4 lakhs and ₹3.25 lakhs towards the loss, but both cheques were dishonoured.

Whether the disciplinary findings fastening responsibility for the cash shortage on the appellant were vitiated because the cash was not under his exclusive control, CCTV footage was not considered, and the role of other employees was not investigated.

Whether the appellant’s dismissal from service was disproportionate, particularly in light of his asserted 21 years of blemish-free service.

The Court applied the principle that an employee entrusted with custody and handling of an employer’s cash bears a heightened duty of care, integrity, and accountability, and that established negligence or misconduct causing substantial financial loss may justify dismissal from service.

On proportionality of punishment, the Court relied on Surekha Domaji Bele v. MSEDCL, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109, which holds that dismissal is justified where the misconduct is sufficiently grave to make continuation in service incompatible with discipline, trust, or institutional functioning, particularly where it causes substantial loss and demonstrates the employee’s unfitness to continue.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters does not warrant interference where the findings are supported by the record and the punishment is not shown to be disproportionate to the established misconduct.

The Court found that the appellant was the Head Cashier and was responsible for handling cash when the shortage occurred; this was supported by his written acknowledgment of the shortage and his subsequent attempt to compensate the Bank through two dishonoured cheques.

His later admission that the shortage resulted from his mistake demonstrated dereliction of duty, notwithstanding his contention that other staff had access to the cash.

The CCTV argument was rejected because it had been raised for the first time in the writ proceedings and, in any event, would not absolve him of responsibility arising from his entrusted role.

The Court also found his explanation regarding the alleged inadvertent excess transfer to the Currency Chest Staff and the remaining shortage allegedly caused by excess customer payments unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

Applying the proportionality principle, the Court held that the substantial loss caused by negligence in a fiduciary cash-handling position demonstrated unfitness to continue as Head Cashier; his otherwise blemish-free 21-year service record could not outweigh the gravity of the proved misconduct.

It further held that dismissal from service was not disproportionate to the established negligence and misconduct, notwithstanding the appellant’s previous service record.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed, and all pending applications were disposed of without any order as to costs.