Twitter
Advertisement

Fraud is punishable even if small, says Guj high court

Malpractice and misappropriation of funds are not matters to be taken lightly, whether the case involves one paisa or millions of rupees.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin
Malpractice and misappropriation of funds are not matters to be taken lightly, whether the case involves one paisa or millions of rupees. Justice KM Thaker of the Gujarat high court set a precedent in a recent judgment in a case where a peon at a bank whose services were terminated after he was caught fraudulently withdrawing Rs200, way back in 1978.

The legal battle continued for more than 30 years, culminating with the high court rejecting the plea filed by Alarakha Hassan Kureshi demanding his reinstatement and payment of back wages.

Kureshi, in 1992, challenged in the high court the order of Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rejecting his demands in 1990.

According to case details, Kureshi was employed as a peon at the Porbandar branch of Bank of Baroda, beginning July 1973. On January 31, 1978, he changed the amount in his savings account with the bank from Rs54.61 to Rs254.61, transposing a '2' at the beginning of the amount. He then withdrew Rs230 from the account.

When the bank authorities came to know of the misappropriation, Kureshi deposited the money back into his account and admitted to the wrongdoing, for which reason no formal departmental enquiry was held. The bank then terminated his services, citing 'loss of confidence'.

Kureshi later filed a case against the bank with the industrial disputes tribunal, which heard both parties before rejecting the application on grounds of evidence placed by the bank against Kureshi.

In the Gujarat high court, Kureshi submitted that the tribunal's order was "erroneous, unjustified and is not sustainable in law", claiming that the bank's action of discharge simpliciter was illegal and invalid. Kureshi also claimed that he could not reply to all the charges levelled against him as he was illiterate.

The high court, however, rejected the plea, observing that the bank had produced material on record establishing that the petitioner had misappropriated funds and fraudulently withdrawn the same through his bank account.
Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement