R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) AN ex-cashier of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is questioning the order dated 8-11-2001, Annexure-D on the following facts. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation limited (for short the 'corporation') in the year 1968. He was promoted from time to time and as on the date of filing of the petition, he was working as a cashier. On 11-10-2001, a show-cause notice was issued to him asking to show cause as to why action could not be taken for his having committed certain irregularities in remittance of cash in terms of Annexure-B. A reply was sent by the petitioner in terms of annexure-C. Simultaneously, the Corporation also initiated criminal proceedings. They have submitted a 'b' report in the matter. The same was accepted. Subsequently, the Board by an order dated 8-11-2001, ordered penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the same. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner took me through the pleadings in terms of his prayers. According to him, there is no admission on the part of the petitioner. 'b' report has not been properly appreciated by the respondents in ordering his dismissal. The Counsel complains of no enquiry before ordering termination. He refers to the provisions of the karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, in support of his submission. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 5 ) ANNEXURE-B is a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. It is necessary to reproduce the entire show-cause notice to decide the case on hand. "it has come to the knowledge of the Corporation that you Sri n. Gopal, working as the General Cashier in Cl Sub-Division, kptcl, Rajajinagar. Bangalore have committed the following lapses/omissions: while discharging the duties of the General Cashier you have committed the act of remitting less amount to the Bank and then corrected the remittance figures to that of original revenue collection causing defalcation of cash. On 6-6-2001 and 18-6-2001, the actual cash balance was Rs. 6,25,693/- and Rs. 15,19,7707- respectively, but you have brought down the cash balance in respect of the said dates as Rs. 5,25,693/- and Rs. On 6-6-2001 and 18-6-2001, the actual cash balance was Rs. 6,25,693/- and Rs. 15,19,7707- respectively, but you have brought down the cash balance in respect of the said dates as Rs. 5,25,693/- and Rs. 14,19,770/- by erasing/manipulating the progressive total figure of the revenue column of the cash-book and the said figure was also shown as physical cash balance in the denomination register. Further on 29-6-2001 and 30-6-2001 instead of remitting Rs. 5,08,616 and Rs. 3,41,228/- to the Bank, you have remitted Rs. 6,08,616/- and Rs. 4,41,228/- respectively to the Bank. Thus you have committed temporary misappropriation of Rs, 2,00,000/- by retaining the amount with you between 6-6-2001 to 30-6-2001. Further the cash balance as per cash-book on 3-7-2001 was Rs. 13,42,747/-, on 5-7-2001 the cash balance was Rs. 5,84,795/-, on 17-7-2001 the cash balance was Rs. 10,95,2107- and on 25-7-2001 the cash balance was Rs. 5,11,732/-, but the cash you have remitted to the Bank on 3-7-2001 was Rs. 12,42,747/-, on 5-7-2001 was Rs. 5,34,775, on 17-7-2001 was Rs. 10,45,210/- and on 25-7-2001 was Rs. 4,61,732/ -. You have altered the cash remittance figure in the remittance register and in the cash-book to that of remittance amount. Thus you have totally misappropriated Rs. 2,50,000/- permanently by remitting less amount to the Bank on 3-7-2001. 5-7-2001, 17-7-2001 and 25-7-2001 to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,0007- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. Thus it is clear that you have committed fraud/defalcation of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. Hence you are hereby directed to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under KEBEs' (CDC and A) Regulations, 1987 for the above said lapses. Your reply should be submitted within a week from the date of receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and further action as deemed fit will be taken". ( 6 ) A reply has been submitted by the petitioner. He has remitted Rs. 2,50,000/- being misappropriated amount in the following manner: rs. 50,000/- on 2-8-2001; rs. 1,10,0007- on 6-8-2001; and rs. 90,000/- on 7-8-2001. To the detailed show-cause notice a reply has been submitted admitting the same and also remitting part of it. He has further stated that he has made certain corrections in the account entries and pleaded mercy at the hands of the management. 50,000/- on 2-8-2001; rs. 1,10,0007- on 6-8-2001; and rs. 90,000/- on 7-8-2001. To the detailed show-cause notice a reply has been submitted admitting the same and also remitting part of it. He has further stated that he has made certain corrections in the account entries and pleaded mercy at the hands of the management. There is no dispute with regard to his role as a cashier and there is no dispute regarding the transactions. In the light of his conduct, reply and the subsequent remittance, it cannot be said that there is no admission on the part of the petitioner. The said contention is rejected. ( 7 ) THE petitioner contends that 'b' report has been filed by the Police and the Board has not objected to the filing of the 'b' report. Then petitioner states that the non-objection would show that the Board was not serious in the matter as stated in para 12 of the petition. This argument has to be rejected on the facts of this case. A mere failure to challenge 'b' report does not by itself in any way affect the facts of this case. The criminal proceedings were initiated by the police and the police, in the light of remittance has filed 'b' report which has been accepted by the Magistrate. That by itself does not give a clean chit to the petitioner particularly, on the facts of this case. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the Board, cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE last argument of the petitioner is that Regulation 11 of the regulations require an enquiry in the matter of major penalties. In the case on hand, the Board did issue an order in the light of his admission and in the light of the conduct of repayment of Rs. 2,50,000/-, it is unnecessary for the Board to hold any enquiry. After all, what is required to be inquired into is as to certain omissions and commission in the matter of cash transactions. When the same is admitted, the conducting of an enquiry would be nothing but an empty formality. The Courts have accepted that in the case of admission no enquiry is necessary. In these circumstances, this argument requires to be rejected. ( 9 ) THE Counsel also says that Regulation 14 could not have been invoked in the case on hand. When the same is admitted, the conducting of an enquiry would be nothing but an empty formality. The Courts have accepted that in the case of admission no enquiry is necessary. In these circumstances, this argument requires to be rejected. ( 9 ) THE Counsel also says that Regulation 14 could not have been invoked in the case on hand. It is seen from the material on record that there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly working as a cashier in the Corporation. Taking into consideration, the position held by the petitioner and his conduct in the matter, the Board is justified in satisfying itself with regard to invoking its power under Regulation 14 of the Regulations. No exception can be taken to the action of the Board in the matter. In these circumstances, this argument also does not appeal to me. ( 10 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner relies on two unreported judgments of this Court in W. P. Nos. 25418 and 39882 of 1999. I have carefully gone through the judgments. In both the judgments, this Court has disposed off the petition based on an earlier order in W. P. No. 3844 of 1999, dated 9-8-1999. I have also gone through the judgment in W. P. No. 3844 of 1999. That case, all together stands on a different footing. In that case, the Court noticed that there was no proper consideration with regard to Regulation 14 (3) of the Regulations. The Court was specific that there is no satisfaction in the said case. It was in those circumstances, a direction was issued. In the case on hand, the material facts stand on a different footing. The Board, in the light of the payment and in the light of admission was satisfied that no enquiry is necessary. It cannot be said that there is no satisfaction in the case on hand. In these circumstances, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. ( 11 ) LASTLY, I have to make some observations with regard to the method and manner in which these cases are dealt with by a Public corporation. A Public Corporation particularly like the KP. T. C. L. depends upon these officials for its sustenance and for its operations. K. P. T. C. L. sells power to the consumers. ( 11 ) LASTLY, I have to make some observations with regard to the method and manner in which these cases are dealt with by a Public corporation. A Public Corporation particularly like the KP. T. C. L. depends upon these officials for its sustenance and for its operations. K. P. T. C. L. sells power to the consumers. The petitioner is holding a very responsible post of a cashier in a sub-division. It is seen that the transaction runs into several lakhs of rupees. Therefore, the Board has taken a right decision in passing an order of dismissal. The arguments of Sri kumar, learned Counsel, of sympathy, in the light of 31 years of service cannot be accepted on the peculiar facts of this case. Any sympathy shown in the case of Cashier involving in an act of misappropriation would be nothing but a case of misplaced sympathy. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that notwithstanding his service for a long time, he has to be shown the door for his acts of misappropriation. I am also compelled to make some observations that in these types of cases the board has to be sensitive and serious as otherwise such acts would be repeated to the detriment of the Board and the economy of the Board. ( 12 ) BEFORE concluding, I must add a word of passion to the Board. Here is a case where the petitioner has committed a serious act of misappropriation involving lakhs of rupees of a Public Corporation. A portion of it is also repaid in addition to admission on his part. Criminal proceedings have been rightly initiated but unfortunately, 'b' report was filed which remains not challenged by the Board. The Board, in my view, in such cases not only has to take action departmentally but also has to take action on the criminal side so that such acts really act as a deterrent to the erring employees. This Court hopes that in future, the Board would avoid such glaring mistakes in not challenging the 'b' report in its interest and in the interest of appropriate functioning of the Board. ( 13 ) WRIT petition stands dismissed. The order of the Board is confirmed. --- *** --- .