JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the impugned award passed in I.D. No.53 of 2007 dated 08.04.2010 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits within the time limit that may stipulated by this Court.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed in I.D.No.53 of 2007 dated 08.04.2010 and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent Bank as Sub Staff on 15.11.1979 and thereafter regularized on 26.04.1990. While the petitioner was serving in Sivakasi Branch, there was an allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has stolen Rs.5000/- that is ten Rs.500/- notes from the bundle while carrying the cash bundle to the safe lock on 27.08.2004. The contention of the petitioner is that he was forced to give a letter admitting the guilt and was intimidated stating if the guilt is admitted he would be reinstated. But on 30.08.2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the General Manager stating that he was compelled to give such undertaking letter through post. Thereafter, on 08.09.2004, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation with regard to stolen of Rs.500 ten in numbers which amounts to Rs.5000/-. On 15.10.2004, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the show cause notice denying the allegation. Thereafter on 05.01.2005, charges were framed stating that on 27.08.2004, at the time of closing the cash at 4.10 pm when the cash was carried to the safe, after the closing cash was checked by the checking official, the petitioner without the knowledge of the cashier and the checking official had stolen 10 pieces of Rs.500/- denomination currency notes amounting to Rs.5000/- from the closing cash containing Rs.500 denomination bundles which the petitioner had been instructed to carry to safe room. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and Enquiry Report was submitted on 31.10.2005 in which charges were proved. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and Enquiry Report was submitted on 31.10.2005 in which charges were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2005 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 06.01.2006 but on 09.02.2006 the second respondent imposed the major punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved over, the petitioner preferred a detailed appeal and the same was dismissed on 11.05.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 2(A) of ID Act, 1947. The said petition was taken on file by the first respondent in I.D.No.53 of 2007 whereby in the ID order, the punishment order was confirmed by an award dated 08.04.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter. Inspite of giving several opportunities, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter. 4. Heard Mr.G. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Iniyan Karthik, for Mr.PalaRamasamy, learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. It is seen from the records that the allegations against the petitioner is he had removed Rs.500/- notes 10 in numbers while he was carrying the cash tray after conclusion of the entire transactions to safe. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not the authority to count the cash notes or to put the cash in the safe. He was a last grade servant and he was directed to carry the cash tray towards the safe and he was just carrying the tray containing cash. The respondents alleged that the petitioner has taken five hundred rupees notes and has buried the same near the Temple and when he was force to re-pay the amount, he went to the Temple and taken out the buried notes and handed over. This was vehemently refused by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially when the statements were obtained from the witness, a story was flouted by the respondent stating that when the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount, the petitioner sought permission to go out of the office. The petitioner was granted permission but directed one Ponusamy to accompany the petitioner. Initially when the statements were obtained from the witness, a story was flouted by the respondent stating that when the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount, the petitioner sought permission to go out of the office. The petitioner was granted permission but directed one Ponusamy to accompany the petitioner. The case of the respondents is that Mr.Ponusamy has given a statement stating that the cash was hidden by the petitioner by burying the notes in a Temple near the branch and after digging, the same was handed over to the Manager. Subsequently, the said Ponusamy has deposed before the enquiry officer and he has reversed the said statement. Before the enquiry authority, the said Ponusamy has deposed as under:- 6. The statement of said Ponusamy clearly states that it is the assumption of the Ponusamy that the notes were buried near the Temple. The statement of Ponusamy would also reveals that the petitioner was under stress and he was begging from each and every person. Since he could not collect the amount for some time he was sitting near the temple under a tree. Thereafter he collected money from some persons and has deposited. The other witness also followed the said Ponusamy and has deposed the said story. The contention of the petitioner is that the Management claims that one Sanjeeviraj is the eye witness but the said Sanjeeviraj was not examined before the enquiry officer. Therefore, an adverse inference ought to be drawn for not producing the said Sanjeeviraj as witness. If the plea of the respondent ought to be taken into account that the petitioner has buried the notes and after an offer was given, the petitioner has taken the buried notes and handed over, then the same number of notes ought to be recovered and each number ought to be tallied. It is not the case of the respondent that same notes were recovered. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought to be accepted and that the petitioner has begged from some people who were near the Temple and collected the amount, thereafter, he has deposited the amount in the Bank. It is not the case of the respondent that same notes were recovered. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought to be accepted and that the petitioner has begged from some people who were near the Temple and collected the amount, thereafter, he has deposited the amount in the Bank. Therefore, for non production of the vital evidence, not producing the said Sanjeeviraj as witness and other reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not proved the case and the enquiry report is perverse. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the enquiry report and the punishment. 8. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has attained superannuation. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement is modified as stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. After modifying the punishment, the terminal benefits eligible to the petitioner shall be quantified and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to implement this order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above modification, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.