Clerk-cum-cashier to effect transactions in the Bank. He claimed that though he had failed to perform his duties as a Manager but he did not connive with the Clerk-cum-cashier in misappropriating the money of the customers. He claimed that though loss was caused to the respondent due to his dereliction, but he was not a party who consented to the illegalities committed by the Clerk-cum-cashier. He alleged that the password was stolen by the Clerk-cum-cashier and therefore, these facts were not considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority in terms of the order dated 24.05.2012, held that since the petitioner had admitted that the loss caused to the Bank was due to his dereliction of duty and blind faith in Clerk-cum-cashier, his claim that he was not a consenting party was unacceptable. It held that the Clerkcum-cashier was though dismissed from service, it did not mitigate the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. Consequently, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Following this, the General Manager and Vigilance Officer of the respondent issued an order dated 02.07.2012 to the petitioner to appropriate the gratuity of Rs.4,78,952/- and Rs.61,880/-, which was the surplus in Secured Over Draft (SOD) Automated
