11.The charge memo issued against the writ petitioner contains three articles of charge. Charge No.1 is in 4 parts. It alleges that the writ petitioner had indulged in temporary misappropriation. After carefully going through the entire materials on records, I am not persuaded to come to a conclusion that the charges of temporary misappropriation covered by Charge Nos.1-A to 1-D have been substantiated. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if during enquiry the policy holders had been examined to testify regarding the dates on which they remitted the premium amount in cash, then this charge could have been established. Such a course of action was not undertaken. I am therefore not persuaded to hold that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of the amounts covered by charge No.1-A to 1-D. But, breach of procedure is so apparent and evident. The writ petitioner was holding the post of cashier. When the customer or policy holder makes payment in cash, the petitioner's duty is to straight away remit the same and issue receipt, instead he chose to issue his own personal cheque. I fail to understand as to what motivated or impelled the writ petitioner to do so. The act committed by the writ petitioner is virtually unheard of. Therefore, the employer was justified in taking a very serious view of the matter. While I am giving the benefit of doubt
