Woman’s ‘righteousness’ helps husband in securing relief in case before Madras High Court

The “righteousness” of a woman in persuading her husband, when he was a bank employee, to take responsibility for the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from a customer’s account has impressed the Madras High Court so much that it has ordered the grant of a monthly pension to the now-discharged employee.

The “righteousness” of a woman in persuading her husband, when he was a bank employee, to take responsibility for the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from a customer’s account has impressed the Madras High Court so much that it has ordered the grant of a monthly pension to the now-discharged employee.

Disposing of a writ petition pending since 2010, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy wrote: “This matter stands as an exemplary case as to how a spouse can help the other and show the path of aram (righteousness) and bring the other within the fold of the right path, when he or she strays away.”

He went on to write: “As a matter of fact, the said exemplary good conduct on the part of the petitioner’s wife, which is borne out from the records, is one of the reasons for this court to consider the issue of granting of pension and not leaving the parties to go for one more round of litigation.”

Upon perusing the records, the judge found that the petitioner J. James (name changed) was appointed as a clerk/shroff under the sports quota at Indian Bank in 1990. In 2002, ₹5.75 lakh was found missing from a customer’s account when the petitoner was serving at the bank’s Egmore branch in Chennai.

On the day of the inquiry, the needle of suspicion pointed towards the petitioner — on the basis of his handwriting — but he refused to confess. However, later in the day, the bank officials received a phone call from the petitioner’s wife, who suspected that her husband had been involved in some foul play.

The officials rushed to the petitioner’s house and after much persuasion by his wife, he confessed to the crime and gave it in writing too. Thereafter, the woman sought monetary assistance from her relatives, pooled in as much money as she could, and returned the entire misappropriated sum of ₹5.75 lakh to the bank.

Since the money was returned, no criminal prosecution was initiated. However, the bank took departmental action and dismissed the petitioner from service in 2004. When he challenged the dismissal order, a Labour Court, in 2009, ordered the reduction of punishment from dismissal to discharge from service.