Shah Ketankumar 2036445 5-11-2012.pdf - General ...

ABto it. Then Sue comes along and says she has found a receipt. She says, ‘Who has donethis?’ We ask her, ‘Whose number is it?’ She said ‘It is 555’. I said, ‘Well I haven’tdone it, because I’ve been in the dispensary. So somebody has used my number, while Iwas in the pharmacy’.”The only purpose of the transaction must have been to retain £10, and the Committeeinfers that Mr Shah did so. It notes that Boots at that time required vouchers to be sent tohead office periodically, but did not in fact attempt to check or reconcile vouchers.CThe Committee finds Particular 7 proved in relation to Particular of Allegation 4.DEFGHT A REED& CO LTD01992-465900Particulars of Allegation 5 concerns Mr and Mrs Hymans. Mr Hymans is a retired policeofficer, who gave evidence to the Committee which the Committee accepted as being inevery way accurate and truthful. Part of his evidence was corroborated bycontemporaneous notes. He said that on two occasions in 2004, he was served in thestore by Mr Shah, who accepted a £20 note, and short-changed him by giving him changefor a £10 note instead. When challenged, Mr Shah then gave him the further £10 due,without any query or hesitation. Mr Shah told the Committee that he must have made amistake, and he would always accept that the customer was right, and would pay over theextra change. The Committee heard detailed evidence about the way in which cash washandled at Boots stores at the relevant time, including the limits on the amounts of cash tobe retained in tills, and the way in which £20 notes were put separately into a countersafe, rather than the till. It is satisfied that if Mr Shah had made an innocent mistake, hewould have carried out a brief check on the cash in the till and might well have had toinvolve another member of staff, but he would not have simply handed over an additionalamount of £10 without question. His actions clearly proved that he had short-changedMr Hymans and knew he had done so. Particular of Allegation 5 is found proved, andParticular of Allegation 7 is found proved in its entirety in respect of Particular 5.Particular of Allegation 6 again concerns Mr Hymans. On 26 February 2006 he wasagain served by Mr Shah when he purchased a tube of cream for his own use at theEastcote store at a price of £5.49. He told the Committee that he paid in cash, butreceived no receipt and did not receive his change until he asked for it. At Mr Shah’s10- Day 6