₹1,850 short at close: reading a POS day-report correctly

Step 1 - establish the size of the gap by tender.

• Cash: expected ₹21,400, counted ₹19,550 → short ₹1,850.
• UPI: expected ₹16,000, settlement message says ₹16,000 → no gap.
• Card: ₹9,900 recorded but the EDC batch/settlement slip must be checked before it is called clean. Never treat card as settled because the POS says so.

Step 2 - test each anomaly.

• The three voided bills total roughly ₹1,875. That is close to ₹1,850 but not equal, and a near-match is a lead, not proof. A void done before cash is taken changes nothing; a void done after cash is taken normally leaves the cash in the drawer, producing an excess, unless the cash was separately removed. Void slips, reason codes and whether the bills were reprinted must be checked.
• The ₹450 keyed in place of ₹1,450 is a ₹1,000 revenue loss, not part of the cash gap - the customer paid exactly what was billed, so the drawer still balances on that bill. Lumping it into the shortage is an error many candidates make.

Step 3 - look for the missing link: stock. Count the three screen-guard SKUs. If stock has physically fallen by three units with no valid sale, the void explanation gains real weight. If stock matches valid sales, look elsewhere - wrong change given, a ₹2,000 note treated as ₹200, an unrecorded payout.

• Recount together, in his presence, on paper, tender by tender. A single-person count is not evidence; a joint count signed by both is.
• Ask for a written explanation the same evening, while memory is fresh - which bills were voided, why, did the customer take the item, where the void slips are.
• Search the ordinary places first: the 'hold/pending' envelope, the drawer under the tray, petty-cash slips, a note kept for a customer who went to withdraw cash. A large share of reported shortages are mislaid cash, not theft.
• Do not deduct ₹1,850 from his salary. Wage deductions need authority and a written process; doing it on suspicion exposes Sunita to a labour dispute and destroys any chance of recovering the truth.
• Do not accuse him in front of other staff or customers. Say plainly that the drawer is short, that the process will be checked, and that a written explanation is needed.
• If the shortfall is genuine and stock is missing, handle it through a documented disciplinary process - a warning and a tightening of controls for a first incident with no CCTV, and only escalate if the same pattern repeats. A single ₹1,850 gap is a controls failure as much as a conduct question.

1. Void and refund approval. Any void, refund or price override above ₹500 needs a manager PIN plus a reason code, and the void slip is printed and signed and stays with the day report. Reason: the three voids happened in 25 minutes on one login with no check - the delay between action and detection is what made the gap possible.
2. Tender-wise close with a two-person count. The closing sheet must show cash, card and UPI separately against the POS figures, signed by the cashier and one other person, with the EDC settlement slip stapled to it. A single total hides which tender leaked; the UPI figure matched only because it was checked against the settlement message.
3. Daily stock check on high-shrink SKUs. Count the top 15 small, high-value items (screen guards, cables, earphones) every morning and record. Reason: cash alone cannot show whether a voided bill was a real cancellation - the stock movement can.

Add as a supporting measure: CCTV covering the till and the counter, and a maximum of ₹5,000 kept in the drawer overnight, with the surplus removed to the safe at a fixed time and recorded.