The drawer is short by ₹2,140 at closing

Expected cash in drawer = opening float ₹3,000 + cash sales ₹46,800 − payout ₹2,000 = ₹47,800. Actual = ₹45,660, so the shortage is ₹2,140. Now test each story against that figure:

• The ₹2,000 void: a void made before cash is taken has zero cash impact. A void made after cash is taken is only valid if cash went back with a signed refund voucher. There is no voucher, so check the bill number sequence, time stamp, CCTV and whether the same items were re-rung on the next bill.
• The ₹2,000 note given as change to a walk-away: if true, that is a ₹2,000 loss, and it is also a serious procedural breach - change is never given against a note before payment.
• The critical point: these two explanations each account for roughly ₹2,000, but the drawer is short only ₹2,140. They cannot both be true, otherwise the shortage would be about ₹4,000. One of the two statements is false. After either one, only about ₹140 remains, which is within ordinary change-error range.
• The ₹410 and ₹1,250 voids still need matching to CCTV and stock on the shelf.
• The 10% unauthorised discount is not a cash shortage; it is a revenue loss on one bill and a separate disciplinary matter. So the honest answer to the owner is: ₹2,140 is unexplained, and the cashier's own account is internally contradictory. That is a reason to investigate, not yet a finding of theft.

• No public accusation, no forced confession, no deduction on the spot. A deduction without a written, signed authorisation is legally unsafe for the employer and destroys the case if the matter later goes further.
• Take a written statement in private, with a witness present, in the cashier's own words, covering: the ₹2,000 change incident, each void, and the payout to the courier.
• Preserve evidence the same night: the POS journal and void log, the three bill numbers, the physical stock of the items in those bills (if the goods are not back on the shelf, they left the store), the CCTV covering 9 hours of the counter, and the courier's name and slip if any.
• Record the shortage in the cash-shortage register with the calculation shown, signed by both cashier and supervisor.
• Escalate to the owner/HR with the facts and no conclusion; the decision on a warning, recovery with written consent, or a police complaint belongs to the employer under its policy, not to the supervisor at 10 pm.
• If the courier payout is a regular practice, fix the voucher requirement from tomorrow - otherwise the cashier is being blamed for a broken system. The test is to separate poor practice (giving change before payment, void without voucher) from dishonesty, and to build a record that stands up either way.

1. Supervisor PIN plus customer signature for every void and refund, with the reason code entered. Stops a bill being cancelled after cash is taken without a trace, and makes the void log auditable against CCTV.
2. A locked change fund separate from the sales drawer, and no payouts without a signed voucher. Stops "I gave change and he never came back" from being either possible or believable - the drawer never mixes sales cash with change.
3. Mid-day cash pickup and a blind second count at closing signed by two people. Limits how much cash can be lost in a single shift and removes the situation where the person who handled the cash is the only person who counts it.
4. (Supporting) Staff training on counterfeit detection and on the rule that change follows payment, never precedes it, plus weekly review of the void exception report by the owner. Each control targets a specific failure seen today: unauthorised void, unvouchered payout, single-person control of cash.