Gujarat High Court
Devjibhai Manjibhai Parmar vs Regional Manager on 26 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18190 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
DEVJIBHAI MANJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
REGIONAL MANAGER
=============================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for the appellant - original respondent and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr. I. G. Joshi for the respondent - original petitioner.
2. By this appeal, under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined the appellant - original respondent has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by the respondent - Bank and thereby, setting aside the Judgment and Award dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (for short "The Tribunal") in Industrial Dispute (Reference CGITA) No.926 of 2004 (Old) (ITC) No.01 of 1990 whereby, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the respondent - Bank against the appellant and directed the respondent - Bank to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and to pay 25% backwages.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
4. The appellant was working with the respondent - Bank as a Class-IV employer. The appellant was discharged from service on the ground that the charges levelled against him vide Chargesheet dated 04.09.1986 and additional Chargesheet dated 19.01.1987 were proved in domestic inquiry.
5. The appellant was discharged from the service with effect from 31.05.1988 and being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the Bank on 08.07.1988 which was also rejected and thereafter, the appellant raised the dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. In Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined the statement of claim, filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, it was stated that he was working as godown keeper at the relevant time at the respondent Bank's Vaniyavadi Branch, Rajkot.
6. The charges levelled against the appellant are as under:
Charge Sheet and Suspension Order:
"1. You had made a credit entry of Rs. 1000/- as on 10.7.1986 in the Saving Bank pas book relating to SB A/C. No. 6105 of one Sri Harish Dalpatray Bhatti, without actually remitting the amount he credit of the above SB A/c. No. 6105 in the Bank.
2. You had misappropriated the above amount of Rs. 1000/- relating to the imputation No. 1 for yourself."
Additional Charge Sheet:
"1. It is reported that you had entered into a partnership on 10/02/1986 with one Shri Ramaben Devjibhai Parmar and again on 21/07/1986 with four others namely 1) Ramaben Devjibhai Parmar 2) Jalabhai Keshabhai Zala 3) Rambhaben Lilaben Zala 4) Bharabhai Anandabhai Zala had engaged in business/trade in the name and style of M/s Vihot Industries, without ^the written permission of the bank.
2) You had got purchased on 14/07/1986 at our Ashram Road (Ahmedabad) branch a self cheque bearing No.049732 dated 14/07/1986 for Rs.200/-(Two Hundred Only) drawn on your SB A/c. 5566 at our Vaniawadi without keeping sufficient funds in your SB A/c. No.5566 with our Vaniawadi branch to honour the Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined instrument."
7. Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted the pursis dated 29.04.2002 at Exhibit-40 to not to press application Exhibit-33 to hold that the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent - Bank was illegal. As per the Exhibit-40 dated 29.04.2002 it was declared by the appellant - original respondent that the respondent has not challenged the legality of the departmental inquiry and the only prayer made was to consider the issue of punishment.
8. Tribunal by the Judgment and Award dated 12.12.2005 after considering the Inquiry Report and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that charges leveled against the appellant are not proved and no proper opportunity was given before inflicting the punishment and the decision was taken in haste by the respondent - Bank. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the Order of discharge of the appellant directing the respondent - Bank to reinstate him in his original post with continuity of service within 30 days of receipt of the Award with 25% backwages.
9. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the respondent - Bank preferred Special Civil Application No.18190 of 2006 which was allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined
10. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, efforts were made by referring the matter to the mediation but the mediation had failed and therefore, the matter is now heard on merits.
11. Learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for the appellant submitted that by the impugned Order, learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to the excessive punishment imposed upon the appellant by passing the Order of discharge by the respondent - Bank. It was submitted that the Tribunal in the Judgment and Award, has examined the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved and therefore, the punishment of discharge from service is substituted by directing the respondent - Bank to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service with 25% backwages. It was submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, has come to such conclusion which is nothing but holding that the punishment imposed was excessive as compared to the charges which are not proved as per the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in observing that the Tribunal has not recorded that quantum of penalty is so excessive which means victimization. It was submitted that on perusing the entire Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Order of discharge of the appellant Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined is not commensurating to the charges which are not proved as per the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India reported in 2008 (12) SCC 726, referring to para nos.17 to 20 of the said Judgment, it was submitted that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the finding arrived at in the inquiry proceedings are not supported on the basis of the evidence by concluding that the punishment of discharge from service was not justified and therefore, the Tribunal was justified by passing the Order of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% backwages.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has held that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to findings and to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned, then the Tribunal must give cogent reasons for not agreeing with the findings. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved after analysing the evidence and therefore, knowing that, the learned Single Judge could not have made any interference in the Judgment and Award by holding that there is no finding of the Tribunal regarding the excessive punishment imposed upon the appellant by Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined passing an Order of discharge from service.
13. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order could not have come to the conclusion that decision with regard to the quantum of penalty would be within the realm of employers discretion in cases, where legality and propriety of the inquiry is proved or is not challenged and where the charges are proved.
14. It was submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India (supra), the Tribunal was justified in considering the evidence and the charges and the findings of the inquiry as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act which stipulates that if the Tribunal is satisfied, that the Order of discharge was not justified, it may be set aside.
15. It was further submitted that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, findings arrived at by the Tribunal could not have been substituted ignoring the facts that the charges leveled against the appellant are trivial in nature.
16. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi for the respondent - Bank submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned Judgment and Order Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined has considered even the merits of the matter and has analyzed each finding arrived at by the Tribunal viz-a- viz, the evidence on record independent of the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer during the course of the departmental inquiry. It was submitted that once the appellant has admitted the legality and propriety of the domestic inquiry as well as the findings and had restricted the challenge only with regard to the quantum of penalty and claimed for backwages, it was not open for the Tribunal to enter into the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and to decide the issue as to whether the charge leveled against the appellant were proved or not.
17. It was further submitted that the charge levelled against the appellant are proved during the course of departmental inquiry and therefore, the Tribunal could not have decided the justification and propriety with regard to the quantum of penalty.
18. It was therefore, pointed out that the Tribunal could not have entered into the process of examining whether the charges are proved or not.
19. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and Order has arrived at the findings that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the charges are not proved on the basis of the evidence on record. It was pointed out that learned Single Judge Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant has come to the conclusion that during the hearing, learned advocate for the appellant had fairly accepted that the registration of the establishment in name and style of M/s Vihot Industries was completed when the Chargesheet was issued to the appellant and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in Para No.9 of the impugned Judgment and Award coming to the conclusion that such act could not be considered as misconduct as the said entity did not carry out any trading or business transaction. However, the Tribunal has also recorded that the application for loan in the name of the partnership establishment and the said entity was submitted to the G.S.F.C.while the appellant was in service. The learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the Tribunal could not have proceeded on the premise that because any transaction was not entered into by the said Firm, it would not amount to misconduct.
20. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the charge of credit entry of Rs.1000/- in the Savings Bank Account No.6105 of the customer Mr. Bhatti was also proved as held by the learned Single Judge.
21. It was therefore, submitted that no interference is required to be made while exercising the jurisdiction under Clause - 15 of the Letters Patent in this appeal.
Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined
22. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission.
(i) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115;
(ii) West Bokaro Colliery Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 729;
23. Having heard the learned advocates for respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the appellant had, by the pursis dated 29.04.2002 at Exhibit-40 before the Tribunal, declared that so far as the legality and validity of the department proceedings are not under challenge and the reference was restricted to the quantum of the punishment imposed upon the appellant only and therefore, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "ID Act") which reads as under:
"11A. [ Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. [ Inserted by Act 45 of 1971, Section 3 (w.e.f. 15.12.1971).]
- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.]"
24. The scope and ambit of Section 11A of the ID Act is already explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar (Supra) and West Bokaro Colliery Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh (Supra) as under:
In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar (Supra):
"7. The respondent did not press the legality and fairness of the enquiry proceedings and confined his case only to the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer as well as the quantum of punishment."
In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of West Bokaro Colliery Vs. Ram Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined Pravesh Singh (Supra):
"16. In U.P. SRTC Vs. Vinod Kumar this Court again observed that in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer or the punishment awarded by the punishing authority."
25. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the findings of the Tribunal on merits in detail as under:
7. So as to consider and decide the challenge against the impugned award, it would be necessary to take into account the charge and allegations against the respondent in light of which and on account of which the service of the respondent came to be terminated. The charge sheet and additional charge sheet issued by the bank against the respondent are placed on record. The petitioner bank, vide charge sheet dated 4.9.1986 levelled below quoted charge and allegations against the respondent :-
"1) You had made a credit entry of Rs.1000/-
as on 10.7.1986 in the Saving Bank Pass Book relating to SB A/c. No.6105 of one Sri Harish Dalpatray Bhatti, without actually remitting the amount the credit of the above SB A/c. No.6105 in the bank.
2) You had misappropriated the above amount of Rs.1000/- relating to the imputation No.1, for yourself.
The above charges, if established in an enquiry, will render you guilty of gross misconduct under para 17.5(d) and 17.5(j) Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined of the Bipartite settlement between the Bank and its workmen dated 14.12.1966 as amended upto date which is read as under
17.5(d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers.
17.5(J) doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank, or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss."
7.1 In the said charge sheet, the respondent was called upon to offer his explanation / reply.
7.2 While the proceedings with regard to the above mentioned charge sheet dated 4.9.1986 were pending, additional charge sheet dated 19.1.1987 came to be issued. In the said additional charge sheet, the bank levelled below quoted charge against the respondent :-
"1) It is reported that you had entered into a partnership on 10/02/1986 with one Shri Ramaben Devjibhai Parmar and again on 21/07/1986 with four others namely 1) Ramaben Devjibhai Parmar 2) Jalabhai Keshabhai Zala 3) Rambhaben Lilaben Zala 4) Bharabhai Anandabhai Zala and engaged in business/trade in the name and style of M/s Vihot Industries, without the written permission of the bank.
2) You had got purchased on 14/07/1986 at our Ashram Road (Ahmedabad) branch a self cheque bearing No.049732 dated 14/07/1986 for Rs.200/- (Two Hundred Only) drawn on your SB A/c. No.5566 at our Vaniawadi branch without keeping sufficient funds in your SB A/c. No.5566 with our Vaniawadi branch to honour the instrument.
The above acts, if established in an enquiry, will render you guilty of gross misconduct under para 17.5(a) and 17.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement between the Bank Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined and its workmen dated 14/12/1966 as amended upto date which reads as under:-
12.5(a) engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his duties except with written permission of the bank;
17.5(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank, or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;"
8.In pursuance of the said charge sheet, the domestic inquiry in accordance with the rules applicable to the petitioner bank was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted inquiry report holding, inter alia, that the charge levelled against the workman are proved. The disciplinary authority examined the report of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and called for the respondent's response. After considering the response by the respondent workman and the material available on record of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to discharge the respondent and that therefore, the termination order dated 31.5.1988 came to be passed. The departmental appeal against the said order failed. Against the said concurrent orders, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal.
9.By an application / pursis dated 29.4.2002, the respondent declared and stipulated that he restricts the challenge against the order only qua punishment and his claim for backwages.
9.1 In light of the said pursis, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman had dropped the challenge against the procedural aspect of the domestic inquiry as well as finding reached and recorded by the inquiry officer inasmuch as the respondent declared and stipulated that he restricts the Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined challenge only against the punishment.
9.2 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent, would contend that since the respondent workman has not expressly mentioned that he does not challenge the findings of the inquiry officer, such stipulation may not be read into the said pursis.
10. In this background, the conclusions by the learned Tribunal are required to be examined.
10.1 On this count, it is relevant to take into account the observations by the learned Tribunal in paragraph Nos.7 and 9 of the award dated 12.12.2005.
"7. Under section 11A of the I.D.Act when there is a dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman the adjudicator. If he is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. It may by it's award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. Or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may required. For that purpose the Tribunal shall rely only on the material on record and shall not take fresh evidence in relation to the matter. Looking to this provisions the Tribunal has power to give relief to the workman in case of discharge or dismissal. Thus when the management takes responsibility to level the charges of mis-conduct, there must be material in support of such charge where there is no such material the action and the charge would be vitiated by basic error or perversity. In workman of Fire, Stone Rubbeer, Company India Private Ltd. V/s. Management 1973 1 LLJ page No.278 S.C. It was held that under Section 11A the Tribunal Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined has power to differ both on finding of mis- conduct arrived at by an employer as well as the punishment imposed by him. It is not necessary for the workman to plead section 11A. The adjudicator himself has to apply the provisions of this section irrespective of the fact, whether the workman has mentioned it in his pleadings and claimed relief there under or not. Thus the adjudicator has power regarding of finding of mis-conduct as well as punishment imposed by employer. If we peruse the inquiry proceedings against the concerned workman (Ex.82 page Nos.1 to 29) management witness No.3 Shri Harishbhai Dalpatbhai Bhatti has deposed to the inquiry officer that he did not meet manager on 05/08/1986 the day on which he came to withdraw the cash from the S.B.Account. It is also clear that he met the officer from the bank during the month of October 1986, while the charge sheet was given to the concerned workmen on 04/09/1986. He also says that he is not agree with the letter which he has written on 10/10/1986. And it was his misunderstanding regarding the entry of Rs.1000/-. He admitted that Shri D.M.Parmar has given the amount to him on the same day that it is on 02/07/1986. He replied that he did not give any money to Mr. D.M.Parmar. Regarding his letter, he made sufficient explanation in the inquiry. Thus the evidence of M.W.3 is clear admission that the letter, he has written to the officer from Bombay was as per his request and not the facts. This evidence is clear to disapprove the charges against the concerned workman regarding the credit entry of Rs.1000/- on 10/07/1986 in the saving bank passbook of S.B.A/c. No.6105. The charge of misappropriation of Rs.1000/- relating to the above entry is not proved. Thus the guilt of the concerned workman is not established by the evidence in the inquiry. Thus the charges under para 17.5(a), 17.5(J) is not established against the concerned workman.
9. Looking to the charge-sheet dated Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined 19/01/1987. The first charge is of engaging in to the partnership of M/s. Vihot Industries. Looking to the inquiry papers it is established that the unit is on paper and yet to take particular shape. There is no evidence that there was any trade/business undertaken by M/s. Vihot Industries. The only evidence is of a bank account and G.S.F.C. letter. But no person was examined from Bank of India at Rajkot, regarding the account. Thus without proper evidence and without any material on record it can not be established that M/s. Vihot Industries has done any trade/business. The workman applied for loan to G.S.F.C. with a clear understanding that after resignation loan can be sanctioned. Thus there is no document to show that the concerned workman was a partner of M/s. Vihot Industries and that unit was materialized and has done any trade/business. The charges against the concerned workman that he is a partner of M/s. Vihot Industries is also not, clearly established. The only charge proved against the concerned workman is of purchasing a cheque of Rs.200/- and for that he had submitted reasonable explanation of the circumstances for the purchase. The letter dated 23/10/1986 from G.S.F.C. does not establish that M/s. Vihot Industries has carried out any trade/business. It was a merely paper arrangement which was never materialized. Looking to the letter of the bank also the account of M/s. Vihot Industries was closed on 20/12/1986. The account does not show that any/business was materialized during the period from 28/03/1986 to 22/12/1986. Thus there is no evidence to show that M/s. Vihot Industries is a real entity and that firm has done any trade/business. Thus the charges against the concerned workman being a partner of Vihot Industries did not established. However, the charges of purchasing a cheque of Rs.200/- from Ashram Road Branch is proved, but for that a sufficient explanation has been given by the concerned workman. He also narrated the circumstances for which it was purchased. Not only that the concerned Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined workman has repaid the amount and charge of Rs.8/- is also recovered from him. Thus it is not a grave misconduct on the part of the concerned workman, so that he shall be discharged from the services. Thus the charges under para 17.5(a) is not established as well as under para 17.5(J) is also not established because there is no loss to the bank for purchasing a cheque of Rs.200/-."
10.2 Under the charge sheet dated 4.9.1986, the petitioner bank alleged that the respondent workman had misappropriated sum of Rs.1,000/- relating to saving bank account No.6105 of one Shri H.D.Bhatti.
11. Now, so far as said charge is concerned, as mentioned in the chargesheet, the said charge, if proved, amounts to major misconduct.
12. The inquiry officer reached to the conclusion, on the basis of the material on record of the domestic inquiry that the bank proved the charge.
12.1 In this context, it is necessary to note and mention that since the respondent workman did not challenge the legality and propriety of the inquiry and restricted his challenge to the punishment, learned tribunal relied on the same material and evidence which was available on record of the domestic inquiry.
12.2 Any additional / fresh evidence was not placed before the learned tribunal during the proceedings.
12.3 With regard to the said charge, learned tribunal has recorded, inter alia, that:-
Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined
8. Looking to the deposition of M.W.3 the findings of the inquiry officer for the above charges are not supported by the evidence. Not only that if it is an act of misappropriation, the bank has not filed any criminal case against the concerned workman. Thus the so called fictious entry of Rs.1000/- in the pass book of Shri Harisbhai D. Bhatti after taking money from him has not been proved. It may be error on the part of employee but certainly not a mis-appropriation on the part of the workman."
12.4 Learned tribunal also took into account the evidence of the concerned customer i.e. Mr. Bhatti who during his statement before the inquiry officer stated that:-
"He admitted that Shri D.M. Parmar has given the amount to him on the same day that it is on 02/07/1986. He replied that he did not give any money to Mr. D.M. Parmar. Regarding his letter, he made sufficient explanation in the inquiry."
12.5 After taking into account the said statement of the customer the learned tribunal construed the said evidence to mean that:-
Thus the evidence of M.W.3 is clear admission that the letter he has written to the officer from Bombay was as per his request and not the facts. This evidence is clear to disapprove the charges against the concern workman regarding the credit entry of Rs.1000/- on 10/07/1986 in the saving bank passbook of S.B. A/c. 6105.
12.6 It comes out that the learned tribunal failed to take into account that in his statement before the inquiry officer the witness mentioned that the delinquent / chargesheeted employee had "given amount to him on the same day".Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined 12.7 Learned tribunal also failed to appreciate that the charge against the respondent workman was that the delinquent, without actually remitting the amount, had merely made credit entry in the saving bank account No. 6105 of the customer Mr. Bhatti.
12.8 The fact that the delinquent had paid the amount to the customer was sufficient to support and prove the charge mentioned in the chargesheet dated 4.9.1986.
13. The petitioner claims that it was neither open or necessary nor appropriate for the learned tribunal to enter into the examination of the proof related to the charge and to decide as to whether the charge was proved and findings by the inquiry officer are correct or not.
14. However, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent would contend that since the challenge against the findings of the inquiry is not expressly waived it was proper for the learned tribunal to examine said aspect.
15. If the Court proceeds in the matter by accepting the submissions by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent then also, from the foregoing discussion it comes out that learned tribunal has not examined the evidence of the witness / customer in light of the charge levelled against the respondent and the Court has also not taken into account the statement by the witness that the delinquent had given him amount and the credit entry was made actual remitting amount then there was no need for the delinquent to pay amount to the respondent. The conclusion by learned labour Court that the charge cannot be said to proved is not sustainable.
16. So far as other charge levelled against the respondent are concerned one of the two Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined allegations relate to the conduct of the respondent viz. entering into partnership for business activity with other persons, while he was in service with the bank.
16.1 According to the petitioner the bank's regulation do not permit its employees to enter into partnership and / or any business activity while in service.
16.2 Dispute such provision the respondent entered into partnership with other person for the purpose of business activity in name and style of M/s Vihot Industries.
17. During the hearing of present petition Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman could not dispute, and has fairly accepted, that the registration of the establishment in the name and stay of M/s Vihot Industries was completed when the chargesheet was issued. It is pertinent to note that learned tribunal, as can be seen from the observation in paragraph No. 9, has permitted itself to proceed on the premise that though the respondent had entered into partnership for carrying on trade / business activity in name and style of M/s Vihot Industries, however, the said act cannot be construed as misconduct because there is no evidence to show that M/s. Vihot Industries had done any trading / business transaction.
18. Learned Court proceeded on the premise that since the firm had actually not transacted in business and actually had not commenced any activity, the action of the respondent workman of entering into partnership cannot be said to be misconduct.
19. On this count it is necessary to note that learned tribunal itself has recorded in the impugned award that "the workman applied for loan to G.S.F.C. with clear understanding that Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined after resignation loan can be sanctioned".
19.1 Thus, even learned tribunal had noticed the fact that an application for loan in name of partnership establishment i.e. M/s Vihot Industries, was submitted to G.S.F.C. and that such application was submitted while the respondent was in service.
19.2 When these aspects are established before the learned tribunal then learned tribunal could not have proceeded on the premise that since any transaction was not entered into and executed by the said M/s Vihot Industries, the action of entering into partnership with other person cannot be considered misconduct.
19.3 Learned tribunal ignored the fact that the respondent workman had made an application for loan to G.S.F.C. for the trade / business activity of the said partnership establishment. Merely because it was not established that the said M/s Vihot Industries had carried out any trade / business activity, it did not wipe out the action of the respondent of entering into partnership with other person. At the very moment when partnership was finalized, entered into, the misconduct was committed.
19.4 Actual transaction by partnership firm could not have been considered as pre-requisite for holding that the misconduct of entering into trade / business while in service was committed by the respondent.
19.5 Learned tribunal by proceeding on the premise that there was no evidence to show that M/s Vihot Industries had actually did not in trade or business, permitted itself to be misdirected and under such misdirection learned tribunal reached to wrong destination and conclusion.
19.6 As mentioned earlier the moment the Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined respondent workman, while in service entered into partnership with other person, for carrying on trade / business, he committed misconduct.
19.7 Merely on the ground that actual trade / business activity or transaction was not transacted or entered into or carried out, the learned Tribunal could not have held that the charge and allegation is not proved. The said finding by the learned tribunal is not correct.
20. So far as the charge with regard to purchase of cheque of Rs.200 is concerned, it is held that the charge is proved.
20.1 However, on the ground that the respondent workman had offered explanation, learned tribunal has considered that the said explanation ought to have been accepted by the Inquiry Officer and the respondent could not have been visited with any penalty for the said charge / allegation."
26. From the above findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India (supra) relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Mishra, would not be applicable in the facts of the present case because the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the said case, has held that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and also, has correctly substituted the punishment but the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not refer to any of the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal, whereas in the facts of the present case, learned Single Judge has minutely and in detail referred to each and every factual finding recorded by the Tribunal and dealt Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined with the same as reproduced hereinabove and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that in absence of specific observation of the Tribunal that the quantum of penalty is so excessive, that it means victimization and without reaching to such conclusion, the Tribunal could not have entered into the decision with regard to the quantum of penalty. Considering the settled legal position as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar (Supra) and West Bokaro Colliery Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh (Supra) and Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India (supra) and with regard to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act coupled with the fact that the appreciation of the evidence made by the Tribunal was held to be erroneous and incorrect by the learned Single Judge, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. Appeal therefore, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Jaimin Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:38:50 IST 2025