Bombay High Court
Divisional Manager, Central Bank ... vs Rameshkumar S/O. Harkishanji ... on 22 August, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment lpa238.09
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 238/2009
IN WRIT PETITION No. 1478/1997.
Divisional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
A Nationalized Bank, having its
H.O. At Bombay at Chandramukhi
Nariman Point, Mumbai and
Divisional Office at 'Mangesh' Adarsha
Colony, Akola - 444 004. ....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. Shri Rameshkumar s/o Harikishanji Sharma
(Dead through L.Rs.)
1-A. Sanjaykumar s/o Harikrishanji Sharma,
r/o. Marvadipura, Jijamata Chowk,
Karanja Lad, District Washim.
1-B. Shailesh s/o Harikrishanji Sharma,
r/o. Marvadipura, Jijamata Chowk,
Karanja Lad, District Washim.
1-C. Bharti Santosh Vaidya,
r/o. Wani Galli, Yawal,
District Jalgaon.
1-D. Aarti Manoj Sharma,
r/o. Plot no.278/D-4, Gorai T-2,
Borivali West, Mumbai - 12.
2. Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur. .... RESPONDENTS .
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 01:05:57 :::
Judgment lpa238.09
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. A. Parchure with Shri Deshpande, Advocates for Respondent
No.1(A) to 1(D).
None for Respondent No.1 - Served.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
& ARUN D.UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri M.D. Samel, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Shri Dehpande, learned Counsel for legal heirs of deceased employee -
respondent no.1.
2. Judgment and award delivered by Central Government
Industrial Tribunal in Reference Proceedings CGIT /LC(R)(42)/90,
answering the Reference made to it in negative, was questioned by the
deceased employee Rameshkumar in Writ Petition No. 1478/1997 before
the learned Single Judge. By judgment dated 18.12.2008, the learned
Single Judge has allowed that Writ Petition and answered the Reference in
affirmative. Punishment of dismissal inflicted upon Rameshkumar has been
set aside and Bank was asked to reinstate him with full back wages w.e.f.
Judgment lpa238.09
21.08.1985, till he attained the age of superannuation. The impugned
judgment and award made in February, 1996 by the C.G.I.T. was
accordingly quashed and set aside.
3. Shri Samel, learned counsel for the appellant - Bank has in
order to show how there is an error apparent on the part of the learned
Single Judge, by inviting our attention to charge no.5 framed against the
employee, states that while replying thereto and in Writ Petition before the
learned Single Judge, Rameshkumar expressly accepted the facts
constituting misconduct. In the face of that admission, learned Single
Judge ought not to have intervened in the matter. He has taken us
through relevant material to buttress his submissions.
4. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for legal heirs of deceased
employee on the other hand points out that Charge no.5 implicates
deceased in his official capacity, and that capacity or its use has been denied
by him. According to him, learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated
the controversy.
5. With the assistance of respective counsel, we have perused the
papers. Reference made to CGIT Jabalpur vide notification dated
Judgment lpa238.09
05.02.1990, envisaged adjudication of validity of action of management,
Central Bank of India, Akola dismissing petitioner / Rameshkumar from
service, and whether he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages
with effect from the date of dismissal i.e. 21.08.1985.
6. Charge No.5 against the employee, which has been pressed into
service reads as under :
"5. Mr. Sharma has cheated Mr. Sk. Rustam Sk.
Burhan Mansoori by taking gold ornaments from him
and by giving him some money with the
understanding that the Bank is doing the Gold Loan
business. Though the party has refunded the amount
with interest, Gold Ornaments were not returned to
the party by Mr. R.H. Sharma, thereby spoiling the
image of Central Bank of India."
Thus, this charge expressly shows that Rameshkumar gave impression to Sk.
Rustam that loan was being advanced by Central Bank of India and his
ornaments would be pledged with that Bank. Reading of paragraph no.7 of
Writ Petition filed by Rameshkumar to show that the transaction has been
admitted by him, appears to be an erroneous effort. In paragraph no.7 of
Judgment lpa238.09
the Writ Petition, Rameshkumar has pleaded as under :
"7. The allegations of the respondent Bank
regarding transactions of advancing loan to one Mr.
Sk. Rustam Sk. Burhan Mansoori, it is submitted that
the said loan transaction had no concern with the
Bank. It is most humbly submitted that the said
transaction was a personal transaction of the
petitioner to help the person in difficulty. It could not
affect the image of the Bank in any manner what-so-
ever. There is no question of cheating by the petitioner
to the said party, who took the loan. The said party
had submitted a letter before the Enquiry Officer that
he has no grievance against the petitioner in respect of
the transaction in question. On payment of the loan
amount, the ornaments were returned to the said
party. The transaction was settled. Under the above
circumstances the Bank could not made any grievance
that the act of personal transaction of the petitioner
was a misconduct. The observations of the
Disciplinary Authority that M/s. Shashikant General
Stores, Karanja (Lad) withdrawn the complaint due to
local pressure. This observation of the Disciplinary
Authority is out of prejudice and there is no evidence to
that effect. It is submitted that the Annexure-P, which
was filed by the petitioner clearly shows that the
Judgment lpa238.09
amount of Rs. 23.50 was paid to the concerned party
on the same date i.e. on 15.03.1984. It is submitted
that the said party also attempted that the grievance
was made due to absence of information to him. It is
submitted that there was no duty on the petitioner to
bring the stationary nor there was a duty on the
petitioner to go and pay the amount. It is submitted
that merely because the petitioner extended the
cooperation to purchase the stationary and make the
payment. No ill intention could be inferred by the
Disciplinary Authority regarding the payment of small
amount of Rs. 23.50."
Thus, reply shows an assertion that Sk. Rustam was not given any
impression about involvement of Bank in the matter. It is also claimed that
after Sk. Rustam returned loan amount to Rameshkumar, gold ornaments
were given back to Sk. Rustam.
7. Thus, Rameshkumar points out a private or personal
transaction between him and Sk. Rustam. This private transaction or its
acceptance by him cannot be stretched to mean that Sk. Rustam was
cheated and given an impression that loan was advanced by Bank to him or
then his ornaments were to be kept in custody of the Bank.
Judgment lpa238.09
8. Learned Single Judge has considered the entire material
available on record in this respect from paragraph no.18 onwards. The
somersaults by Sk. Rustam are also commented upon. There is a finding
that signatures of Sk. Rustam on two documents was in Urdu. The
complaint filed by him on 16.03.1994, which led formulation of charge no.5
is itself found not established by the learned Single Judge. Sk. Rustam
himself never entered witness box. Communication by him for withdrawing
that complaint is signed by him in Urdu. Later communication attempting
to revive that complaint is again signed in Urdu. It is in this backdrop that
the learned Single Judge has found proof of signature of complainant Sk.
Rustam necessary.
9. The appellant Bank has not given any charge sheet to
Rameshkumar for indulging in any business while in employment of the
Bank, or then for indulging in any competitive / prohibited business. Had
that been done, explanation or plea in paragraph no.7 of the Writ Petition
(supra), could have assisted the Bank to some extent. Now Rameshkumar
is no more and his legal heirs have been brought on record of this Letters
Patent Appeal on 26.10.2015.
Judgment lpa238.09
10. In this situation, we do not see any jurisdictional error or
perversity in the approach of the learned Single Judge. No case is made
outfor interference. Lettrs Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
