Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative ... on 20 December, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 11th September, 2006 whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II( in short 'the Tribunal') had answered the reference against the petitioner and held that the action of the management in dismissing the petitioner was just, fair and legal.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a peon-cum-watchman with the respondent bank at its Delhi Branch. The petitioner was found involved in a fraud of obtaining cheque book bearing numbers 983591 to 983600 on the basis of a forged requisition slip. A charge sheet was issued to him dated 5th July, 2000 in respect of this misconduct of dishonestly obtaining a cheque book with ulterior motives. Another charge sheet was issued to him on 26.7.2000 about his involvement in a fraud played upon the bank whereby an amount of Rs. 2 lacs was withdrawn using cheques bearing No. 983591 and No. 983592 each of Rs. 1 lac from the account of one Mr. Sandeep account No. 44820. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted in respect of two charge sheets. After recording evidence, the enquiry officer came to conclusion that the first charge of obtaining cheque book on the basis of forged requisition slip stood proved against the petitioner. However, in respect of the second charge sheet, the enquiry officer came to conclusion that some other persons also seem to be involved along with the petitioner in committing fraud of Rs. 2 lacs. He, however, came to conclusion that the petitioner did have a role in this fraud. After the report of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to represent and considering his representation and enquiry report, a punishment of dismissal from service without notice was imposed on him. The petitioner, challenged his dismissal and following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal:
Whether the action of the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Delhi in dismissing the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Ex. Peon-cum-Watchman of the Bank without notice vide ordere dated 20.5.2002 of the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.10.2002 is just, fair and legal? If no, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
3. The Tribunal, after noting the facts, came to conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in fair, just and proper manner. The charge proved against the petitioner was a serious charge of embezzlement of Rs. 2 lacs and attempt to further embezzling the bank's money and the punishment of dismissal awarded was not shocking to the conscious of the Tribunal and answered the reference against the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of award, stating that the observations of the Tribunal that the petitioner was involved in embezzlement of Rs. 2 lacs was contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has not stated that the petitioner was involved in embezzlement of Rs. 2 lacs. Enquiry officer only found that there was some role played by the petitioner. He further argued that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was highly disproportionate to the charges.
5. I consider that there is no force in the writ petition. The petitioner was working as a peon-cum-chowkidar. The evidence recorded before the enquiry officer would show that he, being the employee of the respondent bank, took benefit of the trust reposed in him and on the basis of forged requisition slip obtained a cheque book of somebody's account. The forged requisition slip and cheque book with unused cheques were recovered from him. The two cheques used in the fraud got missing from the bank record. On enquiry, the enquiry officer gave a finding that he was not authorized by the account holder to obtain the cheque book, and charge was found proved. Further fraud of Rs. 2 lacs also came to notice of the bank and involvement of the petitioner was proved. Under these circumstances, the bank had no option but to dismiss the petitioner from service. The bank had to deal with cash transactions, drafts etc and a high level of trust is expected by the bank and the customers from its employees. A high level of integrity, commitment is expected from the bank employees. Where a gross misconduct of fraud is found proved against the employee, the bank is justified in dismissing the services of such an employee. In 2006(1) LLJ 987 Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao held that the respondent was involved in grant of fictitious loan in collusion. The Supreme Court observed that in a grave misconduct of such a nature, as proved against the respondent, the termination was a right punishment and the court should not have mistaken sympathy with such employees.
6. In view of my foregoing discussion. I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
