Delhi High Court
Mohinder Pal Grover vs Vijaya Bank And Anr. on 19 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007) IILLJ 913 Del
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated April 25, 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II of Central Government.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a peon with the respondent. He committed thefts during the course of his duty, of Rs. 900/- on May 16, 1987 and Rs. 650/- on August 20, 1997. A charge-sheet was served upon him about the misconduct of thefts and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry officer found the charges of theft proved and disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from the service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the departmental Appellate Authority, his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in the following terms:
Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, New Delhi in dismissing Shri Mohinder Pal Grover, Peon vide letter dated August 11, 1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. Industrial Tribunal after recording evidence of both the sides came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the charge against the petitioner was proved in the enquiry. Petitioner was guilty of committing theft and he was rightly removed from the service. There was no ground to interfere in the order of punishment.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has not discussed the evidence, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses in its order and has discussed only if the domestic proceedings were conducted fairly and given the award against the petitioner.
5. The Petitioner did challenge the validity of domestic enquiry before the Tribunal and an issue "whether the domestic issue was held validly" was framed. The Tribunal observed that this issue was not pressed by the petitioner. Despite observing this the Tribunal did go into the question of validity of enquiry.
6. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that his admission of guilt was taken into account by the Tribunal while his admission of the guilt was obtained under coercion and threat. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence of the petitioner to this effect as well as the other documents filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal passed the award without application of mind.
7. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal considered the issue of validity of enquiry and come to the conclusion that the petitioner was given ample opportunity during the enquiry. He did not produce any evidence in his defense. The respondent had complied with all formalities and principles of natural justice. Four witnesses deposed against the petitioner during the course of enquiry and there were letters admitting guilt, given by the petitioner to the management which were proved. The Tribunal considering the fact that enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
8. It is settled principle of law that if an enquiry has been conducted into the charges and Tribunal comes to conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted fairly and following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the enquiry officer. The Tribunal can interfere only if it finds that the punishment awarded was so disproportionate to the misconduct proved that it shocks the conscious of the Court.
9. In the present case, the petitioner was found guilty of the committing theft in the bank. He was a peon. A bank has to deal with the cash of its clients day in and day out and it cannot be expected from the bank to keep an employee, who is a thief. The punishment awarded to the petitioner could not be said to be disproportionate. Tribunal, therefore, rightly did not interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner.
10. I find no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
