Delhi High Court
Central Bank Of India vs Anil Kumar & Anr on 14 November, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 11th November, 2025
Judgment pronounced on: 14th November, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 9689/2018, CM APPL. 37745/2018 & CM APPL.
51332/2018
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate
Versus
ANIL KUMAR & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.S. Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside Annexure P-
1, i.e., Award dated 12.03.2018, passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, CGIT, Labour Court II, Dwarka Court Complex, New
Delhi (the Tribunal) in ID No. 16/2009 whereby the action of the
petitioner/management in the terminating the services of the
respondent/employee was held to be illegal and the
respondent/employee was directed to be reinstated with all
consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-The
respondent/employee was employed as a clerk with the
petitioner/management, i.e., the Central Bank of India, Savita
Vihar Branch. On 20.04.2006, while posted at the said branch, he
is alleged to have misappropriated ₹ 60,580 in school fees received
from the parents of students of DAV Public School, Savita Vihar
(DAV), for which he had issued 16 cash receipts dated 20.04.2006.
2.1. The DAV filed a complaint dated 29.07.2006 with the
petitioner/management regarding non-deposit/non-accounting of
the aforesaid amount. On enquiry, it was found that the aforesaid
cash receipts had been issued by the respondent/employee, who on
being questioned, deposited the said amount in the bank on
08.08.2006. As the act of the respondent/employee amounted as
misconduct, misappropriation and embezzlement of funds from
20.04.2006 to 08.08.2006, he was suspended from the services of
the bank w.e.f 02.09.2006. A charge-sheet dated 28.10.2006 was
served upon the respondent under Clause 12(b) of the
Memorandum of Settlement for misappropriation of the said
amount. Thereafter, the DAV, on 08.09.2006, issued a letter
withdrawing their earlier complaint dated 29.07.2006, in view of
the deposit of the entire fees.
2.2. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the
petitioner/management, and the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated
28.03.2007, found the charges proved, leading to his dismissal
from service on 07.08.2007. The respondent/employee raised an
industrial dispute, i.e., ID No. 16/2009, against the said
termination, which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The Tribunal vide its order dated 08.06.2016 held the domestic
enquiry to be vitiated for violation of natural justice. Thereafter,
the Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the petitioner/management
to adduce evidence to prove misconduct as stated in the
chargesheet. Oral and documentary evidence was led by both
sides. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, on 12.03.2018,
passed the impugned award holding the dismissal to be illegal,
unjust, and unfair, and directed reinstatement of the workman with
all consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner/management
has filed the present writ.
3. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner/management, when the Tribunal had found the domestic
enquiry to be vitiated, it could then have not relied on the
testimony of DW1, Rajesh Goyal, who supported the version of
the respondent/workman that the mistake was on the part of his
servant and not on the latter. Apart from the testimony of DW1, no
evidence has been led by the respondent/employee to prove his
defence, and so the Tribunal went wrong in setting aside the
dismissal order and directing reinstatement. This is especially so
when the respondent/employee admits to having received the
amount on 20.04.2006, though he had no authority to do so. It was
also pointed out that the subsequent deposit of the amount on
08.08.2006 does not exonerate the respondent/employee from the
misconduct committed by him.
3.1 It was further pointed out that the withdrawal of the
complaint by the DAV would have no impact on the act of
embezzlement of funds by the respondent/employee. Reliance has
been placed on the dictums in Suresh Pathrela Vs. OBC, AIR
2007 SC 199; State Bank of Patiala Vs. General Secretary,
Staff Union & Ors., 2016 (10) JT 31; Disciplinary Authority-
Cum- Regional Manager & Ors. Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik,
1996(9) SCC 69; UCO Bank, Chandigarh Vs. Hardev Singh,
2006 (11) Scale 88; State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi,
2005(7) Scale 60; Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank
Vs. Munna Lai Jain, 2004(10) Scale 590 and State Bank of
Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, 2011(4) Scale 56.
4. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent/employee that the charge of
misappropriation is false, fabricated, and motivated, as he was
active in the trade union. It was urged that there was no wrongful
gain to him or loss to the bank, as the entire amount of ₹ 60,580
was deposited into the school's account on 08.08.2006, which the
school has confirmed by withdrawing its earlier complaint. It was
also submitted that even assuming that there was delay in remitting
the amount by the respondent/employee, the said act should not
have been visited by termination of his services, which is quite
disproportionate to the act alleged to have been committed by the
respondent/employee. It was also submitted that the memos served
on him, that is, Annexure P-8 and P-9, do not refer to any
misconduct or misappropriation, but only say that he had
committed certain acts of "omission and commission" which
would also substantiate his case that there was no serious charge
against him warranting a major penalty of dismissal.The learned
counsel for the respondent/employee has placed reliance on the
dictums in UB Gadhe vs. GM Gujarat Ambuja Cement AIR
2008 SC 99; Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs.
Balwan Singh & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 373; Taj Services, Ltd. vs.
Industrial Tribunal 1999 SCC OnLine Del 815;and Calcutta
Port Shramik Union vs. The Calcutta River Transport
Association and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 2168.
5. Heard both sides
6. A perusal of the materials on record show that, on
20.04.2006, the respondent/employee was not working asacashier
in the bank. Despite the same, he received the amount and issued
16 cash deposit receipts for the same. He also issued counterfoils,
i.e., parent' copies of the receipts under his initials and also affixed
the seal of the branch office.The fact that an amount of ₹ 60,580/-
was received by the respondent/employee is admitted by him. He
also admits that on the relevant day, he was not assigned the duty
of a cashier.According to him, as there was a big rush in the bank,
on the oral instructions of the manager of the bank, he had
received the same. However, there are no materials to support the
said allegation.
7. I will assume for a moment that the
respondent/employee was, infact, directed by the manager to
receive the cash. His further explanation is that on 20.04.2006, as
there was rush at the receipt counter, he received the fees of the
children of his friend Rajesh Goyal from the latter's servant. He
returned the parent's copy of the receipt after affixing the receipt
stamp to the servant, as he was told that Goyal was in a hurry. As
he was well-acquainted with the Goyals, he gave a duly stamped
receipt to the latter and asked his servant to wait so that he could
count the money. While counting the money, he found that some
notes were 'defective' and so he asked the servant to change them.
However, the servant returned and told him that Goyal had left and
that his mobile was not responding. So he returned the challan
copies and the money to the servant and asked him to bring the
'proper cash'. Due to heavy work, he forgot to take back the
parent's copy and to cancel the receipt stamp. He thereafter forgot
about the incident as he had been transferred to another branch.
Later, in the month of July, when the matter came to his notice, he
advised Goyal to contact the school and the bank. It was only then
it came to his notice that the servant had not informed Goyal about
the non-receipt of the cash. The slip/challan copies were recovered
from the servant's room. Thereafter, Goyal realised the mistake on
the part of his servant in not depositing the school fees and gave a
letter regretting the incident to the DAV. Realising the mistake, the
DAV also withdrew their complaint.
8. To prove the aforesaid defence, the respondent/employee
relies on the testimony of DW1, recorded during the course of the
domestic enquiry. The respondent/employee himself contended
before the Tribunal that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated as the
principles of natural justice had not been complied with. Accepting
this contention, the Tribunal found the enquiry to be vitiated and
permitted the management to adduce fresh evidence to prove the
charge. However, the respondent/employee never led any evidence
to prove his defence. Neither Rajesh Goyal nor his servant was
examined to prove the defence. In such circumstances, it can only
be held that the defence has not been established.
9. Further, withdrawal of the complaint by the DAV is not
enough to exonerate the respondent/employee of the charge of
misconduct, especially when the organization in which he was
working was a financial institution. Moreover, the argument that
the memo served on the respondent/employee does not specify any
misconduct and hence the charge is defective, also cannot be
countenanced. The purpose of framing a charge is to give notice to
the party regarding the allegation that he has to answer. Annexure
P-12, i.e., the chargesheet, is quite clear as to the charge that he
had to answer. The respondent/employee has no case that he had
not understood the charge against him. He is seen to have
understood the charge against him and contested the same. No
prejudice is seen to have been caused to him due to the memo only
containing the terms 'omission and commission'.
10. The argument that the punishment of dismissal awarded
is disproportionate cannot be countenanced for a moment, as the
respondent/employee was working in a financial institution where
there cannot be a compromise on the integrity of its employees.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the
Tribunal went wrong in reversing the order of dismissal of the
respondent/employee from service. Hence, the impugned Award is
accordingly set aside. The action of the management in terminating
the services of the respondent/employee is upheld.
12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Application(s),
if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 14, 2025
p'ma/er
