Gujarat High Court
Parimal R. Dave vs State Bank Of India on 22 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6925 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
PARIMAL R. DAVE
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV G DESAI(290) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 22/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the impugned order of the termination of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
service dated 13.7.2007 passed by respondent No. 2-
Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by respondent No.
3- Appellate Authority in Appeal by order dated 5.2.2008,
and prayed, inter alia, that:-
"33(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.
(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order
holding that the order of the termination of service
Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and
confirmed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal by order
Dt.05-02-2008 are bad in law, unconstitutional, illegal
and those be quashed and set aside and the petitioner
be reinstated in service with all the consequential
benefits.
(c) Your Lordships be pleased to order that the
operation and implementation of the order of the
termination of service Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the respondent No.
3 in appeal by order Dt.05-02-2008 be suspended
pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
petition and the petitioner be taken back on service.
(d) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s
as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
petitioner was working as Assistant Cashier in the Petlad
Branch of the State Bank of India. In the year 1993, for
some transactions, the department had issued a show-
cause notice to the petitioner on 24.12.1993. The said
notice was replied by the petitioner and thereafter, the
respondent No.2 decided to proceed with the inquiry.
After the inquiry, the respondent No.2 - Disciplinary
Authority passed an order dated 10.4.2002 dismissing the
petitioner from service, without notice as per (6)(a) of
annexure-II to memorandum of settlement on Disciplinary
action procedure for workmen pertaining to Bipartite
Settlement. The said order came to be challenged by the
petitioner by way of an Appeal before respondent No.3
and the said Appeal came to be rejected by respondent
No.3 on 5.2.2008.
2.2 In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has
preferred present petition and prayed for above
mentioned relief.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
3. I have heard Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for
the respondents.
-:SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
4. Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there is gross delay of 10 years in
initiation of inquiry proceedings by the respondents and
therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Mr.
Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that there is violation of principles of
natural justice, since the relevant token book and the
transfer book were not produced, at the time of inquiry
and therefore, the petitioner has no occasion to look into
the same and raise his defence based upon such token
book and the transfer book.
4.1 Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that even the respondent-bank itself has
not confirmed about the fact that the offence pertains to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
minor penalty or major penalty however, the respondent
bank has imposed a major penalty of dismissal upon the
petitioner.
4.2 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Kirtidev Dave,
learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court
to allow present petition by quashing and setting aside
the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
and Appellate Authority.
4.3 Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the decisions of this Court in case of K.B.
Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat reported in GCD 2001 4
2630 and A.S. Sindhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2000 (3) G.L.H. 563 mainly on the ground of delay in
initiation of departmental inquiry proceedings and urges
before the Court that in view of the said decisions of this
Court, present petition may be allowed.
-:SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
5. As against that Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
for the respondent has opposed the present petition. Mr.
Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondent, wherein the the respondent has tried to
explain the delay occurred in initiation of the inquiry
proceedings. Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the
respondent has more particularly, relied upon paragraph
No. 13, which reads as under:-
"13. With reference to para 10 of the petition, it is not
correct to say that the action is taken within reasonable
period as alleged. It is submitted that immediately after
coming into light about the misconduct of payment made
seriously affecting the interest of bank and the criminal
proceedings initiated by the respondent against the
petitioner by registering FIR No.85/1993 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Petlad, the petitioner
preferred the Civil Suit on 21.7.1994 against the
respondents particularly disciplinary authority and
obtained injunction against the proceedings further with
the inquiry and admittedly, the injunction was vacated
by the learned trial Court when the said suit was
dismissed on or about 16.11.1998. Thereafter, inquiry
proceeded and the reference which is made in the said
para is of show cause notice issued after the receipt of
the inquiry officer report. Therefore, it is not correct to
say that there is any alleged unexplained delay which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
has caused and it resulted into alleged serious prejudice
to the petitioner as alleged. It is denied that 13 years for
single transaction is very difficult as alleged. Reference
of 13 years is thoroughly misconceived as the inquiry
proceedings initiated much before the alleged date
11.9.2006 as a matter of fact, the inquiry started from
October, 2002 as can be seen from the documents
annexed by the petitioner itself. It is denied that due to
alleged delay, the entire the for proceedings have been
vitiated as alleged."
6. Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of United Bank of India vs. Bachan Prasad
Lall in Civil Appeal No. 2949 of 2011, State Bank of
India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others reported
in (2005) 7 SCC 435, State of Karnataka and another vs.
N. Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 and the
decision of this Court in case of Surat District Co-
Operative Bank Ltd. vs. Dinyar Erach Nalladaru and
others in Special Civil Application No. 8141 of 2003,
K.K. Shah vs. Chief General Manager in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 915 of 2013, State Bank of Saurashtra
Through Managing Director vs. Rashmikant Girdharlal
Dave in Special Civil Application No. 14601 with Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
Civil Application No. 6960 of 2012 and urges before the
Court that in view of the said decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court, present petition may not
be allowed and the impugned orders may not be
interfered with.
7. I have perused the material placed on record and
the relevant documents. It appears from the record that
at first instance the petitioner has approached learned
Civil Court by preferring Civil Suit No. 397 of 1994 and
prayed the injunction and declaration against the
impugned show-cause-notice and initiation of
departmental proceedings against him. The said Civil Suit
No. 397 of 1994 came to be dismissed by the concerned
Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated
16.11.1998. It appears that pending hearing of the said
Civil Suit No. 397 of 1994, interim relief was granted in
favour of present petitioner and therefore, the respondent
bank could not initiate the departmental proceedings
against the present petitioner. Thereafter, in the year
2002 the bank has initiated departmental proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
and issued show-cause-notice. During the course of the
department inquiry, the bank has also issued a
chargesheet and subsequently, the disciplinary authority
has found the petitioner guilty for the alleged misconduct
and passed the order on 13.7.2007:-
"In view of the foregoing, the ends of justice would be
met by imposing the following penalty on the
Chargesheeted employee.
"Be dismissed without notice as per (6)(a) of
anneuxre-II to memorandum of settlement on
Disciplinary action procedure for workmen pertaining to
Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.02.
Further, your suspension period be treated as such
i.e. you will not earn any increments during the period of
suspension and suspension period will not be counted
for all purposed."
7.1 The relevant Article of Charge of Sastri Award, which
was taken into account by the authority at the time of
passing the order, reads as under:-
"(i) 521 (4)(j): Doing an act prejudicial to the interest of
the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the Bank in serious loss;
(ii) 521 (6) (d): Breach of any rule of business of the
Bank or instructions for the running of any department."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
8. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached appellate
authority. The appellate authority has after considering
the grounds mentioned by the petitioner before the
authority and after dealing with the submissions made by
the petitioner, passed following order on 5.2.2008:-
"9. The DA's order, I observe, is strong on facts
supported by rationalized conclusions. No other valid
ground has been taken by the appellant, which calls for
comments. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined
to modify the penalty imposed by the DA. I order
accordingly. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
10. This order may please be communicated to Shri P.R.
Dave, the appellant, and a copy hereof be placed in his
service file"
9. Now, it is well settled by catena of decisions that the
scope of this Court, while exercising the power under
Articles 226 and 227, in interfering in the departmental
proceedings, is very limited.
10. At this stage, it is appropriate to take into account the
observations made by this Court in the case of K.B.
Trivedi (supra), wherein this Court has observed as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
"7. In STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BANI SINGH
(supra), the chargesheet was issued in respect of certain
incidents that had happened about 12 years ago. It was
not the case of the department that they were not aware
of the alleged irregularities but investigations were
going on, according to the department. There was no
satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in
issuing the charge memo and in such circumstances, the
Court took the view that it would be unfair to permit the
departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at that
stage. In the other judgment of the Supreme Court in
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. N. RADHAKISHAN
(supra), the incriminating report about the irregularities
was made in the year 1987 and the charges were framed
only in 1995. There was no explanation whatsoever for
the delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings. It was
nobody's case that the delinquent had, at any stage,
tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings and in
such circumstances, the charge memo was held to be
liable to be quashed. The Supreme Court observed that:
"The essence of the matter is that the Court has to
take into consideration all relevant factors and to
balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the
interest of clean and honest administration that the
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to
terminate after delay particularly when delay is
abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
The delinquent employee has a right that
disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
expeditiously and he is not made to undergo
mental agony and also monetary loss when these
are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on
his part in delaying the proceedings."
8. In absence of any explanation whatsoever for the
prolonged delay in issuance of the chargesheet in the
facts of the present case and applying the ratio of the
above Judgments, we are of the opinion that the
impugned chargesheet and initiation of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be allowed to stand against the
appellant. We are also of the considered opinion that the
inordinate and unexplained delay in issuance of the
chargesheet is on a footing worse to delay in concluding
the departmental proceedings after its initiation. Having
the admission of the respondent on record that the
department was aware of the alleged misconduct on the
part of the appellant since the year 1989, the delay
subsequent thereto has to be viewed all the more
seriously. In such cases of delayed issuance of
chargesheet, the delinquent would not be aware of an
impending departmental action and, in all probabilities,
he would be seriously prejudiced in his defence as
important evidence in his favour could have been lost or
destroyed and his own memory would get blurred during
the long period of complacency. Apart from these
considerations, when a specific query was made as
regards the time-limit envisaged for completion of the
departmental enquiry, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent expressly stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
the inability of the department to make any statement in
that regard. In such circumstances, it would be proper
and necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and
allow the original petition."
11. In the case of A.S. Sindhi (supra), this Court has
observed as under:-
2. The petitioner has in the aforesaid circumstances
challenged the continuation of the inquiry against him
inter alia on the ground that the inquiry itself having
been instituted more than 10 years after the alleged
date of incident and thereafter, no efforts have been
made even to appoint the inquiry officer for more than 5
years, the proceedings must be quashed as being
arbitrary, particularly keeping in view that the service
record of the petitioner apart from this inquiry is
otherwise clean which has reflected from the regular
promotions being granted to the petitioner since the
date of his recruitment and no charge other than
technical lapses in following the rules has been levelled
against the petitioner in the chargesheet of 1994. Apart
from the merits of the case, the maximum loss which has
been caused to the State as a result of non-adherence to
the rules is assessed in the chargesheet at Rs. 1,240/-
only, which can hardly justify withholding the retiral
benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner has also offered
that at any rate, in order to bring the curtain down on
the issue, he is prepared to deduction of Rs. 1,240/-, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
total amount of loss claimed to have been caused to the
State because of the alleged non-adherence to the rules
by the petitioner from the pensionary dues or if directed,
the petitioner is prepared to pay the same."
12. In the decision in case of State of Bank of
Saurashtra (supra) this Court has observed as under:-
"8. Therefore, the only question which requires to be
considered by the Tribunal by deciding the issue no.3
was with regard to the quantum of punishment. The
Tribunal after considering the temporary
misappropriation on part of the workman has come to
the conclusion that the punishment is excessive, harsh
and disproprortionate to the charges levelled against the
workman in view of the various decisions referred on
behalf of the workman as well as the Bank, with regard
to interference by the Tribunal in the realm of deciding
the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer.
The Tribunal thereafter has considered the temporary
misappropriation coupled with the fact that the
workman had not defrauded any customer and on
detection of the shortfall, made good the amount of
Rs.35,000/- withheld by him immediately. The Tribunal
therefore, has rightly invoked the provisions of Section
11A of the ID Act by interfering in the quantum of
punishment as the same is found to disproportionate to
the be gravity shockingly of the charges levelled against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
the workman by the Bank.
13. After considering the judgments which were referred
to and relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court
has made conclusion in paragraph No. 14 and 15 which
reads as under:-
"14. Therefore, in view of the above conspectus of law,
there is a very limited scope of judicial review of the
discretion exercised by the employer which is
substituted by the Tribunal as the Tribunal cannot
exercise the appellate jurisdiction in such matters and
substitute their opinion by the one formed by the
disciplinary authority. It has also been held that
punishment imposed by the competent authority cannot
be modified/substituted with the Lesser penalty unless a
Tribunal is satisfied that the same is grossly or
shockingly disproportionate or is SO unreasonable that
no person of reasonable prudence would have imposed
such punishment in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
15. Therefore, in overall view of the matter, the
substitution of quantum of punishment made by the
Tribunal is required to be interfered with and
considering the facts emerging from the record, the
order of the Tribunal So Far as Pit so as it relates to
quantum of punishment is modified as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
(i) The respondent-Bank has already reinstated the
workman in view of the order passed by the
Tribunal which was not stayed by this Court while
admitting the matter vide order dated 29.03.2012
and thereafter the workman has already
superannuated in the year 2014. Therefore the
order of discharge of the workman from service is
substituted by order of reinstatement with 20%
backwages with stoppage of five increments with
future effect instead of 50% backwages with
stoppage of two increments as awarded by the
Tribunal.
(ii) The amount of arrears, if any, shall be
calculated and paid to the workman by the Bank
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of this order."
14. In the decision in case of K.K. Shah (supra), this
Court has observed that:-
"7. It is a settled proposition of law by a catena of
judgments of the Apex Court that the Court cannot
usurp the jurisdiction of disciplinary authority and
decide the quantum of punishment. The principle
governing judicial review of punishment inflicted on the
delinquent by the disciplinary authority can be summed
up as under; (a) When charge(s) of misconduct is proved
in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
in a particular case is essentially the domain of the
departmental authorities; (b) The Courts cannot assume
the function of disciplinary / departmental authorities
and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of
penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the competent authority; (c)
Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only
in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to
the conscience of the Court;
7.1 On perusal of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, the imputation of charges and findings of the
inquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary
authority, we are of the opinion that the punishment of
dismissal inflicted on the appellant vis-a-vis the proven
misconduct is not so disproportionate as would shock
the conscience of this Court warranting interference."
15. In the decision in case of United Bank of India
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"9. The nature of allegation against the respondent
employee was of fraudulently preparing nine credit
transfer vouchers on various dates on the pretext of
payment of interest towards fixed deposits and crediting
the whole amount to one saving account opened in the
name of one Smt. Asha Devi (admittedly the fake
account prepared by respondent employee). In order to
adjust the said amount, he manipulated the other book
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
records of the Bank using forged signatures. After such
nature of allegations stood proved, the disciplinary
authority, after taking into consideration the record of
inquiry and the post held by the respondent employee,
punished him with the penalty of dismissal from service.
10. The finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer in
his report was confirmed at all later stages by the
disciplinary/appellate authority and even after judicial
scrutiny by the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment but still refrained from interference on the
premise that the employee had superannuated in the
year 2007.
11. In our considered view, looking into seriousness of
the nature of allegations levelled against the respondent
employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon
him in no manner could be said to be shockingly
disproportionate which would have required to be
interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power
under Section 11A of the Act 1947. At the same time,
merely because the employee stood superannuated in
the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the
misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his
duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which
he had committed, he was not entitled for any
indulgence. The Bank employee always holds the
position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
qua non but it would never be advisable to deal with
such matters leniently.
16. In the decision in case of Surat District Co-
operative Bank Ltd. (supra) the Court has held as
under:-
"17. Without entering into detailed discussion qua each
of the other charges, suffice it to state that the Labour
Court has misdirected itself in law and on facts so as to
render the entire order perverse. Just as in case of
Charge No. 1, in case of charge No. 3 also the Labour
Court has either not understood the charge and/or
glossed over the same. The charge was specifically in
relation to an incorrect reporting of the actual cash
available in the branch on a given day viz. 7th July,
1987. The evidence goes to show that the rules of
business of the petitioner-bank required that any cash in
excess of the stipulated limit had to be physically
transferred to the Head Office and not retained in the
premises in the branch. When the agent inquired of the
respondent, the respondent gave out that there would
be no occasion to cross the stipulated limit, and even if
there was some excess cash the same would be
marginal. However, immediately within a period of 20
minutes the respondent reported a difference of Rs.
20,000/-. It has come on record that at that point of time
the peon of the bank had already been dispatched on
some other assignment and hence, the agent had to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
request the Head Office to collect the excess cash. Not
only that, when the said person turned up the
respondent did not cooperate in handing over the cash
and the person Page 1022 concerned had to wait for
quite some time resulting in a cascading effect of
delaying further work which was assigned to the said
person and ultimately cash reached the Head Office only
at 3:00 p.m. These findings are recorded by the inquiry
officer. The Labour Court has failed to deal with this
issue, it has not even referred to it in its order, even by
way of reproduction of charge, leave alone meet with the
findings of the inquiry officer.
18. It is thus apparent that either the Labour Court has
not appreciated the importance of the charge concerned
or has omitted the same from the zone of consideration
for the reasons best known to the Labour Court. The net
result is an order which could not have been made in
light of the facts and evidence on record by any
reasonable person. The Labour Court failed to
appreciate that retention of cash beyond the stipulated
limit in the branch was not a misdemeanour simpliciter.
The bank, and also the respondent, were bound by the
rules of business and considering the issue from the
view point of security, the branch was not permitted to
retain cash in physical form beyond the stipulated limit.
If any cash was retained, the same would be in gross
violation of the requisite rules. The respondent was a
cashier and it was in the course of his duty that he gives
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
a correct picture of the actual cash available at any
given point of time. He is in charge of the cash and that
is his primary duty. The Labour Court has failed to
consider any of these aspects.
21. The Industrial Court has, while dealing with the
charge regarding not attending to customers and
putting the customers to inconvenience, accepted the
say of the respondent that there were no complaints
received from any customer, and whatsoever complaints
had been received were from 'dummy' customers; that
one of the customers, one Shri Shinde, who had
complained, was not examined in the domestic inquiry
proceedings. Thus, according to the Industrial Court, the
said charge could not be said to have been proved. The
Industrial Court has failed to consider that the Labour
Court had already accepted the report made by the
inquiry officer without any demurrer and, therefore,
there was no occasion for the Industrial Court to record
any different finding on this account. However, apart
from that, the Industrial Court has failed to appreciate
that the business of a bank is fundamentally based on
the service rendered to its customers, its a service based
on trust, banking sector by itself is a service oriented
sector. Any employee of a bank cannot be permitted to
be either rude or impolite to the customers of the bank.
Any such act of any employee would not only be an act
of indiscipline but would amount to gross negligence in
carrying out the duties assigned to the person viz. not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
attending to the customer or inconveniencing the
customer by acts of omission or commission. For a bank,
any such act by its employee would always constitute
gross misconduct and, considering the settled legal
position once the management has decided the quantum
of punishment, it would not be open to the Labour Court
or the Industrial Court to intervene otherwise in
accordance with the principles enunciated hereinbefore.
Admittedly, in the present case, none of these principles
can be invoked.
25. The Industrial Court has, while upholding the order
of the Labour Court, stated that withholding of 50%
back wages cannot be termed to be a punishment of
lesser degree and the order of the Labour Court cannot
be termed to be either illegal or invalid, without or
beyond the jurisdiction, and merely because the Labour
Court has not given sufficient reasons, the order of the
Labour Court cannot be interfered with. The entire
approach of the Industrial Court is contrary to the
settled legal position which has already been discussed
hereinbefore. Not only this, there are no factors which
would permit the Labour Court to modify the
punishment, and in absence of any reasons the order
would stand vitiated."
17. In the decision in case of State Bank of India
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
"B. Labour Law - Misconduct - Fraud - Bank employee -
Absence of any loss to the Bank is no defence - A bank
employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and
integrity - Money received by the employee from
account-holder for depositing it in his saving bank
account, not so deposited and a fraudulent or fictitious
credit entry made in passbook of the account-holder -
Contention that the account-holder had withdrawn his
grievances and no loss was caused to the Bank, held,
would not condone the misconduct - Charges against the
employee were not casual but serious in nature - Order
of dismissal valid.
A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money
of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/
employee of the bank is required to take all possible
steps to protect the interests of the bank and to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and
discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer / employee of the bank. Even acting beyond one's
authority is a misconduct. The charges against the
employee were not casual in nature and were serious.
That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also
without substance.
15. A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and
discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this
Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v.
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say
that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the
case, when the officer/employee acted without authority.
The very discipline of an organisation more particularly
a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers
acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting
beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline
and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee
were not casual in nature and were serious. That being
so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans
substance."
18. In the decision in case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma
reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as under:-
"Head Note-B. Labour Law - Domestic / Departmental
enquiry - Procedure applicable - Complicated principles
and procedure laid down in CPC and Evidence Act, held,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
are not applicable - Delinquent employee is only entitled
to be informed of the charges and to defend himself
against the same.
16. In State of Haryana V. Rattan Singh this Court has
categorically held that in a domestic enquiry,
complicated principles and procedure laid down in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 do not apply. The only right of a delinquent
employee is that he must be informed as to what are the
charges against him and he must be given full
opportunity to defend himself on the said charges.
However, the Court rejected the contention that enquiry
report stood vitiated for not recording the statement of
the passengers who were found travelling without ticket.
The Court held as under:
"5.....We cannot hold that merely because
statements of passengers were not recorded the
order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-
evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-
conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court
but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion,
we do not think courts below were right in over-
turning the finding of the domestic tribunal."
23.In NEKRTC V. H Amaresh and U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Vinod
Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115, this Court held that the
punishment should always be proportionate to the
gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is
dismissal.
24. Thus, in view of the above, the contention raised on
behalf of the employee that punishment of dismissal
from service was disproportionate to the proved
delinquency of the employee, is not worth acceptance."
19. In the decision in case of State of Karnataka
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"8.We find that the interference in the order of punishment
by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from
patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the
decision-making process. The power of judicial review
conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not
that of an appellate authority."
20. In view of settled legal proposition that in case of
domestic or departmental inquiry, the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by
the appellate authority, this Court has very limited
jurisdiction and this Court cannot exercise appellate
jurisdiction over the findings recorded by the disciplinary
authority. After evaluating the evidence, disciplinary
authority has recorded findings which is confirmed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
departmental appeal and therefore, this Court is very
slow in exercising the power under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India and in case of any misconduct
on the part of the disciplinary authority or in case of
gross violation of principle of natural justice, the Court
can interfere in the findings recorded by the disciplinary
authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
21. Herein present case, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he has committed gross misconduct and
violated the rules and regulations of the concerned bank
and therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly
imposed the penalty upon present petitioner and
confirmed by the Appellate Authority by recording its
findings in paragraph No. 5. The Appellate Authority has
elaborately dealt with the submissions made on behalf of
the present petitioner and more particularly on both the
aspects i.e. delay in initiation of inquiry proceedings and
no proper opportunity to deal with the submission was
granted to the petitioner. It appears that the extract of
the token book and the transfer book was not produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6925/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
and therefore, petitioner has no opportunity to go
through such evidence, but considering this aspect, the
appellate authority has also recorded its findings after
perusing and after going through all the material and
therefore, I am of the opinion that both the authorities
have not committed any error in passing the impugned
orders and therefore, present petition does not deserve to
be entertained.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present petition
is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, present petition
is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
