Karnataka High Court
The Deputy General Manager vs Mr Palakshy on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
W.P. No.12843 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER
FIMM-RBO 4, DAVANAGERE.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.,)
AND:
MR. PALAKSHY
S/O BASAPPA CHIRADONI
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS
3RD MAIN ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR
DAVANAGERE-577006.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADV.,)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
2
ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE AWARD
DTD:23.06.2020 IN CR NO.144/2007 PASSED BY CGIT-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU. QUASH THE AWARD
DTD:23.06.2020 IN CR.NO.144/2007 PASSED BY THE LD.
CGIT CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A &
ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the award
dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (hereinafter referred to
as 'the tribunal' for short), by which punishment of discharge
from service imposed on the respondent has been set aside
and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the services
of respondent from the date of discharge from service i.e.,
19.04.2003 till date of superannuation and to pay him 75%
of the back wages.
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly
stated are that respondent No.1 was employed as Special
Assistant at Kerebilichi Branch. The charge against the
respondent is that on 13.04.1999, he fraudulently prepared a
withdrawal form of Rs.20,000/- on non existing Saving Bank
Account of one Mr.Basavaraj and withdrew the amount.
Another charge against the respondent was that he removed
the relative withdrawal form of 13.04.1999 for Rs.20,000/-
from the slips of the day and fraudulently prepared a
withdrawal form of Rs.20,000/- and entered the transaction
in SB Day Book - cum - progressive balance register of
Ledger No.P1 without any account number. The respondent
also removed the relative withdrawal form of Rs.20,000/- of
15.04.1999 from the slips of that day.
3. A charge sheet dated 04.06.1999 thereupon was
issued to the respondent. In the enquiry, Branch Manager of
Kerebilichi Branch was examined as a witness and 13
documents were marked in evidence. The respondent did
not adduce any rebuttal evidence in domestic enquiry. The
enquiry officer found the charges to be proved against the
respondent and a penalty of discharge from service was
imposed on him.
4. The respondent raised a dispute which was
referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as 'the tribunal for short). The tribunal by an award dated
23.06.2020 inter alia held that neither the original records
nor the certified copy of the documents marked as exhibits in
the course of enquiry was filed before the tribunal and only
photocopy of the documents have been annexed. Therefore,
it was held that the finding recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority cannot be
accepted. Accordingly, the relief of reinstatement of service
along with 75% of back wages was granted to the
respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition
has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the original documents were misplaced and therefore, the
same could not be produced before the tribunal. It is further
submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in granting the relief
of reinstatement as well as back wages to the respondent
taking into account the gravity of charges leveled against the
respondent.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent while placing reliance on the Single Bench
decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of 'ASHOK
KUMAR VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER', rendered
on 25.04.2012 submitted that initiation of disciplinary
proceeding against the appellant on the basis of photocopy of
the documents is bad in law and the punishment imposed on
the respondent is disproportionate.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. The nature of charge
against the respondent is grave as the same relates to
misappropriation of an amount of Rs.20,000/- by fabricating
documents. Admittedly, 13 documents were marked as
exhibits in the course of enquiry. The respondent neither
adduced any oral nor any documentary evidence. The
enquiry officer has found the charges to be proved against
the respondent. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by
the disciplinary authority. It is not the case of the respondent
that findings with regard to commission of misconduct is
either perverse or based on no evidence. The only ground of
challenge to the order passed by the disciplinary authority is
that either the original or certified copy of the documents
was not produced before the tribunal. It is pertinent to note
that in para 6 of the order passed by the tribunal, the
tribunal has recorded the following finding:
The 1st party workman not only opted
not to adduce rebuttal evidence during the
Domestic Enquiry but also while leading
evidence before this Tribunal in respect of his
unemployment and allegation of victimisation
etc., did not state disputing the geniuses of the
documents Ex.M-1 to Ex.M9.
8. Thus, it is evident that respondent himself has not
disputed the genuineness of the documents, therefore, even
if either no certified copies or original documents were
produced before the tribunal, no prejudice has been caused
to the respondent. Merely on the basis of non production of
either the certified copy or the original documents, the
punishment could not have been interfered by the tribunal.
Besides that, no reasons have been assigned for awarding
75% of the back wages. The nature of charges against the
petitioner is grave, which has been duly proved in the
domestic enquiry.
9. So far as reliance placed on the Single Bench
decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of 'ASHOK
KUMAR VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER is
concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has neither
furnished the photocopy of the judgment nor has referred to
the citation nor of the aforesaid decision. The aforesaid
decision is an unreported decision. Therefore, no reference
can be made to the aforesaid decision.
For the aforementioned reasons, the award of the
tribunal suffers from error on the face of the record and
suffers from infirmity. The impugned award is therefore,
quashed.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
