Madras High Court
J.Veerappan vs Icici Bank Limited on 25 June, 2021
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
J.Veerappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. ICICI Bank Limited,
Registered Office,
“Landmark”,
Race Course Circle,
Vadodara – 390 007.
2. The Presiding Officer,
The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal in Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
(Cause Title amended as per the order dated 24.01.2012 in M.P.No.1 of
2012 in W.P.No.22273 of 2005)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the Award in I.D.No.288 of 2004, dated 13.01.2005 passed by
the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st
Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and all
consequential benefits including backwages.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
For Petitioner : Ms.Usha Raman
For Respondents : Ms.Lakshaya Anand,
for Mr.Sanjay Mohan,
for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates
ORDER
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the Award
dated 13.01.2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent in I.D.No.288 of 2004 and for
a consequential direction to the 1st Respondent to reinstate him with
continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including backwages.
2. The Petitioner herein was employed as a Cashier/Clerk in the 1st
Respondent/Bank. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide order
dated 19.12.2003 referred the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner
herein to the 2nd Respondent/Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai and the Tribunal passed an Award on 13.01.2005,
upholding dismissal of the Petitioner from service.
3. The issue raised by the Petitioner/employee is that, he was not at
all responsible for opening two Savings Bank Accounts and one Current
Account in the 1st Respondent/Bank and that, charges have been foisted
against him and he was placed under suspension. It is his contention that, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural
justice and that, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is completely perverse.
He went on to contend that, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority ought not to have passed an order of capital punishment, when
there was no proper examination of witnesses. It is also his contention that,
when the Management has made a complaint to the C.B.I. and the same has
ended in acquittal, if punishment is imposed on him, then, it amounts to
double jeopardy. According to the Petitioner, in any event, the Tribunal
ought to have taken note of the services rendered by him and interfered with
the same under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. According to the 1st Respondent/Bank, the Petitioner has opened
two Savings Bank Accounts and one Current Account, which act is
prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. He has made contradictory statements
before the Income Tax Authority and in the domestic enquiry. The Income
Tax Officials, on suspicion, entered the Bank and while inspecting, the
Petitioner tried to enter the place to destroy the records. It is further stated by
the 1st Respondent/Bank that, a detailed evidence has been tendered in the
domestic enquiry and that, two persons viz. Harshad Ravi and Ganesh have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
tendered evidence against the Petitioner, and Harshad Ravi, who also faced
domestic enquiry, was subsequently dismissed from service.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
6. It is seen that, the Petitioner/employee was given ample
opportunity to adduce evidence and also to cross-examine the witnesses. The
contention that, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity was disbelieved
by the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner has issued Cheque Book in the
name of fictitious person. Non-examination of one Ravishankar is not going
to cause any prejudice to the Petitioner, when documents speak otherwise. It
is observed by the Tribunal that, Ravishankar is a close friend of the
Petitioner and hence, negative aspect of the case need not be proved. The
Tribunal held that, the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper
manner and proceeded to render a finding on merits.
7. Even though the Petitioner has challenged the domestic enquiry,
only when the domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, the question
of letting in fresh evidence will arise. However, the parties are entitled to
lead additional evidence as regards, whether the employee is a workman or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
not; whether the Management is an Industry or not and whether there is any
discrimination/unfair labour practice, with regard to the past records of the
employee and the like. But, in the case on hand, after the domestic enquiry
has been held to be fair and proper, and recording evidence prior to
arguments, the Tribunal proceeded to render a finding on merits.
8. It is well settled law that, in the domestic enquiry, strict proof of
charges by positive evidence is not necessary, as in a criminal case. The
Petitioner has committed a serious misconduct which has been held to be
proved in the domestic enquiry and has been confirmed by the Industrial
Tribunal.
9. The Apex Court in a decision rendered in the case of
Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik reported in JT 1996 (4) SC 457, has held that, even though there is
no loss to the Bank, every Officer/employee is supposed to act within the
limits of his authority. In the case on hand, the charge alleged against the
Petitioner is serious in nature and there is no need for showing any
indulgence. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, another view is
possible on facts, there is no need for this Court to take that into account, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
the Apex Court in the case of W.M.Agnani vs. Badri Das reported in (1963)
1 LLJ 684, has held that, even if another view is possible, the finding of the
Tribunal need not be interfered with. For better appreciation, relevant portion
of the judgment rendered in Agnani's case (supra) is extracted hereunder:
"11. ... The Tribunal took the view that this
resolution clearly showed that the enquiry had to be held
about the incident which took place on November 16,
1959 and it thought that the reference to his previous
conduct was incidental and may have been necessary for
determining the question of sentence, but it was not
intended to be the subject matter of the enquiry. The
High Court has taken a different view. Apart from the
correctness of one view or another, it seems to us plain
that in a matter of this kind, if the Tribunal put one
interpretation upon the resolution and the High Court
thought it better to put another, that cannot be said to
introduce an error apparent on the face of the record in
the order of the Tribunal. If it can be said that the view
taken by the Tribunal is not even reasonably possible,
perhaps an argument may be urged that the error is
apparent on the face of the record; but, in our opinion, it
would not be possible to accept Mr.Setalvad's argument
that the construction placed by the Tribunal is an
impossible construction. On the other hand, while
conceding that the view taken by the High Court may be
reasonably possible, we are inclined to think that the
construction put upon the resolution by the Tribunal is
also reasonably possible; in fact, if we had to deal with
the matter ourselves, we would have preferred the view
of the Tribunal to the view of the High Court."
10. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
CBCID case, the Petitioner has not been found guilty. As stated supra,
criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are independent of each
other and the findings rendered in the criminal proceedings will not be
binding on the Civil Court, viz. the Tribunal, as has been held by the Apex
Court in the case of M/s.Karamchand Ganga Pershad vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244.
11. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any perversity
in the Award passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference. Hence, the
Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
25.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.22273 of 2005
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
