Madras High Court
The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 10 August, 2023
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 10.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NOS.25951 OF 2017 & 7787 OF 2018
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 27510 OF 2017 & 8495 OF 2018
1. The Regional Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)
State Bank of India
Region-II, Regional Business Office
Raja Mirasdar Hospital Road
Thanjavur 613 001.
2. The Deputy General Manager
(Business Operations) (Appellate Authority)
State Bank of India
Disciplinary Proceedings Cell
Administrative Office
Tiruchirappalli Zone, McDonalds Road
Tiruchirappalli 620 001. .. Petitioners in WP
25951/17
V.Anbumani .. Petitioner in WP 7787/2018
- Vs -
1. The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
- cum – Labour Court .. R-1 in WP 25951/2017 &
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
Shastri Bhawan, Chennai 600 006. .. R-3 in WP 7787/2018
2. V.Anbumani .. R-2 in WP 25951/2017
3. The Regional Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)
State Bank of India
Region-II, Regional Business Office
Raja Mirasdar Hospital Road
Thanjavur 613 001.
4. The Deputy General Manager
(Business Operations) (Appellate Authority)
State Bank of India
Disciplinary Proceedings Cell
Administrative Office
Tiruchirappalli Zone, McDonalds Road
Tiruchirappalli 620 001. .. RR-1 & 2 in WP 7787/18
W.P. No.25951 of 2017 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in I.D. No.15 of 2015 and quash the award dated
10.01.2017.
W.P. No.7787 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
from the file of the 3rd respondent in I.D. No.95 of 2013 and quash its
impugned award dated 10.01.2017 insofar as the 3rd respondent has denied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity of service with
backwages and with all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Gopalan, for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. in WP 25951/17
Mr. K.M.Ramesh, SC, for
Mr. S.Apunu in WP 7787/18
For Respondents : Mr. K.M.Ramesh, SC, for
Mr. S.Apunu for R-2 in WP 25951/17
Mr. Anand Gopalan, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan &
Co. for RR-1 & 2 in WP 7787/18
COMMON ORDER
Assailing the order passed by the Labour Court and the consequential
award in I.D. No.15 of 2015, while W.P. No.7787/2018 has been filed by the
workman for reinstatement with all other attendant benefits, W.P.
No.25951/17 has been filed by the Bank insofar as modifying the punishment
imposed on the workman from dismissal to one of compulsory retirement.
2. Since both the petitions are connected resulting in the award of the
Labour Court, the petitions were heard together and is disposed of by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners will be referred
to as ‘Workman’ and ‘Bank’.
3. The facts that revolve around the filing of the present writ petitions
are as under :-
The case as projected in the claim statement by the workman is that
he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1985 and, thereafter
promoted as Special Assistant in the year 2008. While the workman was
working at Mannargudi Branch, the workman was suspended from service
w.e.f. 27.11.2009 on the allegation of gross misconduct and the workman
was, thereafter, issued with a charge sheet dated 15.12.2010 levelling two
charges against him. The first charge related to the handling of the ATM
cards and Pin Mailers, while in the custody of the workman, which remained
undelivered to the customers and the misuse of the said cards for the purpose
of withdrawal of amounts aggregating to Rs.5,42,340/= from the accounts of
various customers. The second charge pertained to the workman allowing
one Revathi to misuse the ATM cards and Pin Mailers and helped her to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
withdraw money fraudulently from the customers account and
misappropriated Rs.5,42,340/= belonging to various customers.
4. To the charge memo, the workman submitted his explanation,
which was not accepted and enquiry was conducted against him. Upon
completion of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges
leveled against the workman as proved and after providing the enquiry report
to the workman and further asking the workman to show cause as to the
punishment to be imposed on him, and upon receipt of explanation and being
not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service and the appeal against the said order
was dismissed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved against the said order,
the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour
Court.
5. The Labour Court, after hearing either side and after perusing the
materials available on record, while concurred with the findings of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
enquiry officer, however, modified the punishment from dismissal to one of
compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits.
6. The claim petition was contested by the Bank by filing counter
statement, in which it is averred that the workman was incharge of the ATM
cards and the PIN mailers and while the said cards were in his custody, the
same was misused and exhibits were marked to show that the workman was
entrusted with the custody of ATM Cards and PIN mailers. On the basis of the
complaints received from the customers, investigation caused by the Bank
revealed the complicity of the workman along with one casual employee,
Revathi, and indulged in unauthorised cash withdrawal to the tune of
Rs.5,42,340/-. It is the further case of the Bank that the investigation resulted
in the recovery of 7 covers containing undelivered ATM cards and related PIN
mailers from the custody of the workman.
7. 2 charges were framed against the workman and in the enquiry,
which was conducted in a fair and proper manner, after affording
opportunity, the enquiry officer held the charge proved. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
disciplinary authority, considering the gravity of the charges and the findings
rendered thereon, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service based
on the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary action procedure.
Therefore, no interference was warranted with the said order of punishment.
8. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the workman, the workman
examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-25 were marked. On the side
of the Bank, Exs.M-1 to M-8 were marked, but no oral evidence was adduced.
Framing the necessary questions for consideration, analyzing the
documentary materials available on record, the Tribunal finding that all the
charges stood proved, however, on account of the fact that responsibility also
stood shared with the others in the Bank, as negligence is on the other
members of the bank as well, who were not diligent enough and had not
taken any prompt action, and also considering the fact that the workman had
already suffered punishments with regard to dereliction of duty and
negligence, and considering the length of service of the workman, modified
the punishment from dismissal to one of compulsory retirement with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
superannuation benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitions have
been preferred by the workman and the Bank.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the workman submitted that
though the Tribunal has held that charges have been proved, however, the
Tribunal has also fastened the negligence on the other officers of the bank,
who have been negligent in not acting diligently and, therefore, thought it fit
to modify the punishment. When there is a categorical finding arrived at by
the Tribunal that the workman alone cannot be fastened with the liability
though others are also equally responsible, the Tribunal ought to have
reinstated the workman in service with all consequential benefits.
10. In fine, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the
workman that the other members of the Bank also being equally responsible,
as has been held by the Tribunal, fastening the liability only on the workman
and compulsorily retiring him from service is a wholly disproportional
punishment, which requires interference at the hands of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that
the charges framed against the workman, which are two in number not only
stood proved, but the workman had not raised any finger at the manner in
which the enquiry was conducted, which has also been recorded by the
Tribunal in its order. The gravity of the charges and the delinquencies
imputed against the workman are so grave in nature the disciplinary
authority, properly appreciating the materials has imposed the punishment of
dismissal, which has been duly concurred by the appellate authority. The
finding of the Tribunal that the other officers of the Bank have also been
negligent is wholly misconceived, as it is the categorical finding of the
Tribunal that the entrustment of the ATM cards and the PIN mailers were
with the workman and the workman cannot absolve himself by merely
transferring the blame on the other members of the staff, who were in no
way concerned with the task entrusted to the workman.
12. It is the submission of the learned counsel that when the conduct
of the enquiry has not been challenged by the workman resulting in the
imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
wholly misdirected itself on sympathy to modify the punishment, which is
wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any probable material and the same
deserves to be interfered with by restoring the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority.
13. This Court paid its undivided attention to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record as also the decisions relied on by the learned
counsel for the parties.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi – Vs - Union of
India, (1995 (6) SCC 749), while dealing with issue relating to the power of
the Court relating to judicial review of the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, held as under :
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power
and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority
accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support
therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in
its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority
to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal
evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.
Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be
permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union
of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 :
(1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion,
upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of
the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. The above view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Principal Secy. Govt. of A.P. - Vs - M. Adinarayana, (2004 (12) SCC 579),
wherein, it has been held as under :-
“23. We have read this charge in the light of allegations in
support thereof. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the
respondent has neither supplied any prior information on the
Government nor did he send any prior intimation to the
Government. By not doing this, he has contravened the
provisions of Rule 9. The Tribunal has also categorically held
that the respondent has not applied for prior information before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
he purchased the items from the competent authority nor he
intimated to the competent authority forthwith soon after the
purchase of the several items. Therefore, in our view, the
charged officer has violated Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules and
thus is guilty of misconduct within Rule 2-H (sic) of the Andhra
Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993. In view of the
abovesaid finding we hold that respondent is guilty of both the
charges framed against him within Rule 2 (b) of the Conduct
Rules of 1961 framed under the Amendment Act, 1993.
* * * * * * *
26. In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the
examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an
appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision
was made. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside
the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for reasons
stated (supra). The order passed by the Government removing
the respondent from service is in order and, therefore, the
appeal filed by the appellant State stands allowed. Further,
there will be no order as to costs.”
16. In Director General of Police, RPF & Ors. - Vs – Rajendra Kumar
Dubey (C.A. No.3820/2020 dated 25.11.20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
adverting to the various decisions of the Apex Court relating to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect
to disciplinary proceedings, including the decision in Chaturvedi's case
(supra), held as under:-
“12.1 ...... It is well settled that the High Court must not act
as an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led
before the enquiry officer.
We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with
respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v S.Sree Rama Rao, a three
judge bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the
decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry
against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court
under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at
an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may,
however interfere where the departmental authority which has
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the
findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some
extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or
allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is
so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at that conclusion. If however the
enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole
judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the
findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that
evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition.
These principles were further reiterated in the State of
Andhra Pradesh v Chitra Venkata Rao. The jurisdiction to
issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory
jurisdiction. The court exercises the power not as an appellate
court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or
tribunal on the appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is
apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ
court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may be. A writ
can be issued if it is shown that in recording the finding of fact,
the tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence. A finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be
challenged on the ground that the material evidence adduced
before the tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point,
and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
In subsequent decisions of this Court, including Union of
India v. G. Ganayutham, Director General RPF v. Ch. Sai
Babu, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board v T.T. Murali, Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha,
these principles have been consistently followed.
In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in the State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh this Court has summed up
the law in following words :
“33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters,
there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule
of restraint. The second defines when interference is
permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial
review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether
a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the
domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not
assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the
judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of
fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea
that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient
conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by
the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict
rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The
standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which
governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but
a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities.
Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is
founded on deference and autonomy – deference to the
position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority
and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and
efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the
principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when
the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when
they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence
is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse
determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature
of our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognized it for
long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere
when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the
weight of the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in
maintaining a steady sail between the banks of these two
shores which have been termed as the two ends of the
spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the
hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To
determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based
on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is
undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that
there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct
and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the
court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary
enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to
be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the
exercise of robust common sense without which the judges’
craft is in vain.”
In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, this Court held that
the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-
appreciation of the evidence. The High Court would determine
whether : (a) the enquiry is held by the competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations which are extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves
to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f)
the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at
such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the
disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is
based on no evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held that :
“13.Under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court shall not :
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
the case the same has been conducted in accordance
with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. From the ratio laid down above, it is implicitly clear that the Courts,
in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot extend the examination to
the correctness of the act of the disciplinary authority, but only limit itself to
the manner in which the decision has been arrived at by the authority and
whether the same is in accordance with law. This Court is to test only the
correctness of the decision arrived at by the authority on the basis of the
evidence before it and not proceed with the case as if it is an appeal against
the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
18. In the case on hand, the punishment that has been imposed by the
disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority has been
modified by the Tribunal by invoking its powers u/s 11-A of the ID Act.
Incidentally, this Court has to address whether the invocation of powers by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable as the order of the Tribunal is assailed
both by the workman as well as the Bank.
19. Keeping the ratio laid down in mind, this Court would now analyze
the contentions, which branch on the following two heads, to find out the just
and reasonableness of the impugned order and whether interference is
warranted with the same :-
i) Infliction of major punishment, in tune with the
Memorandum of Settlement; and
ii) Disproportionality of punishment with reference to the
delinquency alleged against the petitioner.
20. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the workman that he has
not been provided with adequate opportunity to represent his case; rather,
the workman had accepted the fairness of the enquiry in the claim settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
and has given up the said contention in the proof affidavit filed by him before
the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to consider the
said issue. Therefore the only issue which requires to be considered is
whether the modification of punishment is just and reasonable vis-a-vis the
gravity of the offence committed.
21. The Tribunal has rendered a definitive finding that the ATM Cards
and PIN mailers were under the custody of the workman and it is the duty of
the workman to keep the same in safe custody. The fact that other persons
were able to gain access and use the cards freely would show not only the
negligent and callous manner in which the workman had functioned, but also
the act of the workman to shift the blame on the other staff members with
regard to their negligence cannot be accepted as the workman cannot be
allowed to absolve himself of the responsibility, which has been entrusted to
him.
22. All through the Tribunal has held that the offence stood proved as
against the workman. In fact, the Tribunal has rendered a finding that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
negligent act of the workman had resulted in the access to the cards by other
persons to withdraw cards and to that extent the workman is guilty of the
misconduct.
23. The Tribunal had further gone on to hold that this is not the first
time that the workman had been found negligent in his duty as Exs.M-1 to M-
6 stares against the negligent attitude of the workman. In fact twice the
workman was visited with charge memo and enquiry and had also been
inflicted with punishment, which the workman had also not disputed.
Therefore, the Tribunal had come to the definitive conclusion that the
workman deserves to be punished and on that score, this Court is in
agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
24. On the above findings, this Court holds that there is no infirmity or
error in the disciplinary authority deciding to impose punishment on the
workman and this Court is in agreement with the view taken by the
disciplinary authority to impose punishment. However, the Bank attacks the
impugned award on the question of disproportionality of the punishment,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
which has since been modified by the Tribunal from dismissal to one of
compulsory retirement by exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the ID
Act.
25. To appreciate the contention and also to find out whether the
interference with the punishment by the Tribunal is justified or not, it is but
necessary to advert to Section 11-A of the ID Act to find out whether the
power has been properly exercised by the Tribunal.
26. Section 11-A of the ID Act, for better appreciation is quoted
hereunder:-
“11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National
Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or
dismissal of workmen.-
Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or
dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the
course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied
that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it
may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the
workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu
of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may
require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may
be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take
any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.”
27. Even a bare reading of Section 11-A, supra, reveals that where in
the course of adjudication the Tribunal feels that the punishment of dismissal
or discharge imposed was not justified, it may direct reinstatement of the
workman or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any
lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.
28. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has gone on to render a finding
that the charges stood proved and the fairness of the enquiry is also accepted
by the workman. The Tribunal has also further noted that there have been
instances of negligence on the part of the workman on earlier occasions,
which has resulted in imposition of punishments. However, the Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
taking note of the length of service of the workman and also taking into
account the fact that the other officers have not been diligent enough in
administering the activities at the bank, exercising its powers u/s 11-A, had
thought it fit to modify the punishment from one of dismissal to that of
compulsory retirement.
29. The precedents on the issue of interference with the punishment
imposed has been oft considered by the Courts and it has been the consistent
view of the Courts that it is always within the domain of the disciplinary
authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent,
which should be proportionate to the act of the delinquent. Only when the
punishment is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience, should the
courts interfere in the same in exercise of powers under Article 226. In Prem
Nath Bali – Vs - High Court of Delhi (2015 (16) SCC 415), the Supreme Court
held as under :-
“20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges
leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is
for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment
should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and
gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire
service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant
factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and
then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.
21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing
authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major)
then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes
the punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds
that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the
punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary
and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges
thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found
to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such
cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing
any other punishment as against what was originally awarded
to the delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per
the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of
remitting to the appointing authority.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court above, it is crystal clear
that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if
the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the
proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in
contravention of the Rules.
31. Considering the length of service of the workman and other
factors, which have been discussed above, Tribunal had mulcted fault both on
the workman as also the other officers at the Bank, had come to a conclusion
to exercise its powers u/s 11-A and modify the punishment from one of
dismissal to one of compulsory retirement, which cannot be said to be
erroneous. However, the gravity of the offence committed by the workman,
this Court cannot allow the workman to go unscathed by giving all the
superannuation benefits from the date of his discharge from service on
compulsory retirement. The proportionality of the punishment should be in
tune with the gravity of the delinquency committed by the workman.
32. In the present case, the delinquency relates to misappropriation
and negligence in the discharge of the work and the workman, being a bank
employee, which is the custodian of the funds of the general public, high
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
standards of probity and integrity is required of the employee and the
delinquency of the workman is nothing but an act of calculated breach of
integrity. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the proportionality of the punishment inflicted on the workman is not
suffice and the case on hand warrants a much stringent punishment on the
workman. Therefore, to render substantial justice to either party, this Court
while confirms the compulsory retirement imposed on the workman by the
Labour Court, however, insofar as the consequential superannuation benefits
are concerned, the workman would be entitled to the benefit of pension only
from August, 2023, which would alone subserve the ends of justice.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, while both the writ petitions stand
dismissed and the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.15/2015
insofar as imposing compulsory retirement on the workman stands
confirmed. However, while the workman would be entitled to other
superannuation benefits, insofar as pensionary benefits is concerned, the
workman would be entitled to the said pensionary benefits only from August,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
2023. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
10.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
GLN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
To
1. The Regional Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)
State Bank of India
Region-II, Regional Business Office
Raja Mirasdar Hospital Road
Thanjavur 613 001.
2. The Deputy General Manager
(Business Operations) (Appellate Authority)
State Bank of India
Disciplinary Proceedings Cell
Administrative Office
Tiruchirappalli Zone, McDonalds Road
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
3. The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunak
- cum – Labour Court
1st Floor, ‘B’ Wing, 26, Haddows Road
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. NOS.25951 OF 2017 &
7787 OF 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.25951/17-7787/2018
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
