Madras High Court
S.Gururaghavendran vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2023
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
S.Gururaghavendran ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Presiding Officer,
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai-6,
First Floor, 'B' Wing,
26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 6.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, H.R.M Section, Circle Office,
No.524, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 18. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records on the file of
the First Respondent pertaining to the I.D.No.27 of 2015 dated
24.11.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the second
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the services of the second
respondent bank with continuity of services and all other attendant
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.Mohamed Hussain
for M/s.Sree and Associates (for R2)
Labour Court (R1)
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order in I.D.No.27
of 2015 dated 24.11.2015 on the file of the first respondent and to
consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the
services of the second respondent bank with continuity of services and all
other attendant benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as Daily
Wager on 30.03.1990 in Dharmapuri Branch of the second respondent.
He was absorbed as Peon and his service was confirmed after the
probation period of six months. During February, 2001, the petitioner and
his family members left Dharmapuri due to heavy debt incurred by his
brother in Hotel business. Further, the petitioner along with his family
members resided at Tirupathi for some time and then shifted to Bangalore.
As his mother fell ill in 2002, he has to take care of his mother till her
death in 2011. When he approached the Dharmapuri Branch of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
respondent, he was informed that the petitioner was deemed to have
voluntarily vacated his employment under the provisions of voluntary
cessation of employment by the end of the year 2005. Thereafter, the
petitioner sent a representation dated 06.02.2012 to the second respondent
by explaining the circumstances under which he could not attend the duty.
The respondent sent reply dated 14.06.2012 stating that the petitioner was
issued with three charge sheets dated 08.11.2001, 17.12.2003 and
12.04.2005 for his unauthorized absence from 14.02.2001 and he was
imposed with the punishments of censure for the first charge, stoppage of
one increment for one year without cumulative effect for the second charge
and finally, dismissed on 30.12.2005 for the third charge, and that there is
no merit in that representation. Further, the petitioner preferred appeal on
24.09.2012 before the Appellate Authority requesting to reconsider the
punishment of dismissal and to reinstate him into service. The Appellate
Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 15.11.2012 on the ground of
delay, without providing a chance of personal hearing to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai, which was referred by the
Ministry of Labour and Employment of the Central Government to the
first respondent Tribunal in I.D.No.27 of 2015 for adjudication based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
the failure report filed to the Government of India. The first respondent
after due enquiry, dismissed the industrial dispute in I.D.No.27 of 2015
by impugned award dated 24.11.2015 against which the petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when
the long absence of the petitioner has been regulated by sanctioning and
treating them as leave on loss of pay regularly at every interval, the second
respondent ought not to have construed the same as unauthorized absence.
He further submitted that when the petitioner gave a representation to the
second respondent challenging his dismissal from service, he was issued
with three charge sheets and finally, he was disproportionately dismissed
from service. He further submitted that the first respondent has failed to
consider the circumstances for the unauthorized absence. Further, the first
respondent has failed to note that when the first and second charge sheets
were returned unserved, the issuance of the third charge sheet and
imposition of the capital punishment cannot be sustained. It is also
pointed out that as per the Bipartite Settlement arrived among the
Nationalized Banks, the second respondent would have to invoke the
scheme of voluntary cessation of employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent has filed
counter affidavit dated 22.07.2016 stating that the first respondent has
arrived at the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service is
proper and not disproportionate for long unauthorized absence based on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and
Another Vs. Mohammad Ayub Naz (Appeal Case No. 939/2003). He
further made his submissions justifying the stand taken by the second
respondent with regard to the representation on the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that after issuance of
charge sheets for his unauthorized absence and when the charges were
proved, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure at the
first instance and only thereafter, he was dismissed from service. The first
respondent has rightly quoted the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Mohammad Ayub Naz (Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
Case No. 939/2003) that for willful absence for three years, punishment of
removal from service is proper and not disproportionate to the gravity of
misconduct. The said ruling squarely applies to the case on the hand.
Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from service is proper and not
disproportionate to the gravity of charges framed against him and he has
not made out any justifiable reason for interfering with the order passed
by the Tribunal. As such, the claim of the petitioner could not be
entertained.
7. For all the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed confirming the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No costs.
20.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kv
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai-6,
First Floor, 'B' Wing,
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 6.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, H.R.M Section, Circle Office,
No.524, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 18.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
kv
W.P.No.15793 of 2016
20.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
