Telangana High Court
A. Gopala Raju, vs The Industrial Tribunalcumlabour ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.5923 of 2017
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that hewas
initially appointed as Office Assistant-III in 1979, later promoted as
Grade-I Office Assistant, and served as Cashier for 16 years. On
31.05.2008, a cash shortage of ₹2.00 lakhs was reported from a
damaged Almirah, which had been brought to the notice of superiors
earlier without remedial action. The petitioner immediately informed
management upon discovering the shortage, and under advice of Deputy
General Manager Mr. Swaroop Panda, repaid the amount on 05.06.2008
by mortgaging his wife's gold. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet
on 12.06.2008 despite absence of mala fide or criminal intent. In the
departmental enquiry, no legal evidence was produced to substantiate
charges of theft or fraud, and even the Enquiry Officer held there was no
proof of such allegations, attributing only negligence. However, the
petitioner was dismissed. He filed an appeal before the Labour Court,
and the same ended in dismissal. The petitioner's plea before the Labour
Court detailed his forced payment of the disputed amount, his wife's
deteriorating health and eventual death on 03.07.2014 due to shock from
the dismissal, lack of alternative employment due to the stigma of
dismissal. Terminal benefits were eventually credited under protest. On
the intervention of the union, the management assured fair treatment
upon repayment, but the same was dishonored. The petitioner therefore
seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 13.01.2016 in I.D.
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
No. 15 of 2012 and to direct reinstatement with continuity of service,
back wages, and all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal to
his date of superannuation from service i.e., 01.04.2016.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner; and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vedula Srinivas appearing on
behalf of Mr. S Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on
the lines of writ affidavit, would essentially contend that the Award
dated 13.01.2016 in I.D. No. 15 of 2012, published on 25.02.2016 by
the 1strespondent-Labour Court, is liable to be quashed as it is illegal,
arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and
the mandate of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is
contended that the petitioner, who joined the 2ndrespondent company in
1979 and served as a Cashier with an unblemished record for 16 years,
was unfairly dismissed from service on 28.05.2009 without any proof of
theft or fraud, despite the Enquiry Officer having categorically held that
there was no such misconduct and only a finding of negligence was
recorded. It is contended that the petitioner had voluntarily and promptly
informed the management about the cash shortage of ₹2.00 lakhs on
31.05.2008, which occurred due to a broken Almirah previously brought
to the notice of superiors, and under pressure and assurance from senior
officials, repaid the amount on 05.06.2008 by pledging his wife's gold
ornaments; however, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on
12.06.2008. Learned counsel contends that the Labour Court failed to
consider the Enquiry Officer's conclusions, disregarded the
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
disproportionality of punishment, and erroneously relied on the case law
in Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal (AIR 2003 SC 1462), and
exceeded its jurisdiction by differing with the Enquiry Officer's
findings. It is contended that no police complaint was filed regarding the
alleged theft, thereby there is no culpable offence, and the insurance
claim for the missing cash was rejected due to the 2ndrespondent's own
negligence in maintaining the cash chest. It is contended that the
stigmatic dismissal ruined the petitioner's family life, and his wife was
shocked about the dismissal of petitioner from service and later expired,
and his dismissal deprived him of livelihood until his retirement on
01.04.2016, and the petitioner was forced to accept terminal benefits
under protest. Learned counsel contends that the impugned Award is
inconsistent with the enquiry findings, and therefore arbitrary and illegal
and hence prays to set aside the Award and reinstate the petitioner with
continuity of service, back wages, and all consequential benefits.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, basing on the counter affidavit of
respondent No.2, would contend that the writ petition is not
maintainable, suffers from laches as it was filed nearly a year after the
Award dated 13.01.2016 by the 1st respondent, and that no sufficient
explanation for the delay has been provided by the petitioner. Reliance
is placed on judgments including State Bank of India v. Ram Lal
Bhaskar[(2011) 10 SCC 249], Krushna Narayan Wonjori v. Jai Bharti
Shikshan Sanstha[(2018) 12 SCC 620], State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya[(2011) 4 SCC 584], Indian Overseas
Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union[(2000) 4 SCC 245], among
others, to assert that writ courts cannot reappreciate evidence or act as
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
appellate forums in disciplinary matters. It is contended that it is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as a cashier with the 2nd
respondent until his dismissal on 28.05.2009 following a domestic
enquiry initiated after Rs.2,00,000/- went missing from the company's
safe under his custody on 31.05.2008. The petitioner was charged with
negligence of duty and prejudicial conduct, both major misconducts
under the applicable Standing Orders, as established in the enquiry
report dated 23.07.2008. The evidence showed, inter alia, that the
petitioner failed to properly secure the almirah, failed to inform
superiors timely about the defective lock, and left Rs. 3.5 lakh
unattended despite security concerns. It is contended that there is no
record of the petitioner informing his superiors about the malfunctioning
lock prior to 31.05.2008 even as per his own enquiry statements and
reply dated 25.08.2008. It is contended that the petitioner had a past
record of misconduct, and he was warned for absenteeism on
16.04.1982 and 05.04.1991, and he faced disciplinary action including
stoppage of increment by order dated 21.03.1990 following abuse and
insubordination as per charge sheet dated 01.02.1990, and refused to
accept a notice on 29.01.1990. It is contended that these records
submitted before the Labour Court further justify the penalty of
dismissal. It is contended that once a fair enquiry is held and the
findings are not perverse, the Courts including under Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act cannot interfere unless punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. Reliance is placed on The General Secretary, South
Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew
Development Corp.[(2006) 5 SCC 201], Tata Engineering v. N.K.
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
Singh[(2006) 12 SCC 554], Hombe Gowda Education Trust v. State of
Karnataka[(2006) 1 SCC 430], and Davalsab Husainsab Mulla v.
NWKRTC[(2013) 10 SCC 185]. It is contended that the issue was
publicly reported, tarnishing the company's image, and given the
petitioner's position of trust and his gross negligence, the 2nd respondent
justifiably lost confidence in him and rightly imposed the penalty of
dismissal. Relying on Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Company
Ltd.[(2001) 9 SCC 609], it is contended that any leniency would
undermine discipline, and therefore the impugned Award does not suffer
from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the petitioner who was a Cashier with the
respondent-Bank was charge sheeted for cash-missing of Rs.2 lakh,
which led to a departmental enquiry and ultimately dismissal from
service, and later terminal benefits were extended under protest. At this
juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Enquiry Officer findings at Point
No.4 relating to whether the petitioner indulged in theft or fraud, either
alone or in connivance with another person(s). The enquiry findings
read as follows:
"Mr. A. Gopala Raju is cashier and used to handle cash
independently. There is no 2nd person having joint key of the
almirah. Hence, Mr. A. Gopala Raju in solely responsible for
cash operations. He knows pretty well that he is totally
responsible for maintaining cash. He too knows that he has to
reimburse the cash if there is any short fall any time.
On 31.05.2008 the C.S.W. found a cash shortage of 2 lakhs. On
the adice of Dy. General Manager, the C.S.W reimbursed short
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
fall amount on 05.06.2008 by cheque. He has produced two
bank receipts as proof of borrowed amount of Rs.1.62 lakhs.
There was no proof of theft or fraud on the part of CSW. The
Management Witnesses also did not express any doubt towards
this direction. In the past also the CSW faced many routine and
surprise cash and verifications and in no incident there was
proof of any short fall / missing or fraud except the incident of
31.05.2008. Hence benefit of doubt is extended to the accused."
6. Further, for Point No.5 relating to whether there was gross
negligence on the part of CSW, the enquiry officer recorded the finding
as follows:
".... He has informed his superior Mr. G. Rama Rao 10 days ago
that outside handle of almarah was broken. But the CSW did
not pursue the matter later on. He should have followed up the
matter and got it repaired. He has not done it. On 31.05.2008
before going to bank noticed that inside safety locking system
has also failed. He should have informed this matter
immediately to his superior before going to bank itself, he has
not informed immediately. Later on he informed about this
matter from bank over phone. By this it is clear that the CSW
was not serious about the safety of cash. When he has to keep
Rs.3.5 lakhs cash he would have sought alternate safe
arrangements, or another almarah in place of the existing one.
The CSW himself declared that about 20 persons usually go
inside the strong room. In that case also he should be more
cautious and careful. There is no evidence of any such
precautions taken by CSW. By his improper locking of almarah
and carelessness, a cash of Rs.2 lakhs cash of the company
was stolen.... "
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
7. A perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer would show that
the petitioner was aware that he has to reimburse the cash if there is any
shortfall any time as per Company policy, and the petitioner had in fact
reimbursed the shortfall amount on 05.06.2008 by cheques evidencing
borrowed amount. Further, it is the specific finding of the enquiry
officer that there is no proof of theft or fraud on the part of the
petitioner, and the Management Witnesses also did not express any
doubts on the petitioner in the direction of fraud or theft, and further it is
also the specific observation of the enquiry officer that there was no case
of fraud or theft on the part of the petitioner on any earlier occasion and
therefore benefit of doubt is extended to him. Furthermore, it is also the
specific finding of the enquiry officer, that the petitioner had informed
his superior Mr. G. Rama Rao that the outside handle of the almarah was
broken.
8. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner
has not informed the superior authority that the outside handle of the
almarah had broken, and in fact the petitioner informed his superior, one
Mr. G. Rama Rao, and therefore when the petitioner had admittedly
informed his superior about malfunctioning of the locking system of
almarah about ten days prior to the incident of cash-missing, and further
when the petitioner was found to be not involved in fraud or theft, and
the Management Witnesses also did not express any such doubts on the
petitioner's integrity, and further benefit of doubt was also extended in
favour of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service and
settling his terminal benefits under protest is an arbitrary and illegal
action.
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
9. Further, the appreciation of evidence by the 1st respondent, at
paragraph 15 of the impugned Award where MW2 admitted that the
outside handle of the almirah was broken but the locking system was
working, is contradictory and inconsistent with the findings of the
enquiry officer at Point Nos.4 and 5 of the enquiry proceedings. In that
view of the matter, the impugned Award dated 13.01.2016 is liable to be
set aside and is accordingly set aside.
10. The writ petition is allowed, holding that the petitioner is entitled
to continuity of service and consequential notional benefits from the
date of dismissal to the date of his superannuation, and his terminal
benefits shall accordingly be calculated and paid within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall not
claim back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of
superannuation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
28th May, 2025
ksm
wp_5923_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
28th May, 2025
ksm
