Kerala High Court
Addl.Petitioner Impleaded In The ... vs Respondents In The Writ Petition on 19 January, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`
WA.No. 1582 of 2012 ()
----------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.35585/2007 DATED 19-01-2012
..........
APPELLANT(S):ADDL.PETITIONER IMPLEADED IN THE W.P(C) AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF
----------------------- THE PETITIONER
JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE A.V SREEKUMAR,
ISWARIYA THARANICKAL, MEYYANAD P.O,
KOLLAM REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER LATE A.V SREEKUMAR,
ANANDA BHAVAN, NEAR RAILWAY STATION ,
PADINJATTINKARA ,KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM 691506.
BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 14.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
HEAD OFFICE ,POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695012.
R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ
& A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.A.No.1582 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October 2012
J U D G M E N T
MANJULA CHELLUR,CJ Heard learned counsel for appellant.
2. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that Mr.A.V.Sreekumar was working as Clerk-cum- Cashier with the 2nd respondent Bank at Adoor, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 01/01/2003 when the alleged misconducts were committed by him. There were total four charges levelled against the employee that is i) on 05/09/2000 when he was in-charge of cash as Receipt Cashier in Adoor Branch, at about 3.30 p.m after closing the account and leaving cash on Head Cashier's table he left the office without entrusting charge of the same to anyone, ii) without settling the accounts of the day he left the office at 3.30 p.m and there was an excess of Rs.20,000/- in cash balance as he did not account the said amount by re-locating the account, iii) he left the office W.A.No.1582/12 2 at 3.30 p.m. without obtaining permission of the competent authority and iv) there was a shortage of Rs.50,000/- noticed in the cash kept on his table amounting to Rs.6.50 lakhs as the workmen left without entrusting the cash to the Head Cashier and later that amount was recovered from a cavity near the toilet at the instance of the workman in question.
3. After serving show cause notice, reply was received and charges were framed. A detailed departmental enquiry came to be conducted and ultimately the enquiry officer found the first three charges proved but the last charge was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Department took serious note of the misconduct committed by the workman and discharged him from service. This came to be challenged in an industrial dispute before the Tribunal in I.D.No.48/06 after he was unsuccessful in the appeal filed by him. Tribunal found that domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure contemplated following principles of natural justice. Therefore, so far as domestic enquiry, it was held as valid and proper.
4. Then coming to the insufficient evidence so far as one of the charges is concerned, though in 1978 Hon'ble Supreme W.A.No.1582/12 3 Court in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar [1978 SC 1277] took a view that guilt of the delinquent regarding charges have to be established beyond reasonable doubt, later it was held that as the domestic enquiry is quasi civil in nature, preponderance of probabilities principle has to be adopted to conclude whether misconduct alleged against the workman was established or not. Having regard to the materials placed on record, ultimately the Tribunal opined that first charge alone was not established and all other charges were established. However, the Tribunal did not interfere with the punishment imposed. Hence the workman approached the learned Single Judge.
5. Both the fact finding authorities that is the appellate authority and the Tribunal have gone into the matter on threadbare and every aspect of the matter to conclude that atleast three charges framed against the workman are established. The most serious charge is the fourth charge, that is missing of Rs.50,000/- which came to be recovered at the instance of the workman from the toilet. The discussion made by the Tribunal would indicate, there was no scope to conclude that the finding was on account of perversity in appreciating the evidence on record. In the W.A.No.1582/12 4 absence of any perversity whatsoever in the proceedings or in the findings of the Tribunal, there is little scope for this Bench to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
5. Having regard to the serious charges levelled against the workman which were proved, we are of the opinion, penalty imposed is not shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. Therefore, we decline to interfere.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr 04/10/2012 W.A.No.1582/12 5 W.A.No.1582/12 6