Karnataka High Court
The Union Bank Of India, Represented By ... vs Mr. Babu Mahadevappa Andani on 8 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)KARLJ717
Author: N. Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
ORDER N. Ananda, J.
Page 0744
1. The petitioner, the Union Bank of India has called in question the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in CR.No. 15/88. The respondent herein was working as a peon in Union Bank of India, Gokak Branch from 1967-68 to 1974 and thereafter he was transferred to Hebbal Branch of Belgaum District wherein he worked as peon till 1975, when the Belgaum Bank came to be merged into Union Bank. Mr. Andani was transferred from Hebbal Branch to the Belgaum Branch. While working as a peon in the bank it was detected that respondent had withdrawn certain amounts from SB accounts of various customers by forging their signatures. When the matter was being investigated the respondent had given two letters dated 4.9.78 and 13.9.78 as per Annexures M5 and M6. The contents of letter dated 4.9.1978 are as follows: The petitioner has admitted that he had committed forgery of signatures of account holders on pay slips and withdrawn amounts from the accounts of various customers and misappropriated the same. Repenting for the same he has remitted a sum of Rs. 5,840/-. In Exhibit M.6 the petitioner while admitting he had committed forgery of signatures of customers on withdrawal slips to withdraw amount from their SB accounts, has stated that he has remitted a sum of Rs. 1000/- to protect the prestige of bank. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was instituted against the respondent Bank. One Sri. S. Bhat was appointed as Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges of forgery, misappropriation committed by respondent. Before the Enquiry Officer the respondent was permitted to avail the services of Sri. A.R. Kulkarni, Vice President of Union Bank of India Employees Union.
2. From the above, it is clear that the respondent while admitting that he had committed forgery to withdraw various amounts from the accounts of Page 0745 different customers has contended that as gesture of repentance he has repaid certain amount to petitioner-Bank.
3. The enquiry Officer framed charges and the petitioner was called upon either to admit or deny the charges. The respondent pleaded time for reflection and it was granted. Mr. Kulkarni who was defending the respondent before the Enquiry Officer was also given time to look into the records. That on 4.4.1979, the respondent pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him and also admitted the confession letters given by him as per Exhibits M.5 and M.6 Thereafter, on 5.4.1979, Mr. A.R. Kulkarni representative of respondent gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer in terms of Exhibit M. 13 stating that, fraud would not have occurred if there had been strict adherence, to the procedures as laid down in the Bank; Mr. Andani has admitted the guilt and repented for the same and pleaded before the Enquiry Officer to take a lenient view in the matter of punishment. The Enquiring Officer who was also the Punishing Officer, considering the nature of misconduct i.e. forgery and misappropriation committed by the respondent, dismissed the respondent from service. After dismissal from service the petitioner submitted an appeal for mercy to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank wherein in unequivocal terms he has stated:
I did commit forgery and misappropriate Bank's money. This act was done in a fit of ambition and I did realise the grave mistake, which had to result into ruining my career as well as my life. I had refunded nearly 3/4th of the amount of misappropriation.
This appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 23.6.1980 vide Exhibit M-43. Thereafter, a reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government on the basis of a representation given by respondent.
The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 13.5.1994 held that the disciplinary enquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice and set aside the Disciplinary Enquiry, against which the Management-Union Bank of India was before this Court in W.P. 26340/1994. This Court by order dated 8.7.1998 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
This is in a way beneficial to the employer as it can fill up all the lacuna basing on which the domestic enquiry was set aside. Further if ultimately the Tribunal passes any adverse order against the petitioner the Management is free to challenge the finding on the domestic enquiry as well. Without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner this writ petition is dismissed.
4. After the disposal of the writ petition W.P.26340/1994, before the Industrial Tribunal both the parties lead evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of entire evidence, has passed the impugned order by setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service without backwages. Therefore, the Union Bank of India is before this Court.
Page 0746
5. I have heard Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya Jagirdar learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order and the records of enquiry proceedings and the order passed in appeal.
6. The Tribunal has proceeded on the presumption that order dated 13.5.1994 of Enquiring Officer has been set aside. Therefore it has held a denovo enquiry. While doing so, the Tribunal has ignored the order passed by this Court in WP.26340/94 wherein the liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13.5.1994 if the award were to go against it. The Tribunal has ignored the confessional statements as per exhibits M5 and M6 and it has held that the Management has not clearly established the misappropriation and forgery committed by the respondent. The Tribunal has found fault with the Disciplinary Authority for not furnishing the list of account holders from whose S/B account the respondent had withdrawn the amount forging their signatures on the pay slips. The Tribunal finding fault with the management for not producing evidence to its satisfaction, has set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service and without back wages.
7. In a decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 379, in the case of Government of India and Anr. v. George Philip, at page 386 the Supreme Court has held as follows:
9. It is trite that the Tribunal or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are not hearing an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the delinquent employee. The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal or the High Court is a limited one and while exercising the power of judicial review, they cannot set aside the punishment altogether or impose some other penalty unless they find that there has been a substantial non-compliance of the rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the employee and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravamen of the charge.
8. In a decision relevant page: 271, in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, the Supreme Court has ruled:
19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management and the witnesses called by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by Page 0747 the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the unequivocal admission of charges by the respondent before the Enquiring Officer which had been preceded by his confessional letters marked as Exhibits M5 and M6 and payment of Rs. 17,350/- (part of misappropriated amount.) by the respondent to the Bank as a gesture of repentance, there was no need for the Enquiring Officer to further proceed with the enquiry. The Industrial Tribunal not only ignored the settled principles of law but also ignored the order passed by this Court in W.P. 26340/1994. The respondent had no case before the Industrial Tribunal, that he had been induced to admit the charges before the Enquiring Officer. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal committed an error by setting aside the order of dismissal.
10. The Enquiry Officer considering the nature of misconduct i.e. forgery and misappropriation committed by the respondent and also having regard to the fact that respondent was working in a bank, which is a public trust, has dismissed the respondent from service not only in the interest, of Bank but also in the interests of its customers. Therefore, there was no reason for the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the order passed by the Enquiring Officer.
11. The respondent who was a peon in the Bank, misusing the trust reposed in him committed forgery of withdrawal slips and withdrew amounts from the SB accounts of customers and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 25,550/-. Later repaid a sum of Rs. 17,350/-. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of misconduct it is not possible to hold that the order of dismissal passed by the Enquiry Officer shocks the conscience of the Court. In view of the foregoing discussion I hold that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained and I pass the following order:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in C.R. No. 15/1988 dated 13.5.1994 and 29.11.2002 are set aside. The order of dismissal dated 23.12.1979 dismissing the respondent from service passed by the Enquiry Officer is restored.
No costs.