Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bank Of India vs Sonpal Singh Koli on 17 September, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977
2024:MPHC
1 W.P.No.15526/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15526 of 2017
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Versus
SONPAL SINGH KOLI
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Shroti - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Singh
ingh Thakur - Advocate for the respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 22 of Constitution of India has been filed against the award dated 1.12.2016 passed by CGIT, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/134/03 by which the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the workman has been set aside and he has been directed to be reinstated with 100% backwages backwages.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent was working as Assistant ssistant (Cash/Accounts) (Cash/A at Sabalgarh Branch of the Bank Bank.
He was indulged in financial irregularities, as a result departmental enquiry was conducted ducted and ultimately an order of dismissal from service was passed. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to CGIT, Jabalpur. The Tribunal by order dated 26.11.2012 answered the preliminary issue with regard to legality and validi validity of departmental enquiry in favour of petitioner. However, by the same NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 2 W.P.No.15526/2017 order the Tribunal fixed the case for consideration of propriety of findings of guilt and punishment.
3. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that in spite of multiple opportunities granted by Tribunal, the petitioner could not produce the departmental enquiry proceedings including the documentary as well as oral evidence and, therefore, the Tribun Tribunal held that the findings of guilt recorded by the department appears to be based on no evidence. As a consequence thereof,, the Tribunal has set aside the departmental proceedings and has directed for reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service with full backwages.
4. Challenging the award passed by CGIT, Jabalpur, Jabalpu , it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that CGIT was not competent to subst substitute its own finding in place of finding of guilt recorded by the authorities. It is submitted that once the departmental proceedings were held to be in accordance with law then the scope of interference by the CGIT becomes narrower and thus, CGIT should have given due weightage to the findings recorded by the authorities.
5. To buttress his contention, the counsel counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the cases of Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 285, 285 West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 729 Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh, 729, Standard Srivastava reported in (2021) 19 SCC 281 Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 3 W.P.No.15526/2017 and M.L. Singla Vs. Vs Punjab National Bank, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 21.
6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted that once the workman had challenged the findings of guilt recorded by authorities and by order dated 26.11.2012 when the Tribunal had fixed the case to ascertain the propriety of findings and punishment, punishment, then it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to file the departmental d enquiry proceedings including the documentary as well as ocular evidence to substantiate their findings.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) (supra) has held as under :-
"14. The Tribunal in its order on reappreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that in the absence of any independent evidence other than of fellow workmen, the charge of indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with superior and a co-worker worker was not proved. Insofar as the absence from the duty is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that according to the workman, he had left the place of work at 12.25 p.m. and as the incident allegedly had taken place at 12.30 p.m., the respondent could not have reached the place of incident at 12.30 p.m. after collecting his other associates. In para 14 of its order, the Tribunal concluded that Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought against the workman beyond reasonable reasonabl doubt.
15. This Court in Divl. Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane [(2005) 3 SCC 254 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 407] held that: (SCC p. 258, para 9) NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 4 W.P.No.15526/2017
"9.. From the above it is clear that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the Appellate Tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless passengers to reject the said finding which, ch, in our opinion, as held by this Court in Rattan Singh [State of Haryana v. Rattan SinghSingh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298] is not a condition precedent. We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh [State State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh,, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298] has since been followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka SRTC [(2002) 9 SCC 644 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1093]."."
16. In U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar [(2008) 1 SCC 115:: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1 : (2007) 13 Scale 690] this Court again observed that in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer or the punishment awarded by the punishing punis authority.
17. After going through the order of the Industrial Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has interfered with the findings recorded by the domestic tribunal as if it was the Appellate Tribunal. There was evidence present on record record regarding indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the respondent towards his NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 5 W.P.No.15526/2017 superiors. The Management witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence have unequivocally deposed about the misbehaviour of the respondent towards his superiors. Their evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing that in the absence of independent evidence, the statements of the workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence could not be believed. The Industrial Tribunal fell in error in discardin discarding the evidence produced by the Management only because the independent witnesses were not produced."
produced.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra) has held as under :-
"15. Heard Mr P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counse Counsel for the appellant and Mr M.A.Chinnasamy M.A.Chinnasamy and Mr M.K. Perwez, learned counsel for the respondents.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals, set aside aside the impugned judgment and uphold the dismissal order of the respondents as legal and proper.
17. To begin with, when we examine the legality and the correctness of the awards of the Labour Court, we are of the considered opinion that the Labour Court, ha having held and indeed rightly that the departmental enquiry conducted by the appellant was legal and proper committed an error in holding that the departmental enquiry got vitiated due to criminal court's order which had acquitted the respondents from the charge charge of theft. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to examine this issue once the departmental enquiry was held legal and proper. The Labour Court, in our opinion, committed yet another error in holding that since the appellant fail failed to lead any evidence to prove the charge in Labour Court, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 6 W.P.No.15526/2017 therefore, the dismissal orders of the respondents are liable to be set aside. This finding, in our opinion, was again not legally sustainable."
sustainable.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank (supra) has held as under:-
under "18. The Tribunal after reappraisal of the record of domestic enquiry held it to be fair and proper, has a very limited scope to interfere in the domestic enquiry to the extent as to whether there is any apparent perversity in the finding of fact which has been recorded by the enquiry officer in his report of enquiry obviously, based on the evidence recorded during the course of enquiry and as to whether the compliance of the Bipartite Settlement which provides the procedure of holding enquiry is violated or the punishment levelled against the workman commensurate with the nature of allegation proved against him and if it is grossly disproportionate, the Tribunal will always be justified to interfere by invoking its statutory power under Section 11-A A of the 1947 Act."
Act.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Singla (supra) has held as under :-
"15. The first error was that it failed to decide the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry. Since the dismissal order was based on the domestic enquiry, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide the question as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was legal and proper.
16. Depending upon the answer to this question, the Labour Court should have proceeded further to decide the next question.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 7 W.P.No.15526/2017
17. If the answer to the question on the preliminary issue was that the domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question to be considered by the Labour Court was whether the punishment of dismissal dismissal from the service is commensurate with the gravity of the charges or is disproportionate requiring interference in its quantum by the Labour Court.
18. If the answer to this question was that it is disproportionate, the Labour Court was entitled to interfere in the quantum of punishment by assigning reasons and substitute the punishment in place of the one imposed by Respondent 1 Bank. This the Labour Court could do by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-AA of the ID Act.
19. While deciding this question, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to examine as to whether the charges are made out or not. In other words, the enquiry for deciding the question should have been confined to the factors such as--what as what is the nature of the charge(s), its gravity, whether it is major or minor as per rules, the findings of the enquiry officer on the charges, the employee's overall service record and the punishment imposed etc.
20. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee, Respondent 1 Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee)ee) before the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the charges on merits.
21. The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to give such opportunity and then decide the question as to whether Respondent 1 Bank was able to prove the charges against the appellant on merits or not."
not.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 8 W.P.No.15526/2017
12. If the facts and circumstances of this case are considered in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court, ourt, then it is cle clear that by order dated 26.11.20122 the Tribunal had upheld held the legality of the departmental enquiry by giving a specific finding that the principle principles of natural justice were ere followed and every opportunity was given to the workman by the Management. Although the Enquiry Officer ha had submitted his exonerating report but the disciplinary nary authority by pointing out his dissent issent note had given a show cause notice to the workman and even the personal hearing was given to workman workman. Thus, the procedure, which was adopted by the Management, Management, was upheld by the CGIT, Jabalpur. Accordingly, by order dated 26.11.2012 it was further observed that since the workman has disputed the propriety of findings, therefore, the case was fixed for evidence of workman on the issue of propriety of findings and punishment.
13. Tribunal after holding that the departmental proceedings were legal,, has very limited scope to interfere and cannot subst substitute his own finding as an appellate authority.
au However, in order to find out as to whether the findings recorded by the authorities are based on evidence or no evidence, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to go through the documentary as well as ocular evidence for the said limited purposes.
14. It was fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that in spite of multiple opportunities ortunities given by Tribunal, the petitioner could not produce the record of departmental proceedings. T Therefore, the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 9 W.P.No.15526/2017 jurisdiction of the Tribunal to find out as to whether the findings recorded by the authorities were based on evidence or no evidence coul could not be exercised because of withholding of documents by the petitioner. Although the counsel for petitioner tried to submit that since the documents are old, therefore, they were not available but fairly conceded that nothing has been placed on record to show that any action was as taken against the defaulter employee/officer, who was responsible for misplacement or withholding of the proceedings of departmental enquiry.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case specifically when the Enquiry Officer Of had given a report thereby exonerating the petitioner coupled pled with the fact that in spite of the multiple opportunities, the department did not produce the record of departmental enquiry to show that the findings recorded by authorities were based on evidence, this Court is of considered opinion that CGIT, Jabalpur did not commit any mistake by holding that the findings recorded by the authorities were based on no evidence.
16. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
17. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the industrial dispute raised by the respondent was allowed on the technical ground of non-production non production of record of the departmental proceedings and in view of the findings recorded by the discipli disciplinary as well as appellate authority, it is submitted that full backwages awarded by the Tribunal is bad in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46977 2024:MPHC 10 W.P.No.15526/2017
18. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
19. Although the respondent in his affidavit had ha claimed that after the termination of his services, he is unemployed and his family is on the verge of starvation but except this bald statement, the workman has not pointed out as to how he had survived even without employment.
20. Furthermore, since the termination order of respondent was set aside on technical issue, issue therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that trial court should not have awarded full backwages to the respondent.
21. Accordingly, the order so far as it relates to grant of 100% backwages is hereby modified and it is reduced to 25%.
22. With aforesaid modification, the petition is disposed off.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG/-
TRUPTI GUNJAL 2024.09.18 10:27:24 +05'30'