Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The first respondent joined the service of the appellant on June 13, 1955 as a Money Tester and was working in that capacity at the Ambala City Branch in July, 1960. On July 26, 1960, he was deputed to supervise the remittance of unissuable notes of Rs. 87,48,000/- from the Ambala City Branch to the Note Cancellation and Verification Sections of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana for destruction. According to the appellant the procedure adopted for such purpose was : the currency notes intended to be carried for destruction to the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, are examined, counted and then tied in bundles with a label or slip attached to each packet containing the particulars including the initials of the examining officer' Each packet is then recounted by the Money Tester and the latter puts his initial on the label or slip in token of his having done the recounting, the idea being, that if any shortage is discovered subsequently, the person whose initials are found on the label or slip can be made liable to account for the deficiency, and be asked to make good the same. Accordingly, when the money was taken by the first respondent on July 26, 1.960 and delivered to the Note Cancellation and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, officials therein noted a shortage of Rs. 100/- in the packet containing Rs. 10/denomination notes. Such a deficiency was noted in the packet to which was tacked the label bearing the initials of R, K. Jain. The shortage was pointed out to R. K. Jain by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India, and the packet was handed back to the former to enable him to satisfy himself regarding the shortage. R. K. Jain, under the guise of trying to unstitch the packet, tore off the label bearing his initials in spite of the protest made by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. The torn label was picked up and as it contained the initials of R. K. Jain, the officials of the Reserve Bank of India kept the torn pieces intact. Later on., a verbal inquiry was made by the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India and R. K. Jain admitted the shortage by his letter dated July 29, 1960. In that letter, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India. R.' K. Jain stated that while count- ing the packet containing the Rs. 10/- notes in which a shortage of Rs. 100/- was found, the slip was torn by him inadvertently and that he repasted the slip, after having confirmed the mutilation as desired by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. Ambala City Branch of the appellant, addressed a letter dated August 13 , 1960 to R. K. Jain regarding the reports made by the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India and the Superintendent Incharge of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, regarding the shortage of Rs. 100/-. In that letter, after referring to the counting of the packet by the first respondent and his tearing the label and recasting it, it is stated that the first respondent is responsible for the shortage as he has put his signature in the label in token of having recounted the packet and found it to be correct. It was further stated that the first respondent tore off the label because it contained his initials and this was done to avoid any liability or responsibility. These acts were stated to amount to gross misconduct and R. K. Jain was called upon to submit his explanation to the Head Office of the appellant. On August 16, 1960, the first respondent stated that the packet containing soiled notes was handled by several persons and counted more than once both in the Branch at Ambala as well as in the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana. After referring to the fact that the packet was given to him for recounting, as the officers asked him to hurry up the matter and to return the packet soon, and as there was a shortage of Rs. 100/-, he got confused and while handling the packet the covering slip tore off accidentally. This fact was explained to the officer of the Reserve Bank of India. He further stated that he did not destroy the label deliberately to avoid any liability. The first respondent has further stated that on the morning of July 26, 1960, ten notes of rupee one denomination were found short in a packet which was verified and found correct by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India. But later on the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India detected the shortage and this deficiency was made up by the staff of the Reserve Bank. The concerned staff of the Reserve Bank, who had made up the deficiency, was not well disposed towards him as he declined to accede to their request to reimburse, them in the sum of Rs. 10/- which they had to make good due to their negligence. Therefore, the staff of the Reserve Bank in the concerned section has made a false allegation that the slip was deliberately torn off by the first respondent. R. K. Jain has further stated that he had put in nearly five years service and had a clean record and that the allegations made against him were false and frivolous.

Not satisfied with the explanation given by R. K. Jain, the appellant placed him under suspension with effect from September 6, 1960 pending an inquiry, which had been ordered against his conduct. By letter dated October 10, 1960, R. K. Jain was required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the following charges :

"(1) That during the course of examination of Ambala City Branch remittance of non-issuable notes sent to the Note Cancellation and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of India. Ludhiana,' on 26th July, 1960, under your supervision, 10 pieces of Rs. 10/- notes were found short in one packet; the packet in question was recounted by you at the Branch.

It is seen that there was a Departmental Inquiry conducted by one B. P. Tiwari, an officer of the Appellant Branch at Ambala. The inquiry commenced on December 23, 1960 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on February 2, 1961 holding R. K. Jain guilty of the charges levelled against him. it is not necessary for us to advert to the findings in this report as a fresh inquiry was conducted later. It is only necessary to note that during the inquiry proceedings conducted by B. P. Tiwari, the :first respondent had examined Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were Cashiers at the Jullundur and Amritsar Branches respectively, of the appellant Bank, as his defence witnesses. They had given evidence complaining about the behaviour of the staff of the Reserve Bank of India in the Note Cancellation Section particulars towards potdars of the State Bank of India. It is also seen that some officers of the Reserve Bank of India at Ludhiana in the Note Cancellation Section had given evidence for the appellant. Those officers surprisingly refused to be cross-examined by the first respondent during that inquiry. This resulted in the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India's Staff Association sending a letter on December 24, 1960 to B. P. Tiwari pointing out that in the inquiry that was being conducted by him, the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, at whose, instance the charges had been framed against R. K. Jain, did not permit the delinquent to put them any question in cross- ,examination. In fact, it is averred that those officers of the Reserve Bank of India flatly refused to answer any questions that were put by R. K. Jain and his representative and also declined to answer any questions put to them in cross-examination. It was alleged that the statements given by those officers of the Reserve Bank of India were one sided and R. K. Jain and his representative had to sit as spectators during the inquiry. The inquiry was quite contrary to the Procedure to be adopted in disciplinary action taken in respect of Bank employees. Notwithstanding this grievance made on behalf of the first respondent that the inquiry was opposed to all principles of natural justice and was not a proper inqairy, .nothing seems to have been done, by the appellant, as will be seen from the fact that the inquiry proceeded and the report, finding R. K. Jain guilty, was sent by B. P. Tiwari, so late as February 2, 1961.

After the second inquiry was commenced by B. D. Sharma, the Staff Association addressed a letter to the Inquiry Officer on June 15, 1961. The Inquiry Officer was requested to arrange to summon five persons for cross-examination by the workman. Those persons were : (1) Shri B. P. Tewari, (2) Shri J. S. Bhatnagar, (3) Shri K. C. Mehra, Agent, Ambala City, (4) Shri Sanjhi Ram, Cashier, Amritsar, and (5) Shri Puran Singh, Cashier, Jullundur. The first three persons mentioned in the list were the officers of the Bank and 4 and 5 were also employees of the appellant, but working in different branches. There is no controversy that Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram were examined by the workman at his expense in the previous inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari. Those witnesses had also stated that the staff of the Reserve Bank, Note Cancellation Section were antagonistic to the potdars of the State Bank of India. That is a matter of record. The Inquiry Officer replied on June 15, 1961 stating that the three officers, namely, M/s Tewari, Bhatnagar and Mehra are all working outside Ambala and that if it is found necessary the workman will be given an opportunity to cross-examine them. But regarding Sanjhi Ram and Pooran Singh, the Inquiry Officer categorically stated that since those persons had appeared at the instance of the workman in the previous inquiry, it was for him to arrange for their presence for giving evidence. On June 15, 1961 again there was a lot of correspondence between the Staff Association and the Inquiry Officer. The Staff Association emphasised that Sanjhi Ram and Pooran Singh had been examined at the instance of the workman in the previous inquiry and that was abandoned due to no fault of the workman. It was emphasised that the workman cannot afford to bear the expenses of bringing those witnesses over again in the second inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was requested to contact the management two witnesses, who were employees of the appellant, The Inquiry Officer firmly replied that it is for the workman to make arrangements for producing Sanjhi Ram and Pooran Singh, if their evidence was considered necessary by him and that the Inquiry Officer cannot take any steps in that behalf. Notwithstanding the further request made by the Staff Association on the ground that the workman's financial position does not enable him to bear the necessary expenses in that regard. No doubt, it is seen that the Agent of the Ambala Bank addressed letters to the officers at Jullundur and Amritsar Branches to release Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram in case they desired to appear at the inquiry on behalf of the workman; but it was made clear in those letters that the two Cashiers must be specifically told that their presence at the inquiry will be at the request of R. K. Jain and the Bank will not pay any expense that may be incurred by them. In these circumstances, quite naturally the two witnesses did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and the workman also could not afford to bring them all the way to give evidence on his side. On the other 'hand, the management brought all their officers as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank for the purpose of giving evidence on their side and the management incurred all the expenses in that behalf. During the course of the correspondence the, workman even made a request that the Reserve Bank officers have already given evidence in the previous inquiry and that the present inquiry may be confined only to their cross-examination and the inquiry continued from that stage. He also made a request that in case the :two Cashiers Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram are not summoned on his behalf: their evidence given in the inquiry held by B. P. Tiwari, ,which was already on record, may be treated as their evidence in the present proceedings. These requests were also rejected by he Inquiry Officer. Whether there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in the domestic inquiry and whether a reasonable opportunity of defending himself has been provided to the workman in the said inquiry has to be considered in the light of the circumstances referred to above. Though, normally it may be the duty of the workman to have his witnesses produced before the Inquiry Officer, in the particular circumstances of this case the position is entirely different. The workman has admittedly incurred heavy expenses in the previous inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari. There is no controversy that he brought the two Cashiers at considerable expense to give evidence on his side. That inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari was abandoned by the management not because of any fault of the workman, but because of the unreasonable attitude adopted by the employees of the Reserve Bank who gave evidence. For the conduct of those witnesses, the workman, in our opinion, should not be punished by making him to incur the expenses over again specially when the second inquiry was being conducted by the management of its own volition in spite of protests made by the workman, and the management was prepared to bear the expenses of the second inquiry regarding its officers as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana. But it was not prepared to accept, what in our view, was a reasonable and modest request made by the first respondent to have the two Cashiers summoned for giving evidence on his side. As to what evidence they would have given or as to whether the evidence given by them would have helped the respondent No. 1, are not matters which arise for consideration, because their evidence was not made available in the second inquiry. Under those circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there has been a violation of the principles of natural _justice in the conduct of the domestic inquiry and that the workman was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the Inquiry Officer. It may be that the order of the Inquiry Officer declining to ask the management to produce the three officers may be justified , because 'the Inquiry Officer certainly has discretion to consider whether their evidence will be relevant or not. But the Inquiry Officer, who was part of the management was not justified in not forwarding the request of the workman to arrange for the production of Pooran inquiry suffers from a very serious infirmity and in consequence the order to discharge based upon the findings recorded in such an inquiry cannot be sustained. Such an order has been rightly set aside by the Industrial Tribunal. The second contention of the learned Solicitor is that on the basis of the last part of sub-cl.(c) of Cl. (10) of Paragraph 521 of the Sastry Award, the order of discharge can be justified. The last part of the said sub-cl. (c) of Cl. (10) relied on by the learned Solicitor is as follows :