Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 While working as a peon in the bank it was detected that respondent had withdrawn certain amounts from SB accounts of various customers by forging their signatures.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as follows: The petitioner has admitted that he had committed forgery of signatures of account holders on pay slips and withdrawn amounts from the accounts of various customers and misappropriated the same.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:

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.