Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned single Judge, while dealing with the above reasons given by the Tribunal, has found that except the last ground No.(vii), all other reasons given by the Tribunal are perverse and unsustainable to justify a person, who is found guilty of misappropriation for being reinstated in service. It was further held that the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was positively unreasonable.

10. The Tribunal ultimately held, among others, that the order dismissing the employee has to be set aside and the entire proceedings have to be started afresh at the stage of Enquiry Authority giving show cause notice to the delinquent again as regards his recommendations of punishment. Since the proceedings relate to action which was initiated in the year 1987, the learned single Judge thought that no useful purpose would be served by recommencing the proceedings once again after 14 years. Therefore, the learned single Judge found that though the reasons given by the Tribunal for interfering with the quantum of punishment were not proper, yet taking into account the employee had unblemished earlier service, it was held that the bank may use its discretion and post him in any equivalent post which does not involve any sensitive work or handling monetary matters. The following are the reasons given for the above decision taken by the learned single Judge;

(III) The observation in (1996)(D) SCC 364 (State Bank of Patiala ..vs.. S.K.Sharam that principles of natural justice would assume importance only in the event of prejudice being caused to the party, will not apply to the facts of the present case as the said requirements are embodied in the service conditions nor has the delinquent waived those requirement.

While on these above points the order of dismissal suffered, it was held that there is no need for re-enquiry after 14 years from the initiation of the proceedings i.e.1987. Therefore, the learned single Judge directed the employer to post the employee in any equivalent post, which does not involve any sensitive work or handling monetary matters.

This decision is applicable to the case on hand in all fours.

24. As stated earlier, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the second respondent without continuity of service and without backwages and imposed the punishment of withholding four increments with cumulative effect. The learned single Judge, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, has observed that the bank may use its discretion and post him in any equivalent post which does not involve any sensitive work or handling monetary matters. We are in full agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge.