Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
M.L. Singla – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1841 of 2010
Decided On : 20-09-2018
(2003) 6 SCC 141; (2005) 5 SCC 591; (2006) 1 SCC 479; (2007) 2 SCC 433; (2009) 9 SCC 601; (2009) 15 SCC 327; (2013) 10 SCC 324 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court failing to notice jurisdictional errors committed by the Labour Court – Instead, proceeding to examine findings of Labour Court and Enquiry Officer on merits by entering into the factual arena – Not permissible. (Para 37, 38)
(1962) 3 SCR 684; (1963) 3 SCR 461; (1965) 3 SCR 588; (1972) 4 SCC 304; (1972) 1 SCC 595; (1973) 1 SCC 813; (1975) 2 SCC 671 – Relied upon
(c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – It is for the employer to ask for an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct – Such prayer once made orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied to the employer – Labour court not obliged to offer such opportunity to the employer suo motu, (Para 44)
(1979) 3 SCC 371 – Relied upon
(d) Labour law – Domestic enquiry – Workman provided full opportunity at every stage – Workman not complaining of prejudice – Receiving all documents – He filed reply, cross examined employer’s witnesses, examined his witnesses attended the proceedings – Enquiry officer submitting a reasoned report holding workman guilty of both charges – Held, domestic enquiry not suffering from any infirmity – Dismissal order upheld. (Para 50. 51, 57)
Facts of the case:
The appellant while on duty was found consuming liquor in the Branch. On the same day, respondent No.1 Bank also found shortage of Rs.35,000/- in daily cash balance on verification of the daily accounts.
On 29.08.1987, the Competent Authority passed a dismissal order.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
The State Government made a Reference to the Labour Court.
The Labour Court answered the Reference in appellant's favour.
Respondent No.1 Bank filed writ petition in the High Court which was allowed. As a consequence thereof the dismissal order dated 29.08.1987 was held legal and proper and was accordingly upheld.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in domestic enquiry.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 16286 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 Bank and quashed the award dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi in I.D. No.103/98.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in detail infra.
3. The appellant herein was the employee of respondent No.1 Punjab National Bank (PNB).
4. The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as Cashier in the PNB, Branch Office at Jind (Punjab).
5. On 21.03.1984, the appellant while on duty was found consuming liquor in the Branch. On the same day, respondent No.1 Bank also found shortage of Rs.35,000/- in daily cash balance on verification of the daily accounts.
6. Respondent No.1 Bank, therefore, decided to hold a departmental inquiry to probe the aforementioned two charges against the appellant as per the service rules.
7. A chargesheet was accordingly served on the appellant on 11.10.1985. The charges read as under:-
“1. That on 21.03.84 while you were working as Cashier Incharge at BO, Jind City, at about 01.30 p.m. you had asked Shri Hakikat Rai, Peon-cum-Guard to bring a glass of water and one Mathi which were provided to you by him and you took out a bottle of liquor from your drawer and consumed the same.
2. That on 21.03.84 while you were working as Cashier Incharge, you withdrew a sum of Rs.4,28,124.74 on different occasions leaving Rs.1,40,900/- in the cash safe of the Bank after the said withdrawals. Besides this during normal business hours, you had also received Rs.16,473.98 as direct receipt from customers and Rs.1,08,690/- from the Asst. Cashier to meet the payment. In all, you made total payment of Rs.3,31,417.68 during the day and at the close of the day, there should have been a cash balance of Rs.2,21,871.04 with you. Besides this at closing of the day, you received Rs.95,448.35 on account of the balance of receipt made by the Assistant Cashier. Thus, including the cash in the cash safe total receipt made by Asstt. Cashier during the day of the closing balance should have been Rs.4,58,219.39 with you whereas the actual balance was only Rs.423,219.39 with you showing a shortage of Rs.35,000/- and thus you acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence involving the Bank in serious loss. Further, on your request you were advance Rs.35,000/- from the suspense account to meet the shortage of Rs.35,000/- occurred on that day due to your gross negligence.”
8. Respondent No.1 Bank on 06.12.1985 appointed an Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The appellant on being served with the chargesheet submitted his reply on 29.10.1985. Respondent No.1 Bank and the appellant then participated in the enquiry and adduced evidence in support of their respective stands.
9. On 12.02.1987, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report. He held that both the charges are proved against the delinquent employee (appellant herein). The eventual conclusion on the two charges reads as under:
“CHARGE – I The charge that on 21.03.84, while working as Cashier Incharge, BO Jind City at about 01.30 p.m., Shri Singla asked Shri Hakikat Rai, Peon-cum-Guard to bring a glass of water and one ‘Mathi’, which were provided to him and he took out a bottle of liquor from the drawer consumed the same, stands fully substantiated and hence, proved.
CHARGE – II The charge that on 21.03.84 at BO Jind, a shortage of Rs.35,000/- occurred in the cash handled by Shri M.L. Singla while working as Cashier Incharge due to gross negligence on his part, thus, causing bank a serious loss, also stands fully substantiated, hence, proved.”
10. Respondent No.1 then sent a show cause notice along with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
