The main legal point established in the judgment is that unjustified termination of an employee can lead to reinstatement with back wages, as per the relevant provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the Division Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 18th September, 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2238 of 2006.

4. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of termination passed by the respondent-bank dated 31st May, 1993, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 20th September, 1993, ordered reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits, continuity of service including seniority etc. setting aside that part of the order of the learned Single Judge by which the respondent-bank was directed to pay full back wages.

5. The appellant was at the relevant point of time working as officer and in charge of a branch in the village Chakarekhan of the State of Punjab. In regard to certain lapses in the release of certain subsidy to the tune of about Rs. 1,36,499/- to 78 beneficiaries he was proceeded against by way of a charge sheet, followed by an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer reached his conclusion as under:-

The conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer is as follows:-

The allegation is, therefore, proved to the extent that in 70 cases sponsored loan applications are not on record, but non-sponsoring/recommending of cases by sponsoring agency is not proved due to insufficient evidence brought on record."

With regard to allegation at C, it has been further observed by the Enquiry Officer that this allegation is very closely related to allegations No. 1 and 2. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, states that while discussing and appreciating the evidence on allegations 1 and 2, the following facts have surfaced:-

"i) That the CSO has released subsidy amount without raising the loan.

(ii) That the beneficiaries were interested in subsidy only and they were not interested in creation of assets.

(iii) No complaint against CSO were supported.

(iv) That the CSO was working under pressure due to disturbed condition in the area. His successors S. Jodh Singh also remained tense and left the branch subsequently as stated by MW 4.

However, the P.O. has not produced any evidence which could substantiate the charge that the CSO misappropriated the amount of subsidy in connivance with the borrowers. The allegation is, therefore, not proved."

On the basis of the aforesaid findings on each allegation the Enquiry Officer has held as follows:-

"Article of Charges

In view of my above observations/findings on each allegation:

(i) It is proved that the CSO has disbursed subsidy amounting to Rs. 1,36,499/- without raising any loan.

(ii) The allegation that in 70 cases no sponsored loan application is on record is proved. However, non-sponsoring the cases could not be held as proved due to insufficient evidence brought on record.

(iii) Allegation of misappropriation of subsidy amount in connivance with borrower is not proved. The act of CSO having disbursed subsidy amount without raising loan in violation of Bank norms & condition of Govt. Schemes though do affect tarnish the overall image of the Bank but the element of pressure due to disturbed condition may not be ignored altogether."

6. However, the disciplinary authority did not fully agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and based on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority he was terminated from service by order dated 31st March, 1993. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was also rejected by order dated 29th September, 1993.

7. When the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, learned Single Judge after making a detailed reference to the charges, the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer and the ultimate order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority held as under in its judgment dated 18th October, 2006:-

"The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not create assets for the Bank, for disbursing