IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Workman would be entitled to receive terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered.
(2) Punishment – Modified penalty as imposed by Appellate Authority will attain finality if it is not questioned by appellant.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1525 of 2016 preferred by the appellant.

2.1. Appellant herein is the United Commercial Bank (briefly ‘the Bank’ hereinafter).

3. By the judgment and order dated 11.01.2017, the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant Bank against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Single Judge vide the judgment and order dated 14.03.2016 had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent being Civil Writ Petition No. 2490 of 2014 by directing the appellant to process the case of the respondent for pension and to release the pensionary dues to him expeditiously.

4. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.

5. At the relevant point of time, respondent was serving as a Clerk in the appellant Bank. A charge memo dated 12.10.1998 issued by the disciplinary authority was served upon him, charging him with having indulged in acts of gross misconduct within the premises of the Gurmandi Branch, Jalandhar of the appellant Bank. As per the allegations, on 21.09.1998, at around 05:15 PM, respondent alongwith another employee of the same branch Shri R.N. Chopra had assaulted Shri J.B. Bansal, an officer of the appellant Bank posted at the Raipur-Rasulpur Branch, in the cabin of the senior manager of the Gurmandi Branch. Officials of the branch had to intervene to separate Shri Bansal from the respondent and Shri Chopra.

5.1. Before the respondent could file his response to the charge memo, the disciplinary authority decided to institute an enquiry. In this connection, Shri H.S. Saini, an officer in Scale III, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Shri R.K. Kakkar, an officer in Scale II, was appointed as the Presiding Officer vide the notification dated 18.12.1998.

5.2. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and on conclusion of the same submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority alongwith his covering letter dated 09.10.1999. In the enquiry proceedings, stand of the respondent was that no such incident of assault had taken place; instead, it was a conspiracy hatched at the instance of the rival union to falsely implicate the respondent and Shri Chopra. Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the respondent stood proved.

5.3. On going through the enquiry report, disciplinary authority passed an order dated 18.10.1999 holding that the charge against the respondent of indulging in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour within the premises of the Bank was proved. Therefore, as the disciplinary authority, he proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the respondent with the intimation that a personal hearing would be held on 29.10.1999 on the question of penalty.

5.4. It appears that respondent had appeared before the disciplinary authority for personal hearing and also filed a written submission. He reiterated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. He submitted he had two small school going children besides his unemployed wife. Therefore, he pleaded that the penalty as proposed should not be imposed.

5.5. Disciplinary authority vide his order dated 14.12.1999 agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charge levelled against the respondent for having indulged in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour within the premises of the appellant Bank was proved. Respondent thus committed an act of gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 19.5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, as amended. He, therefore, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent with immediate effect.

6. Respondent preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of dismi