Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar , JJ.
The General Manager (P) Corporation Bank (now Union Bank Of India) – Appellant
Versus
Sri. K.T. Shiva Prakash – Respondent
W.P. No. 13043/2020 (L-TER)
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Industrial Dispute - Misconduct - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11-A - MOS - DP 10.04.2002 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the principles of misconduct under MOS - DP 10.04.2002 in the context of a disciplinary action against an employee. The court analyzes the power of the Tribunal to re-appreciate evidence in a domestic enquiry, the sufficiency of evidence, and the implications of non-production of material evidence, such as CCTV footage. The judgment also considers the impact of reinstatement on public trust and confidence in the banking system.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a bank clerk, was charged with misappropriation of funds and subsequently discharged from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the discharge order and directed reinstatement without backwages. The petitioner challenged this decision in the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Tribunal's power to reassess evidence, consider absence of evidence, and draw adverse inferences. It found that the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and justified, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the Tribunal's power to re-appreciate evidence in a domestic enquiry, the sufficiency of evidence, the implications of non-production of material evidence, and the impact of reinstatement on public trust and confidence in the banking system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal can reassess evidence, consider absence of evidence, and draw adverse inferences. It emphasized the importance of material evidence, such as CCTV footage, and the need for proper application of mind in disciplinary proceedings. The court also highlighted that reinstatement is justified when misappropriation is not established and loss of confidence in the employee is not proven.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the discharge order and direct the reinstatement of the respondent without backwages.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to set aside the final award dated 23.06.2020 (notified on 14.07.220) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in C.R. No. 23/2011 (Annexure - J).
2. Heard Sri. Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent was working as a Clerk in Mahadevapura Branch of the petitioner -Corporation Bank, Bengaluru, (now Union Bank of India) since 14.03.2008. On 06.12.2008, the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet and the allegation being that on 04.09.2008 while he was working as a Cashier one Sri. C. Doraikanna, customer bearing S.B. account No. 01/001909 remitted cash of Rs.1,000/- and after receiving the said amount the respondent issued counter foil affixing cash received stamp with his initial but did not credit the said amount to the SB account in the Bank. On 05.09.2008 an ECS mandate of the customer was presented and was returned for insufficient funds whereupon Rs.56/-was debited to his account being return charges. On 15.09.2008 the customer visited the Bank and informed the Manager that he had credited Rs.1,000/-on 04.09.2008 and in proof produced the original counter foil after which he gave a complaint seeking credit of Rs.1,000/- with charges debited to his account. The challan could not be traced in the slip bundle of 04.09.2008 and no wrong credits were also noticed. Subsequently, on 17.09.2008 the respondent credited a sum of Rs.1,356/- to the Savings Bank account of the customer following which the customer submitted a letter dated 20.09.2008 stating that his claim was settled and he has no claim against the Bank. Upon ascertaining the details from Core-DRS Division, HO, Mangalore, it came to light that on 04.09.2008 at 12.48 pm the respondent entered in the computer system a sum of Rs.1,000/- credit as cash to the SB account of the customer under batch number 176/1 but deleted the said entry at 12.50 pm. The conduct of the respondent revealed that he had accepted Rs.1,000/- from the customer on 04.09.2008 and failed to credit it to his account in the books of accounts of the Bank thereby misappropriating the amount which was subsequently returned by him on 17.09.2008 and consequently was charged with misconduct under clause 5(j) of MOS - DP 10.04.2002. Inspite of receipt of charge sheet the respondent did not submit any explanation after which the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to order for enquiry. Sri. P.P.R.V.V. Prasad, Senior Manager (Per) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Sri. K.V. Satish, Manager was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer commenced the enquiry on 27.01.2009 and it was concluded on 04.03.2009. The Enquiry Officer analyzing the evidence on record submitted his report dated 09.05.2009 holding the respondent guilty of the charges. A copy of the said report was furnished along with the show cause notice dated 21.05.2009 proposing the punishment of discharge from service. The respondent was also granted a personal hearing on the proposed punishment by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.06.2009. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 30.06.2009 imposing the punishment of discharge from service with superannuation benefits as provided under Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary procedure dated 10.04.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an appeal to the Assistant General Manager and Appellate Authority. By order dated 23.01.2010 the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said action the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal vide order dated 27.05.2011. The point of dispute referred for adjudication was, whether the Bank is justified in imposing the punishment of disc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Tribunal's power to reassess evidence, consider absence of evidence, and draw adverse inferences in the context of disciplinary proceedings und....
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
In domestic inquiries, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities; findings based on unreliable evidence are deemed perverse.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
In a situation where the domestic enquiry is found to be vitiated, only the evidence adduced before the labour court should be considered to establish the charges. The evidence from the domestic enqu....
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
The High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in disciplinary proceedings; it ensures the inquiry is fair and adheres to legal standards.
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
