JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The employee in the present case, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1997 filed by the employer, was a Special Assistant in the service of the Union Bank of India. A charge-sheet dated 6th July, 1984 was issued to him, in which a disciplinary enquiry into a charge of misconduct was proposed to be held. The charge against the first respondent was that while in the employment of the bank, he had fraudulently enrolled 84 members in the guise of floating a Co-operative Housing Society. As the Chief Promoter, the first respondent was alleged to have collected an amount of Rs. 7.20 lakhs by cheque and in excess of Rs. 1 lakh in cash over a period of 6 years. (These members who were enrolled, it is common ground, were employees of the Bank). The charge-sheet recited that false assurances were given to the members to the effect that the clearance of the Government of Maharashtra had been received by the first respondent and on these assurances amounts were collected from the proposed members of the Co-operative Society. Since no progress was achieved in the fulfilment of the object of the society, the members requested the first respondent for a refund of their moneys and complained that despite their request, the moneys had not been refunded. One of the members of the Society Smt. V.J. D'souza (who is, it is common ground, an employee of the Union Bank) was issued a cheque drawn on the Nariman Point Branch of the petitioner Bank, which was jointly signed by the first respondent and by the co-promoter of the Society, Shri K.A. Sirur, On three occasions the cheque was returned unpaid for want of sufficient balance in the account. A Joint Savings Bank Account was maintained at the Nariman Point Branch of the petitioner Bank into which the collections from the members were deposited. Out of a total amount of Rs. 4.87 lakhs collected by the first respondent, an amount of Rs. 2.82 lakhs was unaccounted and the account which was maintained at the Nariman Point Branch of the bank showed a balance of only Rs. 5/-. The second charge against the first respondent was that he had entered into a business in the name and style of M/s. Harish Industries having its office at 170/133, Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad (West) and that he had invested the moneys which had been fraudulently collected from the members of the proposed society in the said business. The first respondent was accordingly charged with having committed gross misconduct consisting of (i) cheating; (ii) misappropriation; (iii) entering into and carrying on business without obtaining permission from the Bank; (iv) acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank; and (v) issuing cheques without sufficient balance in the Account.

2. The disciplinary enquiry which was held against the first respondent culminated in a finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges against the first respondent were proved. On 15th September, 1984, the penalty of dismissal came to be imposed upon the first respondent. The departmental appeal preferred by the first respondent was rejected. The appropriate Government, in the present case, the Central Government, upon a demand made by the workman made a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the dispute raised by the first respondent in regard to the order of dismissal from service that was passed against him.

3. Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal the submission which was urged on behalf of the workman was that the charge of misconduct was outside the purview of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the petitioner-Bank since the action complained of did not relate to the course of employment or arise out of the discharge of the duties of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal by its Award dated 20th December, 1994 accepted that submission and came to the conclusion that the action of the employer in dismissing the first respondent from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document