The present appeal assails order dated 6.12.2012 passed in CWJC No.13188 of 2010. The Learned Single Judge held that the punishment of dismissal was excessive. It was set aside and the matter remanded to reconsider the punishment opining that withholding one increment for six months would be sufficient considering that the delinquent had been deceased in the meantime and was substituted by his son.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the delinquent had been charged on two counts : (a) not caring for bank’s discipline and neglecting the work allotted to him (b) leaving office early on five specified dates without permission of the competent authority without attending to works allotted and tampering the attendance register. The delinquent filed his reply to the two charges on merits. A presenting officer had been appointed. Five prosecution witnesses had led evidence. Documentary evidence was led in support of the charges proved by prosecution witnesses marked as Exhibit PEX 1 to PEX 13. The delinquent did not lead any evidence in defence except himself and relied on no documentary evidence. The enquiry officer returned a finding of guilt. A second show cause notice was issued to the delinquent and after considering the reply punishment of dismissal was passed. The delinquent preferred an appeal which had also been rejected. Subsequently the delinquent obtained a Reference under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He died during pendency of the Reference and was substituted by his son. The Tribunal held that the disciplinary proceedings were held in accordance with law and the punishment warranted no interference.

3. It was submitted that the Learned Single Judge erred in holding that the disciplinary proceedings had not been held in accordance with law simultaneously holding that the punishment was excessive and directing imposition of punishment by stoppage of one increment of six months. The Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the charges were primarily based on documentary evidence. The delinquent had been given full opportunity of defence and original documents produced. No fresh charges or documents beyond the charge sheet were produced during inquiry.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the charges were not specific and consequentially not fully understandable. They were replied to by the delinquent to the best of his understanding. Non-production of the original attendance register with regard to the days of alleged absence without any explanation substituted by photocopy had vitiated the inquiry. The photocopy was a fabricated document created to victimise the respondent. The dismissal order and appellate order were both non-speaking in nature. The Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the inquiry was not procedurally defective. It further erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the quantum of punishment. The learned Single Judge had rightly opined that it was at best a case for minor punishment withholding one increment for six months. In support of the submissions reliance was placed on [1978] 3 SCC 366 [Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar], [1984] 2 SCC 569 [Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton cable [P] Ltd.], [1986] 3 SCC 454 [Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan], 1990 [2] PLJR 797 [M/s. Indian aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi], 2013 [2] PLJR 160 [Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar] and 2013 [3] PLJR [SC] 106 [Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society].

5. The submissions on behalf of the parties have been considered by us. The Learned Single Judge after noticing all aspects of the matter ultimately held;—

“However, it cannot be said that there was no neglect of duty as the very fact that the delinquent had left the office without permission or left earlier to the closing time, would lead to the conclusion that he was neglecting his work.”

6. Manifestly, the Learned Single Judge did not find suff