The punishment imposed on a workman should be proportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct, and in cases of misappropriation and alteration of official records, the dismissal without notice may be justified.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (No. 2) (for short Labour Court), Dhanbad pursuant to reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act, 1947) whereby imposition of penalty of Dismissal Without Notice inflicted upon the Respondent No. 6 by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is set aside directing the Management to reinstate him with immediate effect with the seventy five percent back wages.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

At the relevant time Respondent No. 6 (for short workman) was posted as Clerk, Sisaura Branch of Bank of India. On account of certain acts of mid-conduct levelled against him, a memo of charge was served upon him vide charge-sheet dated 02.11.1991 comprising six charges. One Gurmeet Singh, a Staff Officer of the petitioner Bank was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the workman, who submitted his report on 17th July, 1993 pursuant to which, a show cause notice in respect of proposed punishment was issued to the workman on 11.12.1993 enclosing therein a copy of the report and apprising him to avail of personal hearing. On 25.01.1994, the workman along with his defence representative appeared and was accorded personal hearing. Thereafter, a punishment order came to be passed on 10.03.1994 by the Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager, Gaya Region, Gaya dismissing the workman without notice and payment beyond subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the increment falling due during this period were also withheld.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, the workman preferred an appeal on 28.05.1994 before the appellate authority, the Zonal Manager, Bihar, North Zone, Patna. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment order dated 10.03.1994 passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 25.07.1994.

4. Subsequently, the case of the workman was referred under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to Labour Court for adjudication. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court interfered and set aside the order of punishment dated 10.03.1994 and the appellate order dated 25.07.1994 vide impugned award dated 19.12.2011 and directed the management to reinstate the workman with immediate effect with 75 % back wages and its consequential benefits till his restoration.

5. The aforesaid order dated 19.12.2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charges against the petitioner are quite serious and in the departmental inquiry, four out of six charges, were proved by leading cogent, oral and documentary evidences. He submitted that there was no procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry against the workman and, as such, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to interfere with the order of punishment. He submitted that the Labour Court interfered with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority even though it concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by them against the workman. He contended that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman lacked devotion, diligence, honesty and impeccable integrity and, hence, his retention in service would be against the public interest.

7. Per contra, Mr. Birendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the workman submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Labour Court whereby the petitioner-Bank has been directed to reinstate the workman with 75 % back wages from the date of his dismissal