The court emphasized the importance of considering the proportionality of the penalty in employment disputes, taking into account the nature of the misdemeanour, loss of employer's confidence, and the employee's length of service.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):

CM No.2871-72/2015

Allowed.

CM No.2870/2015

For the reasons states in the application, delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

Application is allowed.

LPA 86/2015

1. The respondent, Sh.B.S.Rawat, was employed as a typist with the Reserve Bank of India when he was dismissed from service, meaning thereby he was not having any public dealings and had limited access to the record of the office of the Reserve Bank of India where he used to sit on the typewriter and type out such scripts as were given to him for typing. The limited record he would maintain was the rough and the final drafts as also fair typescripts of what he used to type, and that too for a limited duration till he handed over the same to the record clerk.

2. He became heavily indebted in the year 1999. Without informing the competent authority he took loans from all and sundry such as Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift and Credit Society, Nationalized Bank Employees (SC) Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, Nationalized Bank Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd., Bank of Maharashtra and State Bank of India. He even forged the signatures of the competent authority on certificates and submitted the same when he took loans, and relevant would it be to note that the certificates certified that Sh.B.S.Rawat had sufficient means to repay the loan. It is apparent that it became B.S.Rawat’s compulsion to forge the certificates because had he taken permission before availing the loan or gave intimation of having obtained the loan, he could not have obtained the loans from more than ten bodies (which he did) inasmuch as his income would not have been sufficient for him to repay the loans. The regulations framed by Reserve Bank of India required B.S.Rawat to inform the department as and when he took the loan and the obvious purpose was that he should not indebt himself to such an extent that he could not meet his and his family daily needs, because if he reached such a financial strangulation he would obviously indulge in malpractices.

3. The bubble had to burst one day. Indeed it did when B.S.Rawat started defaulting in repayment of the loans and the principal(s) wrote to RBI that from his salary monthly instalments payable to the principal(s) be deducted and paid over to the principal(s).

4. Two charge-sheets were served upon B.S.Rawat alleging the charge of violation of Regulation 45 of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 which mandated that an employee who has obtained a loan shall furnish to the competent authority a half yearly statement regarding the debt under pain of penal action. He was also charged for fabricating certificates which he submitted to the principal(s) after forging thereon the signatures of the competent authority.

5. Evidence was led before the Inquiry Officer. The charges were proved. But relevant would it be to note that Sh.B.S.Rawat proved that his wife was gainfully employed with MTNL and that he repaid all the debts incurred by him. Regarding excessive loans obtained by him, Sh.B.S.Rawat pleaded family compulsion to educate his children.

6. The competent authority levied the penalty of dismissal from service.

7. Sh.B.S.Rawat sought reference of a dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and on March 08, 2004 the appropriate Government made a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 : ‘Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India New Delhi in dismissing Sh.B.S.Rawat vide order dated 24.10.2002 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?

8. Vide award dated September 28, 2010 the Industrial Tribunal found that the misdemeanours committed by Sh.B.S.Rawat were proved, but on the question of punishment took note of the fact that Sh.B.S.Rawat was appointed as a peon in RBI on February 01, 1973 and was promoted as a typist on April 04, 1977. Till the year 1999 he never raised any loan and hence incurred no