Back
High Court of Delhi
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Rajender Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 7414 of 2010 & CM No. 4431-4432 of 2013
Decided On : 18-02-2015
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33C(2), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 10, Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, paragraph 19.5(c) and (j) - The judgment discusses the petitioner's employment dispute with the respondent bank, focusing on the charges of misconduct and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and the petitioner, and considered the legal principles governing the evaluation of evidence in industrial disputes. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, finding no procedural infirmity in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing him from the services of the respondent bank, alleging vindictive and retaliatory actions by the bank. The court examined the petitioner's contentions, including the alleged conspiracy against him, and the charges of misconduct, and found no procedural infirmity in the decision-making process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had considered the evidence in its entirety, evaluated the petitioner's defense, and ruled out the possibility of ulterior motives or mala fide actions. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, finding no procedural infirmity in the decision-making process.
Issues: The issues involved the evaluation of evidence in an employment dispute, including the petitioner's contentions of vindictive and retaliatory actions, conspiracy, and charges of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence in industrial disputes, ruling out ulterior motives or mala fide actions, and considering the standard of proof required in such proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, finding no procedural infirmity in the decision-making process.
Vibhu Bakhru, J:
CM No. 4431-4432/2013
For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.
W.P.(C) 7414/2010
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 12.03.2010 (hereafter the ‘impugned award’) whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereafter the ‘Tribunal’) held that the charges of misconduct were proved against the petitioner and imposed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the respondent bank.
2. Brief facts that are relevant for examining the controversy in the present petition are as under:-
2.1 The petitioner was working as an employee of the District Courts, Delhi. The petitioner applied for the post of clerk/typist with the State Bank of Indore (now merged with the State Bank of India) for the Delhi region. The respondent bank issued an appointment letter dated 17.06.1983 to the petitioner for joining at Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi. Thereafter, one Mr. P.C. Joshi, Regional Manager of the respondent bank at Indore again issued an appointment letter dated 05.09.1983 to the petitioner for joining branch office at Dabra, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner protested against his posting at Dabra branch and also made representations to the higher authorities for posting him to Delhi branch. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued an appointment letter dated 28.12.1983 to the petitioner for joining as a clerk/typist at Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi.
2.2 Ms. Sunita Jain, who was also working at Chandni Chowk branch, filed a complaint dated 10.07.1985 with the General Manager of the respondent bank complaining about a letter written by the petitioner to her in September/October 1984 containing objectionable language. She also complained that after she returned from her maternity leave, the petitioner again misbehaved with her. Although the petitioner had tendered a written apology on 06.07.1985 for his indecent behaviour, he again misbehaved with her on 09.07.1985.
2.3 Subsequently, the respondent bank issued a charge sheet dated 23.09.1985 to the petitioner alleging gross misconduct for misbehaving and using lewd language with Ms. Sunita Jain in September/October 1984 and again in July 1985. The relevant extract of the chargesheet is quoted as under:-
“You gave a letter to Smt. Sunita Jain in September/October, 1984, writing therein - "I am very much disturbed due to you. I am unable to take sound sleep at night please accept my offer, will you like me? Please mark tick yes or No."
After reading the above said letter, Smt. Jain returned it to you. After 8-10 days of this incident, you met Smt. Jain at Red Fort. When she reached at Rickshaw Stand after alighting from the Bus, you went close to her on your scooter and asked her to sit on your scooter. You asked Smt. Jain to sit on your scooter again and again despite her refusals. In the end, Smt. Jain asked you to go and I will come at Bank on rickshaw. On her reaching at Bank, you went close to her and started making vulgar talks e.g. "Madam, I had no mood today to come at Bank, we should go somewhere else". You did not stop talking despite objection of Smt. Jain and said "Madam, you are refusing me again and again and disturbing me". She did not give any reply to your talks. Thereafter, on 3rd July, 1985 you gave her a message "Meet outside the Bank". On 4.7.85 again, you again used indecent words with Smt. Jain and asked "Madam, why you are not cooperating with me, meet me outside the Bank so that we may talk all which I cannot say here". This was asked by you in the presence of Kumari Jyoti Tomar.
On 5.7.85, Smt. Jain felt very bad in coming to the Branch and her eyes were filled with tears, on which, all the lady staff asked Smt. Jain about its reason, on which, Smt. Jain told about the indecent behavior by you with them. On this, all the female staff together on 5.7.85 at 11.00 talked with the Branch Manager and gave the information of the incident in detail to him, on which, the Branch Man
AI
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
