Point of Law : It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 9th October, 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.2, New Delhi (hereinafter “CGIT”) in ID No.11/2008 titled Shri Paramjit Singh Nanda v. The Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank. By the impugned Award, the CGIT held that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent/Workman (hereinafter “Workman”) was unjustified, unwarranted, and accordingly set aside the same. The Workman was held to be deemed in service with effect from 1st January, 2007 till 30th September, 2017. The Workman was also held to be entitled to 80% back wages. The operative portion of the impugned Award dated 9th October, 2019 reads as under :

“ORDER

The reference is answered on the contest in favour of the workman. The order passed by the Management regarding compulsorily retiring the workman/claimant from service on 31/1/2007 is held to be unjustified and unwarranted. It is ordered that the workman shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 1/1/2007 till 30/9/2017. It is also ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to 80 per cent back wages for the period from 1/2/2007 till 30/9/2017, however, subject to adjustment of amount of pension if any paid to the workman for the aforesaid period. Arrears shall be calculated and be paid by the Management to the claimant within four months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the claimant/workman will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of publication of the Award till realization. Award is passed accordingly. Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

The reference is accordingly answered.”

The Petitioner-Bank has challenged the impugned Award on the ground that the Workman was guilty of forgery and fabrication of bank statements as also other forms of misconduct.

3. The Workman worked with the Petitioner-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier for around 27 years. The chronology of events leading up to the punishment of compulsory retirement being imposed against the Workman would show that the initial Show Cause Notice against the Workman was issued on 9th September, 2004, as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. Vide reply dated 13th October, 2004 to the Show Cause Notice, the Workman specifically denied each of the allegations.

4. On 4th January, 2005, the Petitioner-Bank served a Charge Sheet on the Workman, wherein the stand of the Petitioner-Bank was that the Workman had forged the signature of the then Branch Manager of the Petitioner Bank - Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta (hereinafter, “V. K. Gupta), in order to avail a housing loan from IDBI Bank. When the IDBI Bank asked for verification of the bank statement, the credit entries in the said statement were seen to have been entered wrongfully, to show an inflated salary and account balance.

5. The charges raised against the Workman in the charge sheet were as under :

(i) That the Workman had availed of a housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the IDBI Bank, New Delhi, without taking any permission from the Competent Authority in the Punjab & Sind Bank.

(ii) That the Workman had submitted a fabricated statement of his account being SB A/C 9337 to the IDBI Bank, and wrongfully incorporated credit entries in the account statement to show inflated salary and balance of the said account;

(iii) That the Workman had committed forgery by forging the signatures of the then Branch Manager - Sh. V.K. Gupta by affixing the bank’s rubber stamp on it;

(iv) That the Workman submitted a re-casted Form No.16 to the IDBI Bank and wrongly incorporated designation as CCC Manager, Computers in it. Further, in the said form, the Workman showed his annual income as Rs.2,99,688/- as against the actual income of Rs.1,94,300/-.

(v) That the Workman submitted a fabricated Salary Certif