Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK – Petitioner
Versus
PARAMJIT SINGH NANDA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 10416 of 2020, C.M. Application Nos. 32993 of 2020, 13374 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406/420/467/468/471 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200 and 173 - Indian Evidence Act - Sections 114(g), 17 and 11-A - Cheating and dishonesty - Criminal breach of trust - Award - forgery and fabrication of bank statements - Committed forgery by forging the signatures of then Branch Manager - Alleging offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 of IPC - Allegation of Workman was that he was victimized by the accused who made a telephonic call to him and claimed to be a Direct Settling Agent of IDBI Bank - Accused demanded various documents from the Workman for providing a housing loan - Workman, claimed that, believing representations made by the accused to be true, agreed to provide said documents to accused - Accused sent a representative to the Workman’s house in order to collect the said documents - Accused demanded a commission getting the loan lakhs sanctioned said demand was not acceded to by the Workman - Alleged that it was the accused who forged signatures in the documents, and used the same for getting housing loan sanctioned - Alleged that he showed his basic salary actual basic salary his actual net salary he showed his salary to be Rs. 24,211/- by re-casting entries - Workman worked with the Petitioner-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier for around 27 years - Chronology of events leading up to the punishment of compulsory retirement being imposed against the Workman would show that initial Show-Cause Notice against Workman was issued - Petitioner-Bank served a Charge Sheet on Workman, wherein the stand of the Petitioner-Bank was that Workman had forged the signature of then Branch Manager of the Petitioner Bank-order to avail a housing loan from IDBI Bank. When the IDBI Bank asked for verification of the bank statement, credit entries in the said statement were seen to have been entered wrongfully, to show an inflated salary and account balance - Allegations and blamed the agent of IDBI Bank - Proven misconduct was serious in nature, an retaining the services of Workman would be detrimental to the interests of Petitioner-Bank - Petitioner-Bank imposed punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Clause 6(c).
Finding of the Court:
Deposed that his signatures were forged and the bank’s seal was forged, CGIT’s order would be untenable and perverse - Workman cannot argue that his serious acts deserve to be either ignored or condoned - Bank employee is aware of procedures and rules - Use of a bank’s seal unauthorisedly is a matter of enormous gravity which cannot be simply brushed under carpet - Forging signatures of a colleague or even turning a blind eye to such forgery by a third party - Finding of CGIT that the acts and omissions committed by Workman would not constitute grave misconduct and would at best, attract a penalty is completely erroneous and untenable in these facts.
Result: Petition allowed.
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 I.D. No. 11/2008 titled Shri Paramjit Singh Nanda vs. 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 and 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,
SupremeToday
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
