2021 Supreme(Del) 1225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Asstt General Manager State Bank Of India - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Bhatia - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7584 of 2017, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 31303 of 2017, 15744, 26616 of 2018
Decided On : 17-12-2021

The mere non-production of Enquiry Officer cannot per se lead to a conclusion that the enquiry was bad.

Headnote:

BANKING - EMPLOYEE - MISCONDUCT - ENQUIRY - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - COMPENSATION - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner-State Bank of India (Bank) challenged the order dated 14th March 2016 passed by the CGIT-2, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi- 110032 as well as the final Award dated 28th December 2016, passed in the claim bearing ID No. 04/2011 filed by the Respondent- Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhatia (Respondent). The Respondent was working as a single-window operator at the Bank and was dealing with the Senior Citizens Saving Scheme. He had initially joined as a clerk-cum-typist in 1984 at the Jangpura Branch of the Bank and was confirmed in the said position. In 2003, he was posted at the Kalkaji Branch of the Bank. He was terminated by the Bank on 7th May 2010, with effect from 20th May 2010, for allegedly making entries of customers in his personal accounts. The said termination has been set aside by the impugned Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) where the CGIT has held that the Bank failed to discharge its burden to prove misconduct by the Respondent through its required evidence. It was held by the CGIT that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Respondent by the Bank was not just, fair, proper and legal. This petition assails these orders as well as the final Award passed by the CGIT.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned Award dated 28th December 2016, passed by the CGIT, is erroneous and is contrary to the settled position in law. Hence both the impugned order dated 14th March 2016 and the impugned Award dated 28th December 2016 are set aside. The punishment of termination, awarded to the Respondent is upheld. The Court also held that the Respondent had indulged in improper conduct, and hence the dismissal of the Respondent, under such circumstances, after holding a detailed departmental enquiry, is not illegal and cannot be faulted with.

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the enquiry report is sustainable or not.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the mere non-production of Enquiry Officer cannot per se lead to a conclusion that the enquiry was bad. This has been settled in a catena of judgments, including a judgment of a ld. Single Judge of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shree Kumar and Anr. 113 (2004) DLT 505, where it was held: "8. In the context of the aforesaid factual position and in the light of the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties, I am required to consider as to whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the domestic enquiry and whether no punishment could be awarded to the respondent No.1 as sought to be done in the instant case as neither the passenger witnesses nor the driver were examined by the petitioner in the enquiry as also before the Tribunal. The records disclose that whatever documents were asked for were furnished to the respondent No.1 except for copies of the two circulars as they were not available with the petitioner. The finding of the learned Tribunal that no list of witnesses and list of documents along with documents were supplied to the respondent also cannot be accepted as it is apparent from the records that the list of witnesses and the list of documents along with documents were supplied to the respondent along with the charge sheet. The respondent No.1 was also asked at the beginning of the proceedings if he wanted the assistance of a co-worker but he stated that he would conduct the case himself and in fact he cross-examined the management witnesses extensively. The records also do not disclose that the respondent at any stage had asked for the assistance of B.L. Babbar. In my considered opinion, therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the case. It is not understood why the learned Tribunal found fault in the non-production of the enquiry officer before it as a witness though the entire records of the enquiry proceedings were made available to the learned Tribunal."

Final Decision: The petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.