The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority must be based on sufficient evidence and consideration of relevant factors, and the proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the judgment dated 04.02.2003 (“Impugned Award”), passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 143/97 titled as Shri S.K. Taparia v. The Assistant General Manager. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondent No.2 and held that the punishment of discharge imposed by the, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority on the Respondent No.2 is illegal and cannot be sustained. The learned Tribunal further held that the Respondent No.2/Workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with the Petitioner/Bank w.e.f. the date of discharge i.e., 02.11.1994 with full backwages along with 9% interest with continuity in service and all other consequential benefits..

FACTS GERMANE TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. Respondent No.2 joined the services of the Petitioner Management at Sadulsahar (Rajasthan) Branch on permanent basis on August 1974. Thereafter he was transferred to various other places from Sadulsahar branch. In March 1978 he was transferred to Hapur and therefrom in 1989 he was transferred to the main branch of Hapur.

3. Respondent No. 2 was the Unit Secretary of S.B.I Staff Association and in that capacity he had been challenging various corrupt malpractices of the then Branch Manager R.K. Rastogi and exposed corrupt practices of other officials, namely Shri R.N Sharma, the then A.G.M (Assistant General Manager) Region-II zonal Office, Shri K.K. Saxena, the then Deputy General Manager at Local Head Office.

4. The Petitioner Management suspended the Respondent Workman no. 2 with effect from 28.12.1989 in relation to certain charges. After a lapse of 18 months of suspension, the Petitioner served a chargesheet dated 12.09.1991 to the Respondent No. 2, with the following charges:

a) That you have been operating fictitious current accounts in the name of:-

i) M/s. Anubhav Khadi udyog after forging the signatures of Shri Rajandra Kumar Mittal. That firm the above current Account No. 617 encunts have been withdrawn after confirming fictitious credits of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 30,0000/- and Rs. 8,000/- on 17.7.85, 25.7.85 and 7.8.85 respectively.

ii) Shri Yogesh Kumar Account No. 3/016.

b) That you have been engaging in trade/ business by maintaining different accounts in the name of firms at gandhi Ganj, Hapur Branch after forging the signatures of various individuals who are pertains of various firms.

c) That you were engaging in trade of business with the customers of the bank in that you were holding 70 equity shares of Bindal Agro as on 16.9.89 with Shri. Pankaj Agrawal.

d) That you were negotiating instruments beyond your known sources of income, in that you negotiated a D.U. for Rs. 20,050/- on 6.8.86 which was returned with the objection "refer to drawn".

e) That you received the monthly rent of generator of Gandhi Ganj Hapur Branch by forging the signature of Sh. chatan Prakash sharma.

f) That you took an advance of Rs. 3,500/- on 10.10.85 but did not avail the L.K.C. and the amount was recovered from you on 13.12.85. You again availed of an advance against I.T.C. on 2.11.85 you did not proceed on leave nor you returned the amount of advance. The amount again had to be recovered by debit to S.B. Account on 13.12.1989.

g) That you were having financial transactions with officers of the Bank, in that payment of your cheque NO. 947301 dated 26.6.85 for Rs. 10,000/- was received by Shri D.P.S. Verma, DMGS-II for a consideration known to you only.

h) That you had been having very heavy transactions in your Personal Current Account in excess of your known sources of income.

5. The Petitioner conducted departmental enquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charges c, d, f and h, as proved and charges a (i) (ii), b, e, and g, as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the inquiry officer qua the charges which ar