Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3643 of 2003
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Bias - Labour Dispute - Shastry Award, 1973 - Para 521(10)(C) - Charges a(i) & (ii), b, e, g, c, d, f, h - The court 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 Respondent No.2 is entitled to reinstatement in service with the Petitioner 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.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent No.2, an employee of the Petitioner Management, was suspended and later discharged from service based on various charges including forgery and engaging in trade/business with the bank's customers. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court held that the punishment of discharge was illegal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of discharge imposed on the Respondent No.2 was illegal and cannot be sustained. The court also noted that the Disciplinary Authority did not consider previous records/conduct of the workman and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances before passing the punishment order, which was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Shastry Award.
Issues: The main issues were whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was fair and proper, and whether the action of the management in discharging the services of the workman was just and legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of discharging the Respondent No.2 from its services was illegal and bad in law. The court also emphasized the importance of considering various factors before imposing a punishment, as mandated by the Shastry Award.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and ordered the calculation of financial benefits for the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.2 as if he was in continuous service from the date of discharge till his date of death or superannuation, whichever is earlier.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J. 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 are prov
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority must consider various factors such as the gravity of misconduct, previous record, and any....
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justi....
Procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice are critical in disciplinary enquiries, and failure to comply can render a dismissal unjust.
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
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
