The court upheld the requirement for stringent standards of integrity in banking, stressing the burden on management to prove misconduct, which was not met, leading to reinstatement with back wages.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The banking system is the backbone of any country's economy. Employees and officials working in banks clearly have a larger responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the banking system and maintaining the trust of the millions of customers, who repose faith in them. Prior to the net-banking era, bank officials and managers almost enjoyed a fiduciary relationship with customers and their families.

3. The present case belongs to such a period when the use of computers at banks and facilities of online banking, though prevalent, was still at a nascent stage. Employees/officials of the bank and depositors/customers used to have face to face interactions with bank officials and employees. It was also quite usual for customers and depositors to visit banks on a day-to-day basis for depositing and withdrawing amounts.

4. The Petitioner in the present case- State Bank of India (hereinafter, "Bank"), has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14th March 2016 passed by the ld. Presiding Officer, 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 (hereinafter, "Respondent").

5. 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 incidents which took place leading to his termination occurred while he was working at the Kalkaji Branch of the Bank. The said termination has been set aside by the impugned Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter, "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.

6. The case of the Bank is that in 2006, there were a few incidents wherein senior officials of the Kalkaji branch of the Bank realized that amounts which were deposited by some senior citizens were not being reflected in their accounts. Instead, the said cheques deposited by the customers were credited to the accounts of the Respondent and his wife Mrs. Inderjeet Bhatia. The said customers had visited the Kalkaji branch of the Bank on some occasions and complained to the higher management. On a deeper enquiry, the Bank realized that there were certain irregularities committed by the Respondent and accordingly a chargesheet was served to him on 14th December 2007. A departmental enquiry was held and upon arriving at a conclusion that the Respondent was guilty of misconduct, he was awarded a penalty of dismissal/termination without notice.

7. The Respondent challenged the said dismissal through a claim petition befor