IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment for misconduct should not be interfered with unless it shows victimization or unfair labor practice, and should commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Misappropriation of public money by a bank employee is a serious offense.

JUDGMENT :

(Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals impugn common judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 and 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14601 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No.6960 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Special Civil Application No.6960 of 2012 and partly allowed Special Civil Application No.14601 of 2011 by increasing the penalty imposed.

1.1 Letters Patent Appeals Nos.850 of 2023 and 855 of 2023 have been preferred by the delinquent employee and Letters Patent Appeals No.851 of 2023 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1424 of 2023 have been preferred by the Bank Management. For the sake of brevity, the parties to the present litigation are being referred to as ‘delinquent employee’ and ‘Bank Management’ as per the cause- title of Letters Patent Appeal No.850 of 2023, which is the lead matter.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Letters Patent Appeals as under:-

2.1 That the delinquent employee was working as Head Cashier in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Agricultural Development Branch (A.D.B.), Amreli at the time of incident in the year 1986. That, it is alleged that during the period between 30.10.1986 to 04.11.1986, there was misappropriation of cash amounting to Rs.35,000/- detected during verification on 04.11.1986. Accordingly, the Verifying Officer Mr. K. B. Mehta made a report and the delinquent employee came to be suspended vide order dated 11.11.1986. By further order from the Head Office of the Bank Management, the suspension order against the delinquent employee came to be revoked on 02.04.1987. That thereafter, the Bank Management issued charge-sheet dated 08.06.1988 to the delinquent employee for his alleged misconduct and the departmental inquiry came to be conducted. The inquiry report held the delinquent employee to be guilty and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of discharge from service vide order dated 16.08.1991.

2.2 That, aggrieved, the delinquent employee preferred an Appeal against the order dated 16.08.1991 passed by the Regional Manager before the Appellate Authority, i. e. Zonal Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra. The said Appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 31.08.1991. Accordingly, the delinquent employee preferred the Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By order dated 19.07.1995, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CGITA). Accordingly, the Reference CGITA No.636 of 2004 [Old Reference (ITC) No. 50 of 1995] came to be registered before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Pursuant thereto, the delinquent employee submitted his statement of claim challenging the order of discharge. The Bank Management filed its written statement to the Reference and contended that the delinquent employee has committed an irregularity amounting to gross misconduct while serving as Head Cashier in Amreli Branch of the respondent Bank. It was further stated that as soon as the shortage was detected on 04.11.1986, the delinquent employee managed to make good the shortfall of Rs.35,000/- immediately by encashing the cheque of the Firm owned by his wife. It was stated that therefore, it was proved that the delinquent employee temporarily misappropriated the fund of the Bank to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. Further, it was stated that there was no infirmity in the departmental inquiry and due opportunity of hearing was also provided to the delinquent employee before passing the final order of discharge. That, the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, after considering the documentary and oral evidence on record, held that the charges against the delinquent employee stood proved and further concluded that the punishment of discharge from service imposed upon the delinquent employee was disproportionate to the charge proved and the delinquent empl