Back
2011 Supreme(Ker) 825
High Court of Kerala
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum
Versus
The General Secretary, Syndicate Chennai & Another
WP(C). No. 23542 of 2005(C)
Decided on : 07-09-2011
For the Petitioner:M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 - P. Ramakrishnan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article.226 - Misconduct - The petitioner Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent workman by placing him under suspension w.e.f. 8.8.2001, pending enquiry, in respect of the complaint received from a lady cashier and two other employees of the Bank in connection with the misconduct committed by the worker on 1.8.2001. The basis for the complaint was that the workman, who was employed as attender in the Cash Department of the Bank at its Fort Branch, was not co-operating - Whether abusing a lady superior officer in filthy, vulgar and sexually colourable words can be treated to have affected only the private rights of the such superior lady officer and not the organizational set up of the management is the main question that arose for consideration in this Writ Petition - High Court while setting aside the impugned award of the Tribunal observed that such act would definitely amount to gross misconduct and that it would very well affect the organizational set up of the management - Challenged - Held, Court finds that abusing a lady superior officer by the delinquent attender in filthy and sexually colourable words in the presence of co-workers is a serious misconduct, quite unbecoming of an employee of the Bank and it indeed is an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, as given under Clause XIX.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement, (besides the misconduct of indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank as given in XIX.5(c) as well). The proven act of using abusive words in vulgar language, as above, has very much affected the morale of the lady superior officer and also the other co-workers, which in turn affects the organisational interests, the work out put and also the image before the customers and public, at large - Court finds that Award passed by the second respondent/Tribunal is not correct or sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside, restoring/sustaining the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' awarded by the Management Bank - It is made clear that the amounts already paid by the petitioner Management in compliance with the order and application filed under S.17B of the I.D. Act can be set off against the service benefits payable to the worker pursuant to the compulsory retirement from service and only the balance amount needs to be disbursed, if any. If any excess payment has already been effected, on computing the figures as above, the same however shall not be recovered - The Writ Petition is allowed
1. Ext.P1 Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, ordering reinstatement of the concerned workman, (who was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Management) with continuity in service and all attendant benefits, is under challenge in this writ petition filed at the instance of the Management Bank.
2. The petitioner Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent workman by placing him under suspension w.e.f. 08.08.2001, pending enquiry, in respect of the complaint received from a lady cashier and two other employees of the Bank in connection with the misconduct committed by the worker on 01.08.2001. The basis for the complaint was that the workman, who was employed as attender in the Cash Department of the Bank at its Fort Branch, Thiruvanathapuram was not co-operating with the work in the Department, by not obeying the instructions of the Cashier in assisting for counting and bundling the ‘Notes’, when the lady cashier had to seek the assistance of another lady attender. This was to the chagrin of the workman, who turned against the cashier by name K.S. Geetha Devi and abused her in filthy, obscene and sexually coloured words. It was pursuant to the complaint preferred by the lady cashier, that the workman was suspended from the service as mentioned above.
3. The disciplinary action initiated by the Management against the workman refers to the misconduct in the matter of sexual harassment towards the lady cashier K.S. Geetha Devi and also for doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, coming within the purview of XIX.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The workman was served with the charge sheet and a domestic enquiry was conducted giving opportunity to prove innocence. Evidence was adduced, both oral and documentary, in the enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent employee guilty of the charges levelled against him, based on which, the petitioner Management proposed the punishment of ‘dismissal’ from service. However, after considering the explanation of the employee, taking a lenient view, the proposed punishment of ‘dismissal’ was converted as ‘compulsory retirement’ from service, which was imposed accordingly. The employee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who considered the entire matter and rejected the appeal confirming the punishment awarded. This gave rise to the industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the second respondent.
4. The Trade Union representing the employee filed a claim statement before the Tribunal stating that the enquiry was conducted without adhering to the principles of natural justice; that the charge sheet was vague; that the complaint preferred by the lady cashier by name Geetha Devi was a false one and that the punishment imposed was, at any rate, disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct and further that there was no proof as to the alleged sexual harassment.
5. The Management Bank filed reply statement, controverting the averments in the claim statement and seeking to justify the course and procedure pursued by them. It was specifically contended that the domestic enquiry was conducted strictly adhering to all the known principles of natural justice and that absolutely no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the employee at any point of time. It was also stated that there was no obscurity in the charge sheet at all and that the factual point, on which the enquiry was being conducted, was clearly given in the order of suspension and also in the charge sheet. It was further stated that the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’ from service was imposed, taking a lenient view, by changing the proposed punishment of ‘dismissal’ from service and that the same can never be called as disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The punishment was awarded, also taking note of the previous misconducts committed by the employee and also the punis
