IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of an employee for misconduct involving pledging spurious gold was upheld as justifiable based on sufficient evidence, affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction and adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No.7/2013.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Godown-in-charge in the Head Office of the Andathode Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., he was implicated in the alleged incidents of pledging imitation gold ornaments. It is further contended that the incident occurred at Veliyancode Branch of the Bank situated 10 km away from the Head Office. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended from service on 28.03.1997. However, no subsistence allowance was paid during the period of suspension. Thereafter, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued. The charges alleged in the memo read as follows:

• He entered into criminal conspiracy with the Branch Manager, appraiser and clerk for unlawful gain.

• He caused to pledge spurious gold ornaments as real gold in Veliyancode branch by playing fraud and deception, collectively obtained huge amounts unlawfully and illegally.

• Many of the pledges were made with the knowledge and instigation of the petitioner that resulted in breach of trust and huge amounts were collected to the detriment of the Bank.

• On detecting the criminal activity, he locked the godown and left without opening the A.W.D on 29.03.1997.

• He has misappropriated 8 quintal of rice from the stock entrusted to him thereby caused financial loss to the bank.

• The acts amount to fraud, cheating and breach of trust.

• The aforementioned acts and deals proved that the petitioner is totally unfit to hold any office in the bank.

3. By Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred his reply to the memo of charges. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted as per Ext.P3 whereby it is stated that after hearing and considering the entire evidence, it is found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges against him. Thereafter Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5, his reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, he was dismissed from service for the offences committed by him.

4. Thus the issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioner. By Ext.P7, the Industrial Tribunal has found that nothing is wrong in referring the same matter before the Industrial Tribunal as the domestic enquiry held against the workman is not proper, except recording the evidence of witness in the enquiry. Thereafter the award was passed as per Ext.P10 and it was found that the dismissal of the petitioner is justifiable and he is not entitled for any relief.

5. The issue was taken up before this Court in OP No.6561/2002. By judgment dated 26.11.2012, the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal was upheld. Being aggrieved by the same writ appeal was preferred. By judgment dated 07.03.2013, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside along with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the light of the said direction, fresh award has been passed as per Ext.P16. That is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the decision rendered by the Industrial Dispute Court is erroneous, perverse, opposed to the facts, truth and evidence in the case. it is also contended that this is a case of no evidence against the petitioner to prove the vague charges levelled against him. There is no acceptable piece of evidence to substantiate the single transaction in ExtP16 judgment against the petitioner. The conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures, suggestions and suppositions.

6. In response to the contentions in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is submitted that usual practice in the Veliyankode branch of the bank is to sell gold ornaments which are not redeemed in time and which remains unredeemed even after notices are issued by public auction. An enquiry, which has been conducted with respect