Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAJESH SHANKAR
Jharkhand Gramin Bank, having its Head Officer at Rajendra Palace – Appellant
Versus
Concerned Workman, Mr. Awinash Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Lala Aditya Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Shankar, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3018 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed and the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 2, Dhanbad in Reference case no. 12 of 2006 has been affirmed.
2. The factual background of the case is that the respondent no. 1 namely Awinash Kumar Sinha while working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Jamua Branch, Giridih (the erstwhile Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank) from 08.03.1995 to 07.06.1996, had committed lapses, irregularities and misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent no. 1 and he was served a chargesheet dated 09.05.1997 issued under the signature of Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority whereby five charges were framed against him and he was asked to submit his defence within 15 days.
3. The respondent no. 1 submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against him.
4. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report observing that out of five charges framed
Judicial review of disciplinary action is warranted where punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, emphasizing the requirement of adhering to natural justice and proportionality in s....
A tribunal's interference in disciplinary matters requires solid grounds and should not reassess evidence once the fairness of the domestic enquiry is acknowledged by the employee.
The Industrial Tribunal can modify punitive measures if it determines that an employee was treated discriminatorily compared to similarly situated employees, according to Section 11A of the Industria....
The Tribunal's modification of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement was justified based on proportionality and the workman's long service, emphasizing the importance of fair inquiry pro....
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 pub....
Award cannot be unsettled, invoking the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The Labour Court cannot modify disciplinary punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct; failure to provide cogent reasons for modification renders the interfere....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, and courts will not re-evaluate evidence unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported.
The Labour Court holds the authority to modify disciplinary punishments, especially when considering mitigating factors such as long service and employee conduct, ensuring just outcomes in disciplina....
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
