The importance of maintaining diligence and devotion in bank officer's duties and the court's power to review an employee's alleged act of misconduct.

S. Palanivelu, J.

These appeals have been filed, one by the management and the other by the workman, against the order, dated 24.06.2003, made in W.P.No.5544 of 1995, whereby the writ petitioner/workman was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, but without back wages.

2. For the sake of convenience, the litigative status of the parties is referred to as per the Writ Petition.

3. Petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank in 1970 as a Junior Supervisor. In 1978, he was dismissed from service on certain charges. In view of the settlement arrived at on 29.02.1980, which was the outcome of conciliation proceedings initiated before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pudukottai, he was absorbed as a fresh entrant from 01.03.1980, as a Clerk. Ever since 1977, he was also the General Secretary of the Pudukottai Central Co-operative Bank Employees Union, which is affiliated to A.I.B.E.A. Since he had been espousing the cause of labour community, voicing the service conditions of other employees, he earned wrath of the management. As he came to know that the Special Officer made some defamatory remarks against him in his personal files, he issued a lawyers notice on 05.08.1983, calling upon the Special Officer to withdraw the remarks. On 16.08.1983, the Special Officer gave a reply. Petitioner instituted a suit for defamation against the said Officer. However, on 16.08.1983 itself, a charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner, alleging the misconduct of defaming the Special Officer. Petitioner sent a reply, dated 25.08.1983, denying the imputations. Not content with the explanation, the respondent management appointed an Enquiry Officer, to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, and a charge sheet was also served on him. Subsequently, he was suspended from service with effect from 210. 1983.

4. On 012. 1983, the respondent again issued a second charge sheet to the petitioner, indicating the lapses, which were allegedly committed by him while he was in service at Karambakudi Branch, during the year 1981. Since the petitioner had not been attending the hearings of enquiry, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. The following charges were framed against the petitioner in two charge sheets:

.(i) Petitioner was using abusive language in the communications addressed to the management, in the capacity of General Secretary of the union, and he made false and unnecessary allegations against the management, causing disgrace and injury to its goodwill.

.(ii) While the petitioner was working as a Cashier in Karambakudi Branch, he disbursed money, without making proper entries as also prior sanction from the Branch Manager, and that there were various lapses with regard to money transactions with reference to payments to various persons irregularly, by means of which, he caused loss to the respondent bank.

5. After the enquiry, on 14.01.1984, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, stating that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, which was served on the petitioner, who, in turn, submitted his representation. Not satisfied with that, the respondent management dismissed the petitioner from service on 24.03.1984 with effect from 210. 1983, i.e., the date of suspension.

6. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent management, which, however, suffered rejection. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.303 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Madurai. On 31.05.1991, the Labour Court, Madurai, held that the enquiry conducted by the management was not proper and, as such, it was liable to be set aside, giving the management an opportunity to let in evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. On the basis of the said finding, proceedings were conducted before the said Court and, subsequently, the case was transferred to Labour Court, Trichy, and renumbered as I.D.No.8 of 1992. On 11.07.1994, an award was passed, dismi