Order of dismissal cannot be passed without prior approval.

M. JAICHANDREN, J.

The writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Complaint No. 6 of 1991 and quash the award, dated 26.3.1997.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

The second respondent was employed as a Clerk in the petitioner-Bank and he was working in Pandamangalam Branch of the petitioner-Bank, from 26.2.1980. While so, on 18.11.1986, the second respondent, had taken a jewel loan of Rs. 9,000/- from the Canara Bank, Pothanur Pudupalayam, and a sum of Rs. 11,072.02 was outstanding in the said loan account, as on 16.8.1988. On 16.8.1988, the brother-in-law of the second respondent had come to Pandamangalam Branch and the second respondent had given him a sum of Rs. 11,000/-, from the Bank cash, for the purpose of redeeming the jewel which was pledged with the Canara Bank. The said amount had been given away by the second respondent without the sanction of the Branch Manager. Therefore, the Branch Manager, had taken the second respondent to task, asking him to explain as to why the money from the Bank accounts have been given away without prior permission or authority. There were exchange of words between the Branch Manager and the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent had insisted that a jewel loan be given to his brother-in-law on the same day, even though the time allotted for the granting of such loans was over. However, in order to safeguard the Bank funds, the jewel loan was sanctioned to K. Selvaraj, the brother-in-law of the second respondent, for a sum of Rs. 10,500/-.

4. It has been stated that, on 17.8.1988, the Branch Manager had reported the incident to the Central Office at Karur. An Investigating Officer was deputed to investigate the incident that had taken place on 16.8.1988. On 18.8.1988, the Investigating Officer had visited the Branch and questioned the staff members, who had confirmed the unauthorised removal of cash from the Bank and the subsequent creation of the jewel loan. It has been further stated that, on 31.8.1988, a charge memo had been issued to the second respondent, setting out the allegations against him and calling upon him to submit an explanation. He was asked to appear for an enquiry. In the enquiry, the Branch Manager, the Investigating Officer, and another Officer in the Branch were examined in proof of the charges. The second respondent had examined himself, his brother-in-law Selvaraj, and one Palaniappan. On 23.11.1989, the Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that the charges against the second respondent were duly proved. Thereafter, the second respondent was asked to appear for a personal hearing to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. After hearing his representation, orders were passed, on 6.1.1990, dismissing the second respondent from service.

5. Since I.D. No. 58 of 1989, on the question of bonus for the accounting year 1981, was pending before the first respondent and as no Approval Application was filed, the second respondent preferred a complaint, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said complaint had been numbered as Complaint No. 6 of 1991.

6. The first respondent by an award, dated 26.3.1997, had set aside the order of dismissal passed against the second respondent and had directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages and other attendant benefits, based on the finding that the charges against the second respondent were not proved.

7. At this stage of the hearing of the case, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Management cannot be sustained, since the respondent had been dismissed from service, without the necessary approval from the concerned authority, as contemplated unde