Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.K. AGRAWAL & N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, JJ.
The Deputy General Manager
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court & Another
Writ Appeal No. 2096 of 2012 & M.P. No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 12-03-2013
Banking - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A - 5(j) - 5(l) - 379 IPC - 420 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the reinstatement of a bank employee who was compulsorily retired based on charges of removing and misusing a bank pay order. The employee was acquitted in a criminal case related to the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal in the criminal case did not entitle the employee to reinstatement, as the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in criminal cases. The court also emphasized the employer's loss of confidence and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Issues: The issues included the reliance on acquittal in criminal proceedings, the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, and the employer's loss of confidence in the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically warrant reinstatement in disciplinary proceedings. It also emphasized the employer's loss of confidence and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and denying the reinstatement of the employee.
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17902 of 2009 dated 13.3.2012, wherein the learned single Judge set aside the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai/first respondent herein, made in I.D.No.13 of 2007 dated 25.6.2009 and directed the appellant Indian Bank to reinstate the second respondent/writ petitioner herein in service with full back-wages.
2. The case of the second respondent/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was as follows:
(a) The second respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in the appellant Bank in the year 1978 as sub-staff and was promoted to clerical cadre in the year 1990 and posted to work at Chintadripet Branch, Chennai. While working in the said branch, he was allocated work in the section pertaining to issuance of BPOs, DDs.
(b) The second respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry, by order dated 10.4.2001 followed with issuance of a charge memo dated 24.10.2002 alleging that on 15.3.2001, while he was working in BPO, DD issuing section, he had removed BPO No.004639 from the BPO book kept in the Officer's table without his knowledge and had handed it over to one Ravindran, an ex-employee of the Bank, which was noticed by one Rajaram, Section Officer on 19.3.2001. When the second respondent/writ petitioner was enquired, he pleaded ignorance and told to check thoroughly. As the said BPO was missing, the same was marked as cancelled in the BPO register.
(c) On 2.4.2001 the said BPO was presented for clearing through service Branch of Canara Bank, Chennai, favouring New Sri Lakshmi Saw Mills, Bangalore-64 for an amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs with the endorsement in the reverse to the effect "Payee's A/c Credited" made by Canara Bank, Yelahanka Satallite Town Branch. It was found that the signature in the BPO was forged and the same was returned by Chintadripet Branch, marking "Fraudulent pay order".
(d) A criminal complaint was registered against the second respondent before the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai, for the same set of charges in Cr.No.232 of 2001 for offences under Section 379 and 420 IPC, which was tried as C.C.No.8960 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. After trial, the second respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case by judgment dated 9.2.2004.
(e) A domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the charges before completion of criminal proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 3.11.2003 and held that all the charges were proved. The second respondent/writ petitioner submitted written objections/comments regarding the enquiry findings on 26.12.2003. Thereafter he was served with second show cause notice dated 18.5.2004 proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and subsequently final order was passed on 8.7.2004 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.
(f) The second respondent/writ petitioner preferred appeal before the General Manager, who is the appellate authority on 18.8.2004, which was also rejected on 15.2.2005.
(g) Thereafter the second respondent raised an industrial dispute under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai, and a failure report as to the conciliation was issued and thereafter the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 6.2.2007 referred the issue for adjudication, which was taken on file by the first respondent in I.D.No.13 of 2007.
(h) Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the criminal case judgment was marked as Ex.W-1 and on the side of the Bank, Exs.M-1 to M-28 were marked. Relying on Ex.M-8, M-10 & M-17, which are the statements of employees of the Bank made before the Police Authorities, the first respondent Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dismissed I.D No.13
AI
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
