ORDER :

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the 1st Respondent relating to the I.D. No. 122 of 2003 and the Award dated 25.01.2010 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court the 1st Respondent and quash the order dated 25.01.2010 made in I.D. No. 122 of 2003 insofar as it modified the punishment dated 19.10.2001 imposing dismissal without notice to the punishment of compulsory retirement.

Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records from the 1st Respondent relating to the I.D. No. 122 of 2003 and the Award dated 25.01.2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with back wages and attendant benefits.

1. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9575 of 2010 has been filed by the State Bank of India, challenging the Award dated 25.01.2010 passed by the 1st Respondent, by which the punishment of dismissal imposed on the employee/R2 was modified into the one of Compulsory Retirement. In W.P. No. 19718 of 2010 filed by the employee, the challenge is to the Award dated 25.01.2010 passed by the 1st Respondent in respect of Compulsory Retirement, with a direction to the 2nd Respondent to reinstate him in service, with continuity of service with back wages and other attendant benefits.

2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petition is one and the same, they are taken up together for joint disposal. For the sake of brevity, the parties are, in short, referred to as Bank and Employee respectively (for State Bank of India and R. Nagarajan).

Facts in W.P. No. 9575 of 2010:

3. It was the case of the Bank that the Employee was appointed on 07.05.1981 and on account of certain serious and gross misconducts, a detailed enquiry was conducted in terms of Bi-Partite Settlements and thereafter, he was dismissed from service without notice. The Employee raised an Industrial Dispute, pursuant to which, the Government of India referred the dispute to the 1st Respondent for adjudication.

3.1. It was further case of the Bank that the Employee was issued with a Charge Memo dated 11.08.1998, containing as many as the following four charges:

(i) Copying of entries in the Savings Bank to defraud the Bank.

(ii) Preparing of Parallel Pass Book to commit forgeries.

(iii) Withdrawal of Rs. 1,42,800/- on 16 occasions.

(iv) Causing serious financial loss by using the forged withdrawal slips, preparation of SB passbook and misuse of the official position.

3.2. It was also the case of the Bank that the Employee sent a reply dated 06.11.1998 and being not satisfied with his explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, it was found out that he had committed unauthorized and illegal withdrawals of Rs. 1,42,000/- from the Savings Bank Account No. 21379 of one customer by name Mr. S. Mohan and the complaint dated 18.12.1996 (Ex.P1) made by the customer was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram, before whom, the Employee admitted his guilt and explained the manner in which, he had committed such misconducts with the help of one Hariharan and Rajan Babu, who were outsiders.

3.3. It was stated by the Bank that though enquiry proceedings commenced on 24.06.1999, the Employee did not cooperate for the conduct of enquiry proceedings and the Bank marked documents in Ex.Ps.1 to 28 and list of Witness PW-1 to PW-13, whereas the Employee did not mark any documents and produce the witnesses. Though several witnesses were examined and cross examined by the Employee, on 14.03.2001, the Employee requested for recalling PWs. 2 and 4 for cross examination and his request was declined on the ground that he did not cross examine them on the earlier occasion. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a thorough enquiry submitt