JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of order dated 22.02.2017 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and all other benefits.)

1. The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing on 13.07.2021.

2. The petitioner herein, while working as a Customer Assistant in Udumalpet Branch of the State Bank of India, was levelled with charges of misappropriation of customers' money to the total tune of Rs.1,21,784/-. As per the charges, the petitioner was claimed to have put through 26 transactions by debiting various Government accounts /other accounts and credited the proceeds to his savings bank account and his father's savings bank account. Apart from these charges, he was also charged for debiting the parking account in respect of customers, without any corresponding credit in the parking account. Instead of debiting his savings bank account, he was claimed to have debited the parking account for recrediting to the actual beneficiaries and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.54,858/- . The last charge against the petitioner was that he has caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,76,642/-. The Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 15.02.2016 and after consideration of the petitioner's written submission, he was imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service on 31.08.2016. The appeal against the punishment was dismissed by the first respondent on 22.02.2017. The petitioner has challenged this punishment in the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, that the respondents had denied the petitioner's request for engaging the services of a lawyer or representative of the registered trade union, which right has been provided for, in Clause 12 of the Bi-partite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002. Secondly, it is their submission that the punishment was based on 'no evidence' and that the disciplinary authority had misconstrued the evidence before him while holding the charges as proved.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that the right to engage a lawyer in terms of the Bi-partite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002, is not an absolute right as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Mathivanan Vs. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Network-2, Administration Unit, Madurai-2 reported in 2012 SCC Online Mad 478 and also various other judgments. He further submitted that the scope of judicial review of the disciplinary action by the High Court is very limited and re-appraisal of the evidence before Enquiry Officer, is impermissible.

5. Insofar as the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner had made a request for being represented through a lawyer in the disciplinary proceedings, which request was disregarded by the respondents. In order to substantiate such a right to claim representation, reliance was placed on Clause (12) of the Bi-partite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002, which agreement entitles a delinquent employee to be represented by a representative of a represented trade union of bank employees or through a lawyer with the permission of the bank. To substantiate this proposition, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Viswanathan Vs. State Bank of India and another passed in W.P.No.8407 of 2015 dated 06.06.2016. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in S.Viswanathan's case (supra) reads as follows:

“14. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, the petitioner is entitled to have the assistance o