JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.12.2014 made in W.P.No.23923 of 2007.

1. State Bank of India represented by its Deputy General Manager, Coimbatore has brought this writ appeal, having been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.23923 of 2007, in and by which the award dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short, “the Industrial Tribunal”) in I.D.No.117 of 2005, setting aside the punishment imposed against Mr.B.Muthukumar, the second respondent herein as illegal, was confirmed.

2. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank argued that when the charge-sheeted employee, Mr.B.Muthukumar was working as Assistant at Ketty Valley Branch, he had committed several misconducts during the period 1999-2001, therefore, he was placed under suspension during July, 2001, because he raised fictitious credits in various savings bank accounts and posted extraneous credits in the ledger accounts and also fraudulently prepared withdrawal forms forging the signatures of the account holders and passed the same for payments and unauthorisedly obtained payments from the payment cashier. Moreover, the second respondent also raised fictitious entries in the STDR and STDR interest accounts with a view to avoid detection of fraudulent withdrawals made by him in various savings bank accounts; that he had destroyed the account opening forms and transaction sheets and also destroyed the account opening form and ledger sheet pertaining to an inoperative savings account; that he had also destroyed the ledger sheet of savings bank account holder Smt.R.Chandra upto February, 2000, as a result, he withdrew the amounts and made fictitious credit entries in the customers accounts. Hence, charges, numbering 12, were framed against him. After the explanation furnished was found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed who, in the domestic enquiry, held that except two charges, the other charges have been proved and thereafter, the disciplinary authority also, concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer on all the charges except one charge, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the delinquent. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.117 of 2005. On receipt of the reference, the first respondent, framing the following two issues,

“(i) Whether the action of the Respondent/Management in dismissing the services of Petitioner is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?”,

passed an award, setting aside the punishment of dismissal, directing the reinstatement of the second respondent into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, but without back wages. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the second respondent is not an innocent person to make fictitious entries and also found that he has colluded with the other officials in the fraud committed against the Bank, the Industrial Tribunal has no legal basis to set aside the punishment of dismissal with the consequential relief of reinstatement without back wages.

3. Arguing further, Mr.S.Ravindran submitted that when the appellant Bank examined 11 witnesses before the enquiry officer and marked 182 documents, the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal failed to refer to any of the witnesses or the documents. Moreover, when the second respondent did not even give any evidence before the enquiry officer in proof of his stand taken in the explanation, the Industrial Tribunal is not justified in brushing aside the well considered findings of the enquiry officer, more particularly, when the enquiry officer has given cogent and convincing reasons, finding him guilty.