The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P. No.10281 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in the preliminary point in I.D. No.95 of 2013 dated 2.3.2015 and award passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court dated 18.11.2015 in I.D. No.95 of 2013 insofar as denying the relief or reinstatement, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to reinstate me in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

W.P. No.19552 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D. No.95 of 2013 and quash its award dated 18.11.2015.)

1. Assailing the order passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential award in I.D. No.95 of 2013, while W.P. No.10281/16 has been filed by the workman for reinstatement with all other attendant benefits, W.P. No.19552/16 has been filed by the Bank insofar as modifying the punishment imposed on the workman from dismissal to one of compulsory retirement.

2. Since both the petitions are connected resulting in the award of the 1st respondent, the petitions were heard together and is disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners will be referred to as ‘Workman’ and ‘Bank’.

3. The facts that revolve around the filing of the present writ petitions are as under :-

4. The case as projected in the claim statement by the workman is that he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Kallakurichi Branch of the Bank on 11.9.1997 and, thereafter, transferred to Panruti Branch in the year 2003 and was continuing in the said branch till his termination on 27.9.2012. It is the allegation made against the workman that while serving at Panruti Branch, the workman had indulged in acts such as altering the limit of overdraft facility and without authorization withdrawing amounts from various accounts of the customers; debiting the account of the customers and withdrawing amount without their authorization; credited the amounts to his account and that of his wife for pecuniary benefits; foreclosing the fixed deposit without the knowledge of the customer and credited the proceeds into the account of the customer and withdrawing the said proceeds, etc.

5. Since the workman is alleged to have committed misconducts in terms of Rule 5 (j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002, enquiry was conducted on the charges leveled against the workman , in all running to 13 charges. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding charges 1, 2 3 and 5 to 13 as proved and charge No.4 as partly proved. After affording an opportunity to the workman to submit his explanation to the abovesaid findings, and finding the explanation not satisfactory, punishment of “Dismissal without notice” from service was imposed on the workman.

6. Against the said order of dismissal without notice imposed on the workman, appeal was filed before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority after hearing the workman.

7. Since action of disciplinary proceedings was taken up on the workman in view of the Standing Orders and on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002, the said punishment, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, was put in issue before the 1st respondent by the workman by filing I.D. No.95 of 2013.

8. The claim petition was contested by the Bank by filing counter statement, in which it is averred that the illegal and fraudulent acts of the workman has resulted in the initiation of investigation and based on the report of the investigation, 13 charges were framed and in the enquiry, apart from one charge, which was held partly proved, all the other c