The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the domestic enquiry was fair and the findings were based on evidence, affirming the modification of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 in WP.No.10281 of 2016, insofar as declining the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 in WP.No.19552 of 2016.

When the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai (Tribunal) made in I.D.No.95 of 2013 dated 18.11.2015, setting aside the punishment of dismissal dated 27.09.2012 and modifying it into one of compulsory retirement, was challenged by both the employee and the State Bank of India (Bank) before this Court in W.P.Nos.10281 of 2016 and 19552 of 2016 respectively, a learned Single Judge of this Court had confirmed the award, through a common order dated 19.07.2023, which order is assailed in these Intra Court Appeals.

2.1. The brief facts before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions are as follows:-

2.2. Through a charge memo dated 24.06.2011, the Bank had levelled 13 charges against the employee, terming them to be gross misconducts.

2.3. Not being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the employee to the levelled charges, he was subjected to departmental enquiry, in which, 12 of the charges were held as 'proved' and the 4th charge as 'partially proved'.

2.4. On the basis of these proven charges, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of dismissal on 27.09.2012.

2.5. The appeal against the said punishment before the Appellate Authority of the Bank was rejected on 24.01.2013.

3. The dispute thereafter became a subject matter of reference made under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the point of reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal for adjudication is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the Management of the State Bank of India in dismissing Shri.A.Savarinathan, Ex-Clerk of Panruti Branch is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” (sic)

4. Before the Tribunal, the employee had questioned the fairness of the enquiry, which was countered by the Bank. Through a preliminary award dated 02.03.2015, the domestic enquiry was held to have been fair and proper. The preliminary award was not challenged by the employee. Thereafter, on the strength of the evidences before it, the Tribunal had passed an award in I.D.No.95 of 2013 dated 18.11.2015, by which it had held that out of the 13 charges, except Charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 8, the remaining 9 charges were not substantially proved during the enquiry and accordingly had modified the punishment of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. Both the employee and the Bank had unsuccessfully challenged the award before the Writ Court, which dismissal orders are under challenge in these Writ Appeals.

5. The learned counsel for the employee predominantly questioned the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, since some of the material documents were not furnished to him, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank would submit that the entire charges against the employee relate to misappropriation of funds, which is a gross misconduct. According to him, even though there are sufficient materials before the Tribunal to substantiate all the charges, the Tribunal had erred in holding that 9 out of the 13 charges were not proved during the course of enquiry. With such submissions, he questioned the modification of the punishment imposed by the Bank.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions