The Tribunal's modification of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement was justified due to procedural flaws and the workman's long, unblemished service record.

ORDER :

Aggrieved by the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D. No.60/13 dated 29.10.2014, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to one of compulsory retirement, the Bank has preferred the present petition.

2. The workman joined the services of the Bank as clerk in the year 1980 and during the year 2005, the workman was working In Kathamparai Branch, Karur. While so working, the workman was issued with a charge sheet on 20.7.2010 alleging that the workman pre-closed a deposit of one Mangayarselvi and credited R.7500/- being the Government subsidy to the account of one Manikandan, a sub-staff of Papanad branch of the Bank on 4.7.2009. It is the further allegation that the workman, by misusing the password of the Manager of the Bank, who was on leave, and without his knowledge, had approved the transaction and, thus defrauded the bank by misappropriating the Government subsidy by his above act. The workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet denying the allegation and not being satisfactory, enquiry was initiated and the enquiry which commenced on 30.10.2010, concluded on the very same day and the workman was not given any opportunity to put forth his defence and defend his case. The enquiry officer gave a report finding the workman guilty of the charges. However, without giving a copy of the report and issuing any notice to the workman, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the workman by the disciplinary authority.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribuna. Before the Tribunal, while the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-8, on the side of the Bank, no oral evidence was adduced, but the Bank marked Exs.M-1 to M-18. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner to one of compulsory retirement aggrieved by which the Bank has preferred the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the Tribunal could exercise its power to modify the punishment only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. However, the workman being an employee of the bank, who is required to exhibit utmost honesty had misappropriated the Government subsidy, which has been proved in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. When the materials clearly establish that the workman had committed the said act of misappropriation, the Tribunal, on sympathetic consideration, ought not have interfered with the punishment of dismissal by modifying the same to compulsory retirement.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the charges against the workman have been proved in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has though it fit to impose the punishment of dismissal from service and the Tribunal without considering the gravity of the offence has interfered with the punishment imposed, without any rhyme or reason, which requires interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the workman/2^nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the materials, including the fact that no notice has been given to the workman calling for explanation with regard to the punishment to be imposed and finding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency committed and also considering the long service of blemishless service rendered by the workman, had modified the punishment to one of compulsory retirement.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when there is violation of principles of natural justice as the workman was not given notice before inflicting punishment, necessarily the same requires interference, which has been rightly interfered with by this Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the well con