Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE, J
B.Sivaramalingam, S/o. G.Balasubramaniam – Appellant
Versus
Regional Manager, State Bank of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. The Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant at the Respondent Bank's Ramanathapuram Branch, has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 77 of 2014 which was corrected by order in I.A.No.36/2019 on 9.8.2019 wherein and by which he was denied any relief and the I.D. was dismissed.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 20.03.2020. The Respondent entered an appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 20.01.2022, along with a typed set of documents dated 15.06.2023. The matter was initially heard by a learned Judge, who reserved orders on 14.06.2024. However, on 08.08.2024, the learned Judge reopened the matter for further hearing and directed that it be placed before the appropriate bench handling similar matters. Consequently, the case was listed before this Court. Elaborate arguments were heard and several authorities were cited by both sides.
4. Before approaching the authorities and the labour department, the Petitioner initially filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 5607 of 2005) challenging his dismissal order dated 27.04.2004, which was subsequentl
The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct involving misappropriation of funds, emphasizing the importance of integrity in banking and the adequacy of evidence in disciplina....
The court reaffirmed the principle that in disciplinary matters, particularly involving fraud, the domestic enquiry must follow natural justice and the resultant punishment must reflect the severity ....
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
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.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
A tribunal's interference in disciplinary matters requires solid grounds and should not reassess evidence once the fairness of the domestic enquiry is acknowledged by the employee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
