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 of the misconduct.

ORDER :

N. Mala, J.

1. Writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in the Award dated 08.02.2022 in I.D.No.2 of 2007 and the preliminary order dated 07.02.2020, to quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the workman in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances following there from seniority and continuity of service.

2. Petitioners case:

The petitioner union espousing the cause of the workman has filed the above writ petition. The workman joined the services of Federal Bank as bankman in 1980 and was promoted as clerk in 1983. The workman was under suspension from 10.04.2003 for misconduct of fraudulent withdrawal of amount. The workman was issued with the charge memo on 09.05.2003 stating that he had instigated and colluded with one K.Ramakrishnan, Bankman of the branch and fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the SB account of one of its customer's viz., S.Raju, on 12 occasions during the period from May 1998 to September 2002 by using the withdrawal forms. It was stated that such withdrawal took place without his knowledge and consent. The workman sent a reply to the charge memo on 23.05.2003 denying the charges framed against him and calling for certain documents to prove his case. According to the workman even without responding to the request a communication dated 04.07.2003 was sent ordering for an enquiry into charges. The enquiry proceedings commenced from 08.10.2003 and concluded on 10.12.2004. On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer gave his report on 13.04.2005 holding that the charges against the workman were proved. The workman submitted his objections to the enquiry report on 10.05.2005 and as the same was found to be unsatisfactory, the dismissal order was passed on 30.08.2005. The workman preferred an appeal to the Deputy General Manager/ Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated 24.01.2006 rejected the appeal. The workman thereafter raised the dispute which was registered in I.D.No.2 of 2007 before Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (herein after referred to as CGIT) challenging the dismissal order. The Labour Court passed an Award dated 20.04.2009 dismissing the I.D. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.19854 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 14.09.2017 set aside the Award of the CGIT and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within a period of 6 months. The respondent Bank challenged the order passed in the writ petition in W.A.No.897 of 2018, but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.04.2018. The order passed in the writ petition was confirmed but with a modification that the Labour Court should pass the Award within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment in the writ appeal. On remand, CGIT dismissed the I.D vide Award dated 08.02.2022. The petitioner aggrieved by the Award of the CGIT as also the preliminary order dated 07.02.2020 has filed the above writ petition.

3. The respondent filed detailed counter reiterating the facts of the case and further stated that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and proper manner and in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The respondent further submitted that the Labour Court had rightly passed the preliminary order by holding that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and proper manner and by following the principles of natural justice. The respondent submitted that the Labour Court passed the award on appreciation of the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the misconduct against the workman was proved and considering the gravity of the misconduct, rightly did not interfere with the punishment imposed by the respondent. The respondent therefore submitted that writ petition was without merits and the same deserved to be dismissed.

4. The lear