The court established the principle that the scope to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and should be sparingly used only in cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt proved against the employee.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - The management-Bank in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 16th February, 2017 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for short, Tribunal) in Industrial Dispute Case No. 14 of 2008 in reducing punishment of compulsory retirement to reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other service benefits along with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as a measure of punishment against the workman-Sri Narayan Panda.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details relevant facts for adjudication are as follows :

The workman, while continuing as a Cash Clerk/Shroff in the Dhalapur Branch of the Management-Bank (Indian Bank), was alleged to have misbehaved with his superior authority (Branch Manager) and involved in certain activities as well as certain omissions and commissions on his part during discharge of his duties, which amounts to gross misconducts as defined under Clause 19 (5)(c) and 19 (5)(e) and 19 (5)(i), 19 (5)(j) and 19 (7)(b) of the Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 between the Management and the Union. As such, he was placed under suspension with effect from 30.05.1995 and charge memo was issued against the workman on 08.09.1995. The workman faced a domestic inquiry under 12 heads of charges and was found guilty of charge Nos.1,2,5,7,8,9, 10 and 12 and was exonerated from all other charges levelled by the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, he filed his representation against the findings of the inquiry report, so also, against the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement vide his order dated 10.06.2006. The workman preferred appeal against the said order, which was rejected vide order dated 28.09.2006. As such, the workman approached the labour machinery which culminated in referring the matter to learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government to adjudicate the following schedule of reference:-

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank in terminating the service of Shri Narayan Panda, Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier by way of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 10.06.2006 is legal and/or justified ? If not, relief the workman is entitled to ?

3. Learned Tribunal taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues

"1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the Manager was fair and proper ?

3.Whether the punishment by way of compulsory retirement imposed on the disputant was proportionate to the charges ?

4. If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to ?"

4. Learned Tribunal, while answering issue Nos. 2 and 3 came to a finding that the domestic inquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down in the certified standing order as well as in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the disputant workman was given just and proper opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry. However, learned Tribunal held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Charge Nos. 5,6, 9 and 10 suffer from conjectures and surmises being based on no legal evidence. Basing upon the aforesaid findings, learned Tribunal proceeded to modify the punishment imposed upon the workman by holding that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages and other service benefits along with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as a measure of punishment for the charges found to have been established and further directed to implement the award within a period of two months from the date of publication in the official gazette.

5. The Management-Bank being not satisfied with the impugned award has filed this writ petition.

6. Mr. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, based his argument mainly on the ground that learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence adduced during domestic inqu