Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2353
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
UCO Bank - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court-ii, Chandigarh - Respondent
CWP No. 773 of 2019
Decided On : 15-03-2019
Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and the consequences of procedural irregularities leading to unjust and invalid punishments.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 - Sukhdev Singh's complaint against Rakesh Duggal - Charges of willful damage to bank property and act prejudicial to bank's interests - Enquiry proceedings - Non-examination of Enquiry Officer - Non-supply of enquiry report - Violation of principles of natural justice - Unjust and invalid punishment - Reinstatement with full back wages
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dispute over the compulsory retirement of Rakesh Duggal by the UCO Bank. The dispute arose from a complaint by a customer, Sukhdev Singh, alleging fraudulent withdrawal of money by Duggal. The bank imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which was challenged by Duggal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank's action was unjust and invalid due to various procedural and substantive irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings. It held that the non-examination of the Enquiry Officer, non-supply of the enquiry report, and violation of principles of natural justice caused prejudice to Duggal, leading to an unfair treatment. The court ruled in favor of Duggal, entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement.
Issues: The key issues included the non-examination of the Enquiry Officer, non-supply of the enquiry report, and violation of principles of natural justice, which led to the unjust and invalid punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on Duggal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the bank's disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice, causing prejudice to Duggal. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedures and held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was unjust and invalid.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of Duggal, declaring the punishment of compulsory retirement as unjust and invalid, and entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - The issue referred for determination by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in ID No.212 of 2011 registered on 25.08.2011, was; whether the action of the Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits upon workman - Rakesh Duggal w.e.f. 17.06.2010 is just, valid and legal? And what relief is Rakesh Duggal entitled to on a dispute raised by the UCO Bank Employees' Union espousing his cause?
2. The Tribunal in its detailed award dated 29.08.2018 on the evidence reached the conclusion that the workman - Rakesh Duggal is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages from the date of passing of the order of compulsory retirement i.e. 17.06.2010. The award is under attack by the Bank, as not sustainable. Parties have been heard at length.
3. The incident relates to 10.08.2009. An old customer of the petitioning Bank, namely, Sukhdev Singh moved a complaint against workman - Rakesh Duggal on 01.09.2009 stating that he visited the Branch on 10.08.2009 to withdraw money from his account. Rakesh Duggal was Head Cashier posted in the Bank. There is no dispute that at that at that relevant time computer service was out of order and bank entries had to be made manually. Duggal filled out Sukhdev Singh's form in English and left blank the column of amount and after obtaining his signatures on the form handed him over the demanded sum of Rs. 28,000/-. He kept the passbook with himself to complete the same later. The workman did not meet and handover the passbook. On 01.09.2009, Sukhdev Singh again visited the Bank and came to know that a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- had been withdrawn from his account, whereby he alleged fraud of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been committed with him. This is what led to the complaint against Duggal. The services of Duggal were placed under suspension vide order dated 10.09.2009 and a charge-sheet followed on 09.11.2009. An enquiry was conducted and report dated 01.05.2010 was submitted to the punishing authority. The Enquiry Officer did not find the first charge proved, the second yes. Nevertheless the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
4. In the charge-sheet, it is alleged that Rs. 28,000/- could not be debited in the system due to connectivity failure, as such, said withdrawal could not be debited and hence the workman - Rakesh Duggal retained this withdrawal along with passbook and collected a sum of Rs. 28,000/- from Mr. Karam Singh, Paying Cashier on account of payment to be made to Sukhdev Singh towards his withdrawal of date. Sukhdev Singh took his amount and left the branch and after a while Rakesh Duggal is alleged to have collected Rs. 1,50,000/- from Mr. Karam Singh towards aforesaid withdrawal of Sukhdev Singh and this amount he retained with himself.
5. Later on, when connectivity was restored, it is alleged that Duggal filled in the amount column in figures as Rs. 1,78,000/- and gave it to the Counter Clerk, who posted the said withdrawal in the system. Respondent-Rakesh Duggal is said to have passed the said withdrawn himself, as the first signatory. Accordingly, Rakesh Duggal was charged; firstly, for willful damage to the property of Bank as per Clause 5(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and, secondly, for doing an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank as per Clause 5(j) of the said Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
6. The defence of Rakesh Duggal to the charges was that he borrowed a sum of Rs. I, 50,000/- from Sukhdev Singh on 10.08.2009. He neither inflated the amount on withdrawal form nor is there any cutting on it. His statement is supported by the fact also that Sukhdev Singh again visited the branch on 21.08.2009 and raised a loan of Rs. 55,000/- against his FDR, the documents and vouchers etc. of which were prepared by Duggal and he also passed the vouchers as first signatory. Duggal contende
