Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this case on 8.11.2010 arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. The said order is quoted below:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Judgment reserved.

Duplicate copy of the supplementary counter-affidavit has been supplied by learned counsel for workman respondent.

It has been stated that FIR was lodged against three other employees of the Bank, i.e. Sri A.K. Madan, Sri Sanjeev Kumar and Sri Amar Nath. Learned counsel for the Bank, petitioner states that this FIR was lodged by Hari Shanker Yadav, who complained that his money was swindled. Learned counsel for both the parties may file short written arguments. Learned counsel for the workman respondent in his written arguments shall indicate the fate of the criminal case, which was initiated on the basis of FIR and if some order/ judgment has been passed, then certified copy of the same shall be annexed therewith. Learned counsel for both the parties before submitting written arguments shall supply copy of the same to the learned counsel for the other side. Arguments may be filed within two weeks.”

3. This writ petition is directed against award dated 17.12.1997 given by Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, cum labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 111 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 3 A.K. Saxena w.e.f. 2.7.1993 was just and valid or not. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages.

4. At the relevant time the workman was working as head Cashier in the Branch of the petitioner bank known as Birhana Road Branch, Kanpur. The main charge against respondent No. 3 was that on 7.12.1990 he managed to get duplicate pass book of saving bank account No. 2521 of one Sri Hari Shanker Yadav by writing an application in his own hand and forging the signatures of the account holder thereupon and thereafter on the basis of the said duplicate pass book he withdrew Rs.45,000/- from the account of Sri Hari Shanker Yadav on 26.12.1990 and Rs.35,000/- on 8.1.1991 by forging his signatures again on the withdrawal form. An irrelevant charge of borrowing Rs.5,000/- from said Sri Hari Shanker Yadav was also made against the petitioner which was not found proved even by the Inquiry Officer. The services were terminated after holding domestic Inquiry. Through order dated 8.8.1997 deciding preliminary issue of fairness of domestic inquiry tribunal held that the domestic inquiry was not fair. Accordingly it permitted the management to prove the charge before it. The tribunal held that “In the end my finding is that the concerned workman had never perpetrated two withdrawals form nor had received the money hence this charge is also not proved” para 15.

5. True copy of the Inquiry report is Annexure 9 to the writ petition which runs into 52 pages.

6. The Inquiry Officer In his report held that Sri Amar Nath Misra who was working on S.B. counter appeared as witness of the bank (P w/3) and stated that both the withdrawal forms were posted by him and were accompanied by pass book and that these withdrawal forms were brought to him by Sri Hari Shanker Yadav and entry of withdrawal of Rs.35000/- in the pass book was made by him after entering earlier entries and that he recognised Sri Hari Shanker Yadav. Sri Hari Shanker Yadav the complainant also appeared as witness of the bank before the Inquiry Officer. Similarly, Sri A.K. Madan who was accountant in the Branch in question was also examined, he stated that he passed the withdrawal form of Rs.45,000/- and he knew Sri Hari Shanker Yadav as a customer. He further stated that “No doubt has arisen in his mind to verify the genuineness of the W/F as the depositor himself was present in the bank hall to withdraw the amount.”

7. The ultimate conclusion of the Inquiry officer at page 48 of its report is as follows