IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the Labour Tribunal to modify the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is limited to the material on record, and interference with the employer's decision is justified only with evidence of perversity, victimization, unfair labor practice, or mala fides.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Through this writ petition a challenge has been made to the award dated 22.08.2016, published on 05.09.2016, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) cum Labour Court, Kanpur exercising power under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1947”) modifying punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits.

2. Facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that respondent No.2 late R.P.Singh was appointed as a Clerk on 11.01.1971 in Central Bank of India. He was promoted to the post of Special Assistant in the year 1992 with retrospective effect since 1987. While posted as Special Assistant at Extension Counter of main branch, Aligarh at Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram (KSGA), Aligarh during the period October, 2003 to February, 2004, some misconduct was committed by him. He was put under suspension on 17.02.2004. A charge sheet was served on 16.03.2004 alleging ten charges against him, which are as under :

“CHARGE NO. 1

Current Account No 176 of M/s Rajesh & Co. was opened with the address, 101, President, Railway Road, Aligarh, which Sh. Singh has tempered with malafide intention and ulterior motive as 7/107, Railway Road, Algarh.

CHARGE NO. 2

On 8.10.2003 the account of M/s Rajcsh & Co. was allowed to be closed for which relevant record is not available in the branch except an entry of Rs.2900/- in C/D A/c 176. Ledger Folio No. 99. The account was closed by payment through cash for Rs.2900/ as noted in the ledger.

On perusal of the ledger folio it is specific that Cheque Book was not issued in the account and loose Cheque Book also was not issued, payment was also not made through pay slip/Banker's cheque/Debit Note. Thus Sh. Singh has allowed the closure of the account in unusual manner violating Bank's rules to facilitate the Account holder with obvious reason.

CHARGE NO. 3

The account opening form, signature card and debit voucher Dt. 8.10.2003 in C/D account 176 of M/s Rajesh & Co. are not available in the branch record. Sh. Singh has taken way all these documents with malafide intention to suppress his misdoings.

CHARGE NO. 4

On 9.10.2003 Sh. Rajesh Kisher opened a HSS A/c No. 3825 and provided copy of PAN Card, Driving Licence as proof of identity and address. The date of Birth as noted in PAN Cord and Driving Licence differs which Sh. Singh intentionally ignored to facilitate Sh. Rajesh Kishor to commit the fraud with the Bank. The address in account opening application form, Driving Licence, letter of thanks dated 09.10.2003 in the handwriting of Mr. Rajesh Kishore and Receipt no.520 dated 09.10.2003 of Speed Post mention the address of Mr. Rajesh Kishore differently, which Mr. Singh ignored to notice with ulterior motive and rather actively facilitated Mr. Rajesh Kishor to open the account and commit fraud with the Bank. Thus aforesaid facts speak loudly the connivance of Mr. Singh with Mr Rajesh Kishor in his design to defraud Bank.

CHARGE NO. 5

Sh. Rajesh Kishor has given his address as 101, President, Sadar Chungi Ke Pass, Railway Road, Aligarh, which is not the correct address. Sh. Singh being local of Aligarh has failed to apply ordinary prudence with malafide intention to facilitate Sh. Rajesh Kishor to disappear after committing the fraud.

CHARGE NO. 6

Sh Rajesh Kishor has opened the account on 9.10.2003 and immediately thereafter the deposited cheques of heavy amount for collection as under:

Sh. Singh has forwarded all the cheques for collection to B/o Panchkula, Chandigarh and also allowed the withdrawals against Central Office guidelines to be vigilant in the operation of the account

All the cheques were drawn on HDFC Bank and Sh. Singh failed to apply his ordinary prudence to enquire the purpose of collection in newly opened account.

With all these collections, fraud ha