IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
State Bank of India v. Tarun Kumar Pradhan & Another
Writ Petition No. 4959 of 2015 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 3.3.2022
(1) Departmental Enquiry -- hearing opportunity -- charge sheet did not disclose list of management witnesses -- nor did it disclose list of documents over which management relied to prove charges - copies of documents not supplied to workman -- opportunity not given to cross-examine witness from whose account alleged fraudulent transaction had taken place -- no details about when evidence of management witnesses was recorded -- note sheet/order sheet of inquiry officer not produced -- inquiry report not supplied to workman -- substantial prejudice caused to workman -- punishment of termination rightly set aside. (2013) 2 SCC 740, (2010) 3 SCC 556, AIR 1969 SC 966 and AIR 1972 SC 136 discussed. 2007(3) MPLJ 226 and 2022(1) MPLJ 431 referred to. [Para 15
(2) Natural Justice -- departmental enquiry -- hearing opportunity -- charge sheet did not disclose list of management witnesses -- nor did it disclose list of documents over which management relied to prove charges -- copies of documents not supplied to workman -- opportunity not given to cross-examine witness from whose account alleged fraudulent transaction had taken place -- no details about when evidence of management witnesses was recorded -- note sheet/order sheet of inquiry officer not produced -- inquiry report not supplied to workman -- substantial prejudice caused to workman. (2013) 2 SCC 740, (2010) 3 SCC 556, AIR 1969 SC 966 and AIR 1972 SC 136 discussed. 2007(3) MPLJ 226 and 2022(1) MPLJ 431 referred to. [Para 15
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope -- departmental inquiry -- findings of Central Government Industrial Tribunal based on examination of proceedings of departmental inquiry -- same being findings of fact, Court should refrain from dilating upon such issues in exercise of powers conferred under Art. 227. [Para 16
¼1½ foHkkxh; tk¡p && lquokbZ dk volj && vkjksii= esa izca/ki{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh lwph izdV ugha dh xbZ && u mlesa mu nLrkostksa dh lwph izdV dh xbZ ftudk voyac izca/ki{k us vkjksi lkfcr djus ds fy, fd;k && deZdkj dks nLrkostksa dh izfr;k¡ ugha nh xb± && ml lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk dk volj ugha fn;k x;k ftlds [kkrs ls vfHkdfFkr diViw.kZ laO;ogkj fd;k x;k Fkk && bldk dksbZ C;kSjk ugha fd izca/ki{k ds lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; dc vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k && tk¡p vf/kdkjh dh fVIi.kif=dk@vkns'k if=dk izLrqr ugha && deZdkj dks tk¡p izfrosnu ugha fn;k x;k && deZdkj ij lkjoku~ izfrdwy izHkko iM+k && lsoklekfIr dk naM Bhd gh vikLrA ¼2013½2 ,l lh lh 740] ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 556] , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 966 rFkk , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 136 foosfprA 2007¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 226 rFkk 2022 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 431 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15
¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; && foHkkxh; tk¡p && luqokbZ dk volj && vkjksii= esa izca/ki{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh lwph izdV ugha dh xbZ && u mlesa mu nLrkostksa dh lwph izdV dh xbZ ftudk voyac izca/ki{k us vkjksi lkfcr djus ds fy, fy;k && deZdkj dks nLrkostksa dh izfr;k¡ ugha nh xb± && ml lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk dk volj ugha fn;k x;k ftlds [kkrs ls vfHkdfFkr diViw.kZ laO;ogkj fd;k x;k Fkk && bldk dksbZ C;kSjk ugha fd izca/ki{k ds lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; dc vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k && tk¡p vf/kdkjh dh fVIi.kif=dk@vkns'k if=dk izLrqr ugha && deZdkj dks tk¡p izfrosnu ugha fn;k x;k && deZdkj dks lkjoku~ izfrdwy izHkko dkfjrA ¼2013½2 ,l lh lh 740] ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 556] , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 966 rFkk , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 136 foosfprA 2007¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 226 rFkk 2022 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 431 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && O;kfIr && foHkkxh; tk¡p && dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ds fu"d"kZ foHkkxh; tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh dh lekyksouk ij vk/kkfjr && og rF;kRed fu"d"kZ gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ky; dks vuq-227 ds vèkhu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; ,sls fook|dksa ij foLr`r foospuk djus ls nwj jguk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 16
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P/15) and award dated 16.7.2014 (Annexure P/16) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short “CGIT”) in case No. CGIT/LC- 241/1997, whereby, the order dated 6.9.1995 imposing punishment of termination of the respondent-workman, has been set aside and the respondent- workman has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back wages.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent/workman was appointed in the petitioner-Bank on 1.9.1975 on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. He was confirmed in service w.e.f 1.3.1976. On account of some financial irregularities relating to withdrawal of certain amount, a charge sheet dated 11.3.1993 (Annexure P-1) was served on the respondent- workman, wherein, as many as 06 charges were leveled against him. The charges are mainly related to fraudulent withdrawal of certain amount with an object to take wrongful pecuniary advantage, causing loss to the Bank, utilizing official position and violating the rules- procedure applicable to the employees of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent-workman was required to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The respondent-workman denied all the charges vide communication dated 25.11.1993 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was directed to be conducted.
3. Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Branch Manager, Nawgaon Branch was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, whereas, Shri A. Shastri, Branch Manager, City Branch, Damoh was appointed as Presenting Officer. Five witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges against the respondent- workman. After departmental inquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority on 14.2.1995 (Annexure P-3), wherein, all the charges were found to be proved against the respondent-workman. The disciplinary authority after considering the material available on record was, prima facie, of the opinion that the charges were found proved and, accordingly, an action was required to be taken against the respondent-workman. Pursuant to it, a show cause notice was issued to the respondentworkman on 25.4.1995 (Annexure P-4) proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority also provided opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent- workman. Being satisfied with the material available on record against the respondentworkman, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment dated 6.9.1995 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman preferred an appeal (Annexure P-8) which has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 8.11.1995 (Annexure P-9).
4. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner-Bank, the respondentworkman raised an industrial dispute with regard to punishment and the appropriate government referred the following dispute to the CGIT for adjudication :--
“Whether the action of the management of the State Bank of India, Gwalior Branch in terminating the services of Shri Tarun Kumar Pradhan, Clerk-cum-Typist Damoh Branch w.e.f. 6.9.1995 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
During the proceedings before the CGIT, vide award dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-15), the preliminary issues regarding legality and validity of the departmental inquiry was decided and it was held that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of various reasons mentioned therein. Thereafter, CGIT proceeded to grant opportunity to the petitioner-Bank to prove the charges on merits. Since no evidence was adduced before the CGIT to prove the charges on merits, hence vide final award dated 16.7.2014 (Annexure P-16), the petitionerBank has been directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with 40% back wages and continuity in service.
5. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the p
The management must seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and conte....
The court established that a dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act must adhere to principles of natural justice, and procedural defects can invalidate disciplinary actions.
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.