Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by

the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court dated 25.09.2019 rendered in C.R.No.138/2007.

3.

The allegations against the respondent-employee are

that he pressurized the bank manager to advance loans to his

father consisting of two installments of Rs.25,000/- each. That

he unauthorizedly made a debit from savings bank account

No.1550. That he coerced the manager for sanction of loan and

that he tampered with the bank records. On the said basis, the

Enquiry Officer, after conducting an enquiry, came to the

conclusion that the employer has proved the allegations and

submitted a Report accordingly. The respondent was visited with

the punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved, the

workmen sought reference and on a reference by the Central

Government vide order dated 08.10.2007, the Tribunal took up

the matter, heard the parties and was pleased to allow reference

and by its award was pleased to set-aside the punishment of

compulsory retirement and was further pleased to direct 2^nd

3

party employer to reinstate the workman into his original post

with continuity of service but without back wages. Aggrieved, the

employer is before this Court.

4.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the Tribunal has committed a cardinal error in allowing

reference and ordering reinstatement. That the Hon9ble Apex

Court has in catena of decisions held that such employees ought

not to be spared and should be dealt with in the strictest possible

manner and that the award setting aside the punishment of

compulsory retirement is erroneous and warrants interference at

the hands of this Court. The Tribunal after discussing the

material on record has rendered a finding that there is absolutely

no material evidentiary value, establishing the complicity of the

employee in the alleged misdemenour. Prima facie, on perusal of

the material, we find substance in the findings rendered by the

Tribunal.

5.

At the outset, we find the charges itself absurd. The

first charge is that loans have been advanced to the father of the

workman. It is neither within the scope nor within his

competence, to sanction the loans. A simple commercial act of

4

granting the loan is sought to be given a colour merely because

of the relationship of the employee and account holder.

6.

It is not the case of the employer that the account

was opened after the employee was posted to the bank. It is not

the case of the employer that father does not reside within the

jurisdiction of the bank. It is also not the case of the employer

that there are irregularities in the sanction of the loans. It is also

an admitted fact that the loans have been sanctioned by the

competent authority i.e., Branch Manager and it is also not the

case of the employer that the father was not eligible for sanction

of loan. In other words, the facts establishing the ineligibility of

the father to seek loan is not placed on record. Nextly, the other

charge is that he has unauthorizedly made a debit from saving

bank account No.1550. Even the charge would state that the

amount debited has been debited in the ledger but he has failed

to enter in the subsidiary sheet. If that be so and in the absence

of any complaint from the account holder, we find it strange that

the same is been sought to be converted into a misdemeanor.

The third charge is that he has tampered with the bank records.

No material is placed to show what are the records that are

tampered or what is benefit he has derived.

5

7.

We have perused the enquiry report and heard the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

8.

Nothing is placed before us to demonstrate that the

findings of the Tribunal that there is no evidentiary material

establishing the complicity of the workman is erroneous. That

apart, on a specific query as to whether any financial loss has

occurred to the bank or there is any misappropriation, l