The Tribunal cannot substitute its findings for those of the domestic tribunal; it must ensure findings are based on evidence, and excessive backwages may be modified.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the award dated 1.12.2016 passed by CGIT, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/134/03 by which the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the workman has been set aside and he has been directed to be reinstated with 100% backwages.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent was working as Assistant (Cash/Accounts) at Sabalgarh Branch of the Bank. He was indulged in financial irregularities, as a result departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately an order of dismissal from service was passed. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to CGIT, Jabalpur. The Tribunal by order dated 26.11.2012 answered the preliminary issue with regard to legality and validity of departmental enquiry in favour of petitioner. However, by the same order the Tribunal fixed the case for consideration of propriety of findings of guilt and punishment.

3. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that in spite of multiple opportunities granted by Tribunal, the petitioner could not produce the departmental enquiry proceedings including the documentary as well as oral evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the findings of guilt recorded by the department appears to be based on no evidence. As a consequence thereof, the Tribunal has set aside the departmental proceedings and has directed for reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service with full backwages.

4. Challenging the award passed by CGIT, Jabalpur, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that CGIT was not competent to substitute its own finding in place of finding of guilt recorded by the authorities. It is submitted that once the departmental proceedings were held to be in accordance with law then the scope of interference by the CGIT becomes narrower and thus, CGIT should have given due weightage to the findings recorded by the authorities.

5. To buttress his contention, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the cases of Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani , reported in (2018) 1 SCC 285 , West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 729 , Standard Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava , reported in (2021) 19 SCC 281 and M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 21.

6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted that once the workman had challenged the findings of guilt recorded by authorities and by order dated 26.11.2012 when the Tribunal had fixed the case to ascertain the propriety of findings and punishment, then it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to file the departmental enquiry proceedings including the documentary as well as ocular evidence to substantiate their findings.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) (supra) has held as under :-

“14. The Tribunal in its order on reappreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that in the absence of any independent evidence other than of fellow workmen, the charge of indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with superior and co-worker was not proved. Insofar as the absence from the duty is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that according to the workman, he had left the place of work at 12.25 p.m. and as the incident allegedly had taken place at 12.30 p.m., the respondent could not have reached the place of incident at 12.30 p.m. after collecting his other associates. In para 14 of its order, the Tribunal concluded that Management had failed t