HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 36160 OF 2016

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that the 1^st respondent while working as Data Entry Computer Operator (DECO) at NGRI Extension Counter, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for committing financial irregularities and charge sheet dated 17.9.2003 was issued. Consequently, he was kept under suspension. It is stated that a complaint in this regard was also given to Uppal Police Station vide FIR No.158 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC., thereafter, he was acquitted in criminal case on benefit of doubt. Since the charges are of serious financial irregularities, the disciplinary authority passed a dismissal order against which the 1^st respondent preferred Appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the same, thus petitioner stood dismissed from bank service treating the suspension period as ‘off duty’ as per Regulations.

The 1st respondent raised L.C.No.91 of 2007 before the 2nd respondent wherein the 1st respondent counsel filed a memo stating not to challenge the validity of the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent/management and as such the matter was heard under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the punishment and the action of the management was justified under the circumstances referred to above. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter, went into the issue of inquiry which was not challenged observing that the 1st respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine as the enquiry was ex parte and he had not lead any evidence in enquiry before the Tribunal or during the inquiry and on imaginary contentions that entries might have been incorporated by somebody's permission, passed Award allowing the Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal also observed that the 1st respondent had not cross-examined the management witness and on such wrong assumption of law holds that without fault of 1^st respondent he has been given punishment of dismissal from service which is contrary to the scope of Section 11(A) of ID Act, as that provision is limited only with regard to legality and gravity of punishment and passed Award vide order dated 21.04.2016, impugned in this Writ Petition, in favour of the 1^st respondent. According to petitioners, the said order is perverse and contrary to law and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of inquiry contemplated under Section 11 (A) of the Act. It is contended that the 1st respondent stood ex parte and did not utilize the opportunity and the enquiry is not challenged before the Tribunal by filing a memo, in spite of the same perverse reason the award is passed without any evidence on record. The action of the 2^nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of the provisions of ID Act.

2. By order dated 19.07.2017, stay of impugned Award was granted subject to petitioner bank depositing 25% of the backwages within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and on such deposit, the 1^st respondent was permitted to withdraw the same.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that C.C.No 30 of 2005 registered in connection with FIR No. 158 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC. ended in acquittal in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and the Revision Petition filed by the Bank was also dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, by conducting ex- parte enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 23.03.2004. In L.D.L.C.No. 91 of 2007 raised by him, the Tribunal found that the action of the management is not justified, however, refused to grant the relief of reinstatement since he had already reached the age of superannuation. Hence, granted the relief of payment of 50% of the back wages along with attendant benefits, setting aside the order of dismissal.

It is argued that the Tribunal has drawn conclusions in exercise of its power