*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 + W.P.(C) No.1037/1998 SHRI D.C. SHARMA Petitioner Through: None.
Versus CANARA BANK THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER Respondent Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. The petition impugns the award dated 21st April, 1997 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-
“Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing the services of Sh. D.C. Sharma is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
holding the domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent Bank to be fair and proper and holding the punishment of dismissal from service meted out to the petitioner workman to be not arbitrary or unjustified and not calling for any interference. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings completed. Rule was issued on 7th March, 2000. Though the petitioner workman applied for and was granted early hearing by directing the listing of the petition as per its turn on 5th July, 2010 but a perusal of the order sheet shows that none appeared for either of the parties thereafter on 12th August, 2010, 23rd August, 2011, 3rd January, 2012, 20th March, 2012 and 2nd July, 2012. Today also none has appeared for the parties inspite of the petition having been kept pending for considerable time. Need is not felt to await the parties any further.
2. Though in the circumstances aforesaid the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution but considering that Rule was issued, the records have been perused.
3. The case of the petitioner workman is that the petitioner workman joined the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank Ltd. (since merged with the respondent Canara Bank) as a peon on 1st December, 1976; he was on 25th October, 1983 promoted as Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper; he was suspended and served with a charge sheet on 18th September, 1990; the domestic inquiry held found him guilty of the charge and the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank vide order dated 1st May, 1991 dismissed the petitioner workman from service.
4. The petitioner workman challenged the aforesaid dismissal before the Industrial Adjudicator contending that he was represented in the domestic inquiry by one Mr. D.K. Chaudhary and remained under the impression that the said Mr. Chaudhary would fight for him but later learnt that his said representative had mixed up with and had acted under the influence of the respondent Bank and the Inquiry Officer. It is further alleged that he was not given proper opportunity to disprove the charge against him;
5. The Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the evidence of the respondent Bank and the petitioner workman and the material before him held that the representative of the petitioner workman in the domestic inquiry was of his own choice and the respondent Bank never interfered nor the Inquiry Officer ever disallowed him from cross examining the witnesses of the respondent Bank or from proving the case of the petitioner workman; that the petitioner workman having access and control over the books of accounts of the respondent Bank, while performing his duties intentionally and deliberately inflated the credit balance in his own saving bank account with the same Bank and thereby withdrew Rs.9,800/-; that he had also tampered with the ledger of the respondent Bank; that during the investigation he had admitted the fraud aforesaid played by him and also reimbursed Rs.2,000/- on 15th September, 1990. Other admissions of the petitioner workman of, in the manner aforesaid withdrawing monies not belonging to him were also noticed and it was held that in the face of the said admissions, there was no merit in the technical challenges made to the inquiry. Holding that a Bank can ill-afford to keep fraudulent persons, the punishment was held to be proportionate and not arbitrary or unjustified.
6. A perusal of the writ petition shows the challenge by the petitioner workman to the aforesaid award, besides on the ground already noticed above, being on the ground that the charge was not proved in the domestic inquiry but was based on the investigation report. It is further stated that the petitioner workman as an account holder with the respondent Bank also enjoyed the position of a customer of the respondent Bank besides as of an employee of the respondent Bank and even if had inadvertently overdrawn the money which also was paid back, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate.
7. The aforesaid would show that the petitioner workman in this petition also is not denying the basic facts and the factum of having refunded the amounts overdrawn from his account. The petitioner workman has however not explained as to how he came to overdraw the amount. It is not possible for a mere customer of the Bank to overdraw any amount from his account and it is writ large that the petitioner workman succeeded in doing so only by virtue of his employment with the respondent Bank. Once the aforesaid fact of dishonesty of the petitioner workman is established, the petitioner workman is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 11, 2012 pp..