1. Factual matrix of the case -
(i) Shri R.K. Sood - respondent no.2 was working as Special Assistant at Belanganj Branch, Agra of UCO Bank at the relevant period, when on the basis of certain objections raised during audit inspection, it was found that allegedly he had committed certain acts of financial irregularities and embezzlement, therefore, was suspended on 14.5.2007.
(ii) The then Manager of the Branch submitted a written complaint on 11.7.2007 and accordingly the First Information Report No.85/2007 was lodged at Police Station - Chatta against respondent no.2, under Sections 406, 420 IPC with details of unauthorized debits and credits from the different accounts of account holders.
(iii) A charge-sheet dated 9.4.2008 was issued against respondent no.2 for committing gross irregularities by way of making /passing/ authorizing false entries with fraudulent intention which constitutes misconduct. Accordingly, respondent no.2 was charged for following misconduct :-
"Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss - a gross misconduct under clause 5 (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Proceedure for Workment dated 10.4.2002."
(iv) Respondent no.2 denied the charge of misconduct by a reply dated 30.4.2008 and submitted that -
" I request you to refer the above charge sheet served upon me bide your letter no.201/PSO/BR/2007-08 dated 09.04.2008.
I this connection I deny all the charges leveled against me as they are fictitious and wrong."
(v) The above mentioned reply was not found satisfactory and therefore, decided to conduct a regular departmental inquiry against respondent no.2. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority on 23.9.2008.
(vi) The Disciplinary Authority passed final order dated 2.1.2009 wherein four allegations (1, 2, 3 & 4) out of 5 allegations were found proved and finally came to the conclusion that :-
"It is clear that Sri R.K. Sood (CSE) being Special Assistant failed to perform his duties with honesty and committed acts pre-judicial to the Bank's Interests involving the Bank in serious loss with a corresponding gain to himself. This is a Gross Misconduct under Clause 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen Staff dated 10.04.2002. Being the Disciplinary Authority over Sri R.K. Sood (PFM No.13068), I hereby, propose to award the following punishment in Terms of Clause 6(a) of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002 referred to above;
"Sri R.K. Sood (PMF No.13068) be dismissed without Notice."
(vii) The Disciplinary Authority dealt all the five charges and finding thereof, are mentioned hereinafter :-
Allegation No.1:-
"It has been alleged that on 06.11.03, a sum of Rs.11038/- was debited in an un-auhorized manner to SB A/C No.9252 of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari by way of Cheque No.063764 (entered in the system as withdrawal form) and credited SB A/C No.4955 in the name of CSE jointly with Madhu Sood. Cheque No.063764 used in the transaction was issued in SB A/C No.2720 of CSE (joint account). Signature of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari on Cheque was fake and Cheque was passed by CSE fraudulently.
On the basis of Management, Exhibits and statements of Management Witness during his examination it has been established that Cheque Book containing Cheque No.06374 was issued in the A/C No.2720 of Sri R.K. Sood on 01.11.03 [ME 1(7)]. The Cheque No.063764 [ME1(1)] was debited to SB A/C No.9252 of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari on 06.11.03 [ME1(5)] as 'transfer' and amount was credited to SB A/C No.4955 [ME1(2)] in the name of Smt. Madhu Sood w/o CSE [ME1(4)]. As per Statement of Account, this account is in the name of CSE. The subject Cheque is passed by CSE [ME1(1) & ME1(5)]. Defence was absent. I concur with the views of Enquiry Officer and Allegation No.1 is proved.
Allegation No.2 :-
"It has been alleged that on 25.11.03, a sum of Rs.3000/- was debited in an un-authorised manner to SB A/C No.9252 of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari by way of withdrawal form pertaining to A/C No.3104 of CSE. This withdrawal form was passed by CSE and payment was also received by CSE. There was no balance in SB A/C No.3104 of CSE at that time.
On the basis of Management Exhibits and statements of Management Witness during his examination it has been established that the withdrawal form of Rs.3000/- dated 25.11.03 of SB A/C No.3104 has been debited to SB A/C No.9252 of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari [ME2(3), 2 (5) & 2(6)]. At that time Balance in A/C No.3104 was Rs. 6.60 only [ME2(4)]. It is deposed by MW that withdrawal was signed by CSE as well as passed by CSE. Defence was absent. I concur with the views of Enquiry Officer and Allegation No.2 is proved."
Allegation No.3 :-
"It has been alleged that on 17.06.04, a sum of Rs.20000/- was debited in an unauthorized manner to SB A/C No.6771 of Sri Prabhat Kumar Maheshwari by way of a withdrawal form and amount was paid in cash. The withdrawal form was bearing fake signature of account holder which was passed by CSE.
On the basis of Management Exhibits and statements of Management Witness during his examination it has been established that Signature on Withdrawal form ME[3(1)] are different from signatures on Specimen Signature Card [ME 3(2)] CSE has debited this amount of Rs.20000/- in SB A/C 6771 of Prabhat Kumar Maheshwari [ME3(4)] and is passed by CSE [MW on Page 20 of proceedings].
Defence was absent. I concur with the views of Enquiry Officer and Allegation No.3 is proved."
Allegation No.4 :-
It has been alleged that on 04.10.04, CSE debited a sum of Rs.21000/- in an un-authorized manner to SB A/C No.9252 of Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari CSE made vouchers & passed the same. Transaction also made and passed CSE in the system. Although Credit voucher was made in the name of Seema Maheshwari but it was credited by CSE in his joint SB account No.3104.
On the basis of Management Exhibits and statements of Management Witness during his examination it has been established that Debit voucher dated 04.10.04 [ME4(1) with narration 'to amount transferred to SB A/C 7693' is passed by CSE (Page 21 of enquiry proceedings) without debit confirmation authority of A/C holder [ME4(1) & ME 4(6) & page 21 of enquiry proceedings]. This amount is not credited to SB 7693 of Smt. Seema Maheshwari but is credited to SB A/C No.3104 of CSE jointly with Ram Kali Sood [ME4(4) & Page 22-23 of enquiry proceedings]. Defence was absent. I concur with the views of Enquiry Officer and Allegation No.4 is proved.
Allegation No.5 :-
It has been alleged that on 27.05.06, a sum of Rs.25000/- was debited in an un-authorized manner to SB A/C No.9587 of Sri Bishan Swaroop Bansal by way of withdrawal form bearing fake signature of the drawer. This was passed as well authorized in the system by CSE.
MW did not stated that the Withdrawal form of Rs.25000/- dated 27.05.06 [ME5(1)] was passed by CSE (Page No.28 of Enquiry Proceedings). I concur with the views of Enquiry Officer and Allegation No.5 is not proved.
(viii) The respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Officer, Lucknow, which was dismissed by order dated 05.03.2009. The relevant part of the order is quoted hereinafter :-
"I, being Appellate Authority, have carefully examined the Charge-sheet dated 09.04.2008 issued to Sri Sood, his reply thereto dated 30.04.2008, Enquiry Proceedings, Enquiry Report dated 23.09.2008, Order dated 02.01.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, his appeal dated 04.01.2009 and all other related papers/documents in the mater and my observations on his appeal are as under :
1. Not proving of one allegation out of 5 allegations, is immaterial when charge is proved on the basis of four allegations proved. Punishment is awarded by Disciplinary Authority for the proved charge.
2. I observe that full opportunity was given to Sri Sood to defend his case during the whole enquiry proceedings but on most of the occasions, Sri Sood and his Defence Representative had absented themselves in the Enquiry Proceedings on various pretexts and thus Enzuiry was proceeded with and concluded ex-parte. Sri Sood was given the copy of Enquiry Report dated 23.09.2008 to offer his comments. Instead of offering his comments over the Enquiry Report, Sri Sood desired to reopen the enquiry from the statge, he did not atend enquiry on the ground of his ailment vide his letter dated 13.10.2008. However, Sri Sood was given the last opportunity to submit hs comments on the Enquiry report dated 23.09.2008 vide D.A. Letter No.ZOL/PSD/BR/2008-09/2612 dated 16.10.2008, but Sri Sood did not submit his comments.
In the instant case, Sri Sood has not brought anything new, which could not be produced and was not available at the time of passing the order having affect of changing the nature f the case. Accordingly, I as Appellate Authority in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Clause 14 of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dated 10.04.2002 hereby uphold the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on Sri Sood vide order dated 02.01.2009, which is given as under ;
"Sri R.K. Sood (PFM No.13068) be dismissed without Notice."
(ix) The Respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the above referred order of dismissal. The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Dispute-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.
(x) The Respondent no.2 filed statement of claim dated 5.6.2012, the petitioner filed written statement and thereafter, a replication was also filed. The Respondent no.2, by way of an application dated 20.6.2018 has not disputed the procedure of inquiry and that it was conducted in a fair manner.
(xi) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Labour Court Kanpur, passed an award dated 12.7.2018 in Industrial Dispute No.32/12. The Tribunal came to conclusion that - "none of the charges are found proved against the worker, but their appears serious regligence on the part of the worker that he has directly received and passed the cheques and withdrawal forms as cheques and withdrawal forms as per banking practice are supposed to have been received by the cashier and it was the duty of the cashier to send these instruments to the worker for passing the same and after passing it they should have been returned to the cashier for debiting and crediting the amount."
On the basis of above conclusion, the Tribunal held that punishment awarded to Respondent no.2 was shockingly disproportionate and set aside the punishment of 'dismissed without notice' and taking note that Respondent no.2 has already attained the age of superannuation passed punishment of compulsorily retirement with all superannuation benefits, like pension, gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund etc., as payable to him under rules.
(xii) Petitioner has challenged the above referred award before this Court by way of filing present writ petition.
(xiii) This Court has stayed the operation and effect of impugned award dated 12.7.2018. The respondent has filed counter affidavit, to which, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by petitioner.
2. Submission on behalf of petitioner - Bank
(a) Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner - Bank submitted that it was an admitted case of the respondent No.2 that there was no procedural error in the departmental inquiry and it was conducted in a fair manner. Therefore, the Labour Tribunal has erred to reappraise the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and to substitute it with own findings.
(b) The basis of the Award of the Labour Tribunal is that the Disciplinary Authority has not passed any order for recovery of alleged amount received by the Respondent no.2, therefore, no charge is proved against him which is not only an incorrect approach but cannot be a basis to conclude that Respondent no.2 has not committed any embezzlement, which otherwise proved by documentary and oral evidence, available on record.
(c) The finding of the Labour Tribunal that disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Respondent no.2 on the basis of conjecture and surmises, was a perverse finding. There were evidence on record in the form of cheques, statements of account evidence of signature mismatch, debit and credit transfer voucher, cash payment book etc. that Respondent no.2 had committed embezzlement. Before initiating any inquiry, formal complaint from the account holder was not a precondition. The inquiry was initiated in pursuance of objection of Audit Inspection of the Bank.
(d) The finding of the Tribunal that entire exercise of disciplinary proceedings was concluded in absence of statement of any account holder being recorded during the proceeding, was not a legally sustainable ground because the documents on record spoke for itself that Charges No.1 to 4 were proved 'beyond any doubt', much more than required 'preponderance of probabilities'.
(e) The Tribunal has erred in relying upon certain part of oral evidence of M.K. Srivastava (MW-2) and M.P. Jain (MW-1) without considering the entire statements of both the witnesses. The oral evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 and documentary evidences were sufficient to prove Charges (1 to 4) against Respondent no.2, who was found guilty of gross misconduct and rightly awarded punishment of dismissal without notice.
3. Submission on behalf of respondent no.2 -
(a) None of the account holder had made any complaint before the Bank and they were not even examined during the disciplinary proceedings and no order was passed for recovery of alleged embezzlement amount were itself sufficient grounds to vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings.
(b) The Respondent no.2 had not caused any serious loss to the Bank, therefore, there was no justification to impose punishment in terms of Clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002.
(c) There is no reason or ground to interfere the findings of the Tribunal.
4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record.
5. Discussion and Conclusion :-
(i) In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed order of punishment of 'dismissal without notice' and the departmental appeal was also dismissed. The proceedings were conducted in a fair manner and not challenged on the ground of any procedural irregularities.
(ii) The power of judicial review is confined to the decision - making process, which is admittedly fair and proper in the present case. The Tribunal or High Court, cannot sit as a Appellate Court. The question of adequacy and reliability of evidence cannot be a ground for interfering with departmental inquiry.
(iii) The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Heem Singh; 2020 SCC Online SC 886 on the issue of 'Judicial review over disciplinary matter' has held that :-
"39. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy - deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse, determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognized it for long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges' craft is in vain."
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) The Tribunal has selectively re-appreciated the evidence collected by the Inquiry Officer and interfered with the decision of Disciplinary Authority on following account :-
(a) The money alleged to be embezzled by the respondent no.2 by fraud neither recovered nor any order for recovery was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(b) M.C. Srivastava (MW-2) has deposed during cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge about any irregularity in the account of account holders.
(c) R.K. Sood (MW-1) deposed that the signatures were not matched, however, account holders were not called to verify the signatures and that despite he had knowledge about the Officers who had confirmed the debit voucher, but intentionally did not disclosed their names.
(d) Account holder - Shri Maheshwar, who was introduced by the Respondent no.2 for opening of the account, had not made any complaint.
(e) The disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent no.2 was initiated without any complaint and on the basis of conjecture and surmises, the Respondent no.2 was wrongly punished without recording statements of effected account holders. Therefore, none of the charges were proved.
(f) However, the Tribunal found Respondent no.2 negligent because he dealt with the instruments directly. The Tribunal, therefore, found the punishment of dismissal without notice to be shockingly disproportionate and modified it to punishment of compulsorily retirement with all benefits.
(v) Now I deal with above referred grounds for interfering departmental enquiry by way of the Award considering the rival submissions and material on record.
(i) Alleged act of embezzlement committed by the Respondent no.2 came into light during the audit inspection of the concerned Branch in the month of May, 2007 and on the basis of specific instances of embezzlement, not only First Information Reprot was lodged but disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Respondent no.2 for committing fraudulent withdrawals/making authorized entries in the system. Once it was found in the audit that an employee of the Bank had committed such fraudulent transactions, the departmental proceeding was rightly initiated. There was no pre-conditions of any complaint to initiate inquiry against the delinquent. The Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th August, 2002 does not provide any such pre-condition. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly came to conclusion that disciplinary proceeding has initiated merely on conjecture and surmises and failed to notice that it was initiated on the basis of objections of audit report, citing specific instances of embezzlement. The 'gross misconduct' also meant ''doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss', which connotes that inquiry could be initiated even on likelihood of serious loss. Therefore, there was no pre-condition of any account holder to submit any complaint to initiate inquiry against any employee of the Bank. Similarly, where the charges were proved on basis of documents and statements of the witnesses, there was no need to record the statements of the affected account holders. It is on record that Respondent no.2 has not presented any defence and also not alleged any irregularities in the procedure adopted during disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) Both the Management witnesses had produced documents in support of charges levelled against Respondent no.2. Neither the Respondent no.2 nor the Tribunal had cast any doubt on the veracity of the documents which were part of record, which on the face of it refer how the Respondent no.2 embezzled the amount. The witnesses specifically submitted that signatures on cheque, were not found to be same with the signature on signature card and for that, there was no requirement to call account holder and to take evidence. It was not denied that respondent no.2 had himself signed on the withdrawal forms. The Tribunal has noted a few answers given by the Management witnesses without going through the entire evidence and came to conclusion on the basis of selective part of evidence that no charge was framed. The findings were without considering the respective reasons for conclusion of Disciplinary Authority that out of five charges, four charges were found framed. The Tribunal has not arrived to a finding that said reasons are not based on the documentary and oral evidence recorded during disciplinary inquiry. Some relevant parts of evidence which were not noticed by the Tribunal, are reproduced hereinafter :-
(i)"प्र0 एम ई-1(1) क्या हैं।
उ0 बचत खाता सं0 9252 चेक सं0 063764 रु0 11038/- दिनांक 06.11.2003 है।
प्र0 इसका मोड आफ आपरेशन क्या है।
उ0 यह transfer entry है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त चेक किस बचत खाते के लिये किस तारीख में issue हुई है।
उ0 उपरोक्त चेक सं0 063761 से लेकर 780, दिनांक 01.11.2003 को श्री आर0के0 सूद के खाता सं0 2720 के लिये issue है। जैसा की ME-(7) में दर्शाया गया है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त चेक को किस खाते से डेबिट किया गया है।
उ0 उपरोक्त महेश्वरी के खाते से डेबिट किया गया है जो कि ME-(7) में दर्शाया गया है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त चेक बचत खाता सं0 2720 में डेबिट हुआ है या नहीं?
उ0 ME-(8) को देखने से पता लगता है कि उपरोक्त चेक बचत खाता सं0 2720 में डेबिट नहीं हुआ है।
प्र0 यह चेक किसके द्वारा पास किया गया है?
उ0 श्री आर0के0 सूद द्वारा पास किया गया है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त चेक का पैसा किस खाते को क्रेडिट credit किया गया है।
उ0 उपरोक्त चेक का पैसा बचत खाता सं0 4955 श्री आर के सूद के खाते में transfer किया गया है। जैसा कि ME-1(4) में दर्शाया गया है। "
"प्र0 कृपया बताये ME-3 क्या है।
उ0 यह बचत खाता सं0 6771 का दिनांक 17.06.2004 का रु0 20000/- का withdrawal from है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त withdrawal के बचत खाता सं0 6771 के खाते धारक कौन है।
उ0 उपरोक्त withdrawal के खाते धारक श्री प्रभात कुमार महेश्वरी है जैसा कि ME-3(2) में दर्शाया गया है।
प्र0 यह खातेधारक कर हस्ताक्षर नमूने हस्ताक्षर कार्ड से withdrawal पर मिलते है या नहीं।
उ0 ME-3(2) में किये गये हस्ताक्षर ME-3(1) से मेल नहीं खाते।"
(ii)"प्र0 ME-4(1) क्या है तथा इसका mode of transfer क्या है।
प्र0 ME-4(1) डेबिट voucher है जो बचत खाता सं0 9252 श्री एन0के0 महेश्वरी दिनांक 04.10.2004 रु0 21000/- का transfer voucher है। जिसमें कि amount transferred to SB 7693 लिखा हुआ है।
प्र0 इस voucher में डेबिट confirm किसके द्वारा किया गया है।
उ0 इस voucher के पीछे Debit confirm हुआ है तथा हस्ताक्षर किसके द्वारा किये गये है यह प्रत्यक्ष रुप से पता नहीं चल पा रहा है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त voucher को किसके द्वारा पास किया गया है।
उ0 उपरोक्त voucher श्री आर के सूद द्वारा पास किया गया है।
उ0 उपरोक्त voucher बचत खाता सं0 9252 से डेबिट करके transfer किया गया है। जैसा कि ME-4(5) में दर्शाया गया है।"
(iii)"प्र0 ME-5(1 से 6 तक) का अवलोकन करें।
प्र0 कृपया बताये ME-5(1) क्या है?
उ0 यह बचत खाता सं0 9587 का दिनांक 27.05.2006 सं0 25000/- का withdrawal form है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त बचत खातेधारक का नाम क्या है?
उ0 ME-5 (2) को देखने से पता लगता है कि उपरोक्त withdrawal पर खाते धारक का नाम श्री विश्वस्वरुप वंसल है।
प्र0 उपरोक्त खाते धारक का हस्ताक्षर जो withdrawal पर है वह नमूना हस्ताक्षर कार्ड से मिलता है कि नहीं।"
उ0 ME-5 (2) के अनुसार ME-5 (1) पर हस्ताक्षर पूरी तरह से मेल नहीं खाते।
(iv) "प्र0 दस्तावेज सं0 ME-1(1 से 8), ME-2 (1 से 6), ME-3 (1 से 4), ME-4 (1 से 6), ME-5 (1 से 6), ME-6 (1 से 3 तक) का अवलोकन करे तथा बताये कि आपके द्वारा original document से देखकर सत्यापित किया गया है।
उ0 श्रीमानजी उपरोक्त प्रश्न में दिये गये सभी दस्तावेजों का मैंने बैंक में उपलब्ध मूल दस्तावेजों से सत्यापन किया है।"
(iii) The other ground which weighed for interfering with the proceeding was that no order for recovery was passed against the respondent, a legally unsustainable ground so much as absence of such order could not vitiate the entire proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has decided to pass punishment of dismissal without notice, which itself is a major punishment.
(iv) The only conclusion of above discussion is that the findings of the Tribunal referred in para 6(iv) of the judgment are erroneous and unsustainable on law and facts. There was sufficient evidence on record to come to conclusion of punishment awarded.
(v) It is relevant to quote from a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava; (2021) 2 SCC 612 that :-
"27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied)
(vi) The last issue to deal is the finding of the Tribunal that punishment of compulsorily retirement is shockingly do proportionate. The Apex Court in Deputy General manager (Supra) has held in para 43 that :-
"Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impared."
5. In view of above discussion, the oral and documentary evidence on record, findings of Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority were sufficient to pass the test of 'preponderance of probabilities'. There is no allegation of malafide and in absence of any prove of perversity even prima facie, therefore, considering the seriousness of charges, the Respondent No.2 was rightly found guilty of gross-misconduct for doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and committing gross negligence to involve the Bank in serious loss', therefore, there is no error in the punishment awarded of 'dismissed without notice'.
6. Conclusion :-
The Labour Tribunal has committed error on facts as well as on law, by interfering finding, conclusion and order of punishment of Disciplinary Authority and Appointing Authority. Hence, the impugned award dated 12.07.2018 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Rishabh [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]