SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was lodged on April 21, 1988 against the appellant by one Lakhan Singh who is a customer of the Bank that he went to the bank at 4. 00 p. m. on August 31, 1987 to deposit a sum of Rs. 3500/- and gave the said amount to the appellant who also belongs to his village to deposit the said money. However, he had not deposited the said amount and when he got a notice from the Bank as to why he has not deposited the amount he made the complaint. Later on the said complaint was withdrawn. However, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and after holding inquiry came to the conclusion that he is guilty of the charges framed against him in not having deposited the amount given by lakhan Singh in due time and therefore withheld four increments with cumulative effect. Against that action a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court. The Labour Court on examination of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the inquiry held by the respondents is vitiated and called upon the Bank to adduce evidence in support of its case. The Bank examined its then manager who stated that he had received a complaint from Lakhan Singh and showed a receipt also in the handwriting of the appellant for having received a sum of Rs. 3500/- and that the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 3500/- on April 23, 1988. However, in the cross examination it is stated that on April 23, 1988 Lakhan Singh came to withdraw the complaint and deposited Rs. 3500/ -.

(2.) The Labour Court felt that the complaint made by Lakhan Singh having been withdrawn, adequate proof was required as to what charge is levelled against the appellant as to misappropriation of the said amount of Rs. 3500/- and that charge was not established in the absence of evidence of Lakhan Singh and set aside the action taken by the Bank.

(3.) A writ petition was carried against the award and the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the Labour Court had held that the inquiry was fair but the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse and therefore, took the view that the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry were binding particularly in the light of the fact that there is some evidence to support the case.