STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. AJAY KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, by its order dated 27 November 2020, affirmed the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1. The CGIT, while coming to the conclusion that the first charge of misconduct against the Signature Not Verified respondent was proved, interfered with the penalty of dismissal only on the ground that it was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. Hence, the penalty of dismissal was modified to that of compulsory retirement.

(2.) Mr P S Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, with Mr Sanjay Kapur, submits that the findings of the CGIT would indicate that the charge of misconduct involved a serious act of indiscipline. Mr Patwalia also urged that the other charges, namely, charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, also stand established.

(3.) Prima facie, in our view, a serious act of misconduct stands established from the evidentiary findings contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the award of the CGIT (Annexure P-9). We are inclined to issue notice for this reason and for an additional reason as well.