K KRISHNA BHAT Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.294/2000 being aggrieved by the order dt. 2.12.2005, wherein the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein has been disposed of by declining to interfere with the impugned order dt. 1.6.1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Bangalore in Central Reference No. 126 of 1997 holding that the domestic inquiry was valid.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal are as follows: THE petitioner/appellant herein was working as a Special Assistant in the employment of the respondent-Bank. He was served with articles of charge, accusing that he was guilty of misconduct as he had resorted to misappropriation of the Bank's funds and fabrication of records which amounted to misconduct, for the period from 8.11.1985 to 7.5.1992. 23 charges were framed against the petitioner. Charge Nos. 1 to 11 and 21 and 23 pertain to misappropriation of the amount in his own SB. account by encashing the withdrawal slip without there being any amount in his account and not making entry in the daily ledger in that behalf. THE other charges pertain to withdrawing the amount from the accounts of the customers and misappropriating the said amount.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgement and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Bangalore, dt. 29.9.1999 petitioner/appellant herein filed W.P. No.294/2000 contending that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with law. Sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to examine the customer and there was no misappropriation of the amount and that the departmental enquiry was not made in accordance with law. Further, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was not justified in confirming the order of dismissal. The petition was resisted and the learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinising the material on record by order dt. 2.12.2005 confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the Writ Petition. However, since at that juncture it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that notwithstanding the dismissal from service, petitioner is entitled to certain amounts like provident fund, etc., and he prayed for a direction to the respondents to disburse the same to the petitioner and the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to examine the monetary claims of the petitioner in accordance with law and disburse them, if he is otherwise entitled to receive the same and if they are not yet disbursed. In view of the further submission, the learned Single Judge passed the following order after dismissal of the Writ Petition: (a) Notwithstanding his dismissal from service, the petitioner is entitled to get certain amounts like Provident Funds, etc., and he prays for a direction to the respondents to disburse the same. I would direct the respondent to examine the monetary claims of the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter disburse the same to him, if he is otherwise entitled to receive them and if they are not yet disbursed. (b) Sri Subramanya Bhat submits that the petitioner be given the discharge in lieu of dismissal as was done in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. The Asst. State Secretary (unreported order dt.27.5.2005 passed in W.P. No. 17534 of 1999 (L-RES) by this Court. Having held that the facts of the said case and the instant case are not identical, it is not proper for me to give a positive direction to the respondent to scale down the punishment from dismissal to discharge. However, I reserve the liberty to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent for considering his case for discharge. If such a representation is made, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and its regulations and this liberty is being reserved and observation is being made, as I am persuaded by Sri Bhat that the petitioner is a senior citizen with nobody whatsoever on whom he can fall back. If he makes such a representation, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of six months from the date of the receipt of representation.