S.L. RAJANNA Vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the workman is that he was employed as an Attender in the management Bank. On 16.5.1988, seven articles of charges was issued to him on acts of misconduct. Charges were to the effect that the workman without authority had made credit entries in the records of the bank and later when it was detected, he remitted the same etc. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, a domestic inquiry was initiated. The inquiry officer held that charges 2 and 3 were proved and the remaining charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute under Section 10(2 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE Tribunal on re -appreciation of the material on record held that, charge number 2 is proved and charge number 3 is not proved. The Tribunal held that the penalty of dismissal of service was disproportionate and hence directed reinstatement without backwages and withholding of six annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the bank preferred writ petition No. 10404/2007. The workman being aggrieved by the denial of backwages and withholding of six annual increments filed writ petition No. 4150/2008. By a common order dated 28.10.2011, both the writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the workman has filed Writ Appeal No. 17989/2011 and the bank has filed Writ Appeal No. 18010/2011.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the bank submits that the question of reinstatement and backwages does not arise for consideration, as grave misconduct has been committed and hence he is liable to be terminated. In support of his case he relies on the judgment reported in, 2006 -I LLJ 987 in the case of KARNATAKA BANK LTD., AND A.L. MOHAN RAO to contend that a case of this nature does warrant dismissal of service and any interference in such an order is incorrect.