UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABU MAHADEVAPPA ANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the Union Bank of India has called in question the order passed by the Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in CR. No. 15/88. The respondent herein was working as a peon in Union Bank of India, Gokak Branch from 1967-68 to 1974 and thereafter he was transferred to Hebbal Branch of Belgaum District wherein he worked as peon till 1975, when the Belgaum Bank came to be merged into Union Bank. Mr. Andani was transferred from hebbal Branch to the Belgaum Branch. While working as a peon in the bank it was detected that respondent had withdrawn certain amounts from SB accounts of various customers by forging their signatures. When the matter was being investigated the respondent had given two letters dated 4. 9. 78 and 13. 9. 78 as per Annexures M5 and M6. The contents of letter dated 4. 9. 1978 are as follows: The petitioner has admitted that he had committed forgery of signatures of account holders on pay slips and withdrawn amounts from the accounts of various customers and misappropriated the same. Repenting for the same he has remitted a sum of Rs. 5,840/ -. In exhibit M. 6 the petitioner while admitting he had committed forgery of signatures of customers on withdrawal slips to withdraw amount from their SB accounts, has stated that he has remitted a sum of Rs. 1000/- to protect the prestige of bank. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was instituted against the respondent Bank. One Sri. S. Bhat was appointed as Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges of forgery, misappropriation committed by respondent. Before the Enquiry Officer the respondent was permitted to avail the services of Sri. A. R. Kulkarni, Vice President of Union bank of India Employees Union.

(2.) FROM the above, it is clear that the respondent while admitting that he had committed forgery to withdraw various amounts from the accounts of different customers has contended that as gesture of repentance he has repaid certain amount to petitioner-Bank.

(3.) THE enquiry Officer framed charges and the petitioner was called upon either to admit or deny the charges. The respondent pleaded time for reflection and it was granted. Mr. Kulkarni who was defending the respondent before the Enquiry Officer was also given time to look into the records. That on 4. 4. 1979, the respondent pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him and also admitted the confession letters given by him as per Exhibits M. 5 and M. 6 Thereafter, on 5. 4. 1979, Mr. A. R. Kulkarni representative of respondent gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer in terms of Exhibit M. 13 stating that, fraud would not have occurred if there had been strict adherence, to the procedures as laid down in the Bank; Mr. Andani has admitted the guilt and repented for the same and pleaded before the Enquiry Officer to take a lenient view in the matter of punishment. The Enquiring Officer who was also the Punishing Officer, considering the nature of misconduct i. e. forgery and misappropriation committed by the respondent, dismissed the respondent from service. After dismissal from service the petitioner submitted an appeal for mercy to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank wherein in unequivocal terms he has stated: i did commit forgery and misappropriate Bank's money. This act was done in a fit of ambition and I did realise the grave mistake, which had to result into ruining my career as well as my life. I had refunded nearly 3/4th of the amount of misappropriation. This appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 23. 6. 1980 vide Exhibit M-43. Thereafter, a reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government on the basis of a representation given by respondent. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 13. 5. 1994 held that the disciplinary enquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice and set aside the Disciplinary enquiry, against which the Management-Union Bank of India was before this Court in W. P. 26340/1994. This Court by order dated 8. 7. 1998 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: this is in a way beneficial to the employer as it can fill up all the lacuna basing on which the domestic enquiry was set aside. Further if ultimately the Tribunal passes any adverse order against the petitioner the Management is free to challenge the finding on the domestic enquiry as well. Without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner this writ petition is dismissed.