CANARA BANK Vs. UMAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had remained absent for about 53 days from 16.8.1999 to 7.10.1999. Since it was in contravention of Chapter XI, Regulation 3(r) of the Canara Bank Service Code as the respondent was continuously absent in excess of 30 days, the petitioner punished him in accordance with law by issuing the charge sheet against the respondent for his unauthorized absences and after conducting domestic enquiry, the respondent was found guilty of the charges, he was punished with reduction of annual increments. Now, the respondent again was unauthorizedly absent for as many as 1245 days for which the charge-sheet has been issued and after conducting domestic enquiry, the petitioner has dismissed him from service after following the procedure as per the proceedings of the disciplinary authority dated 21.10.2000.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 18.12.2000. After hearing, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirmed the dismissal order.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court in Cr. No 39 of 2004. The same came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 15.2.2008 directing the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of his reinstatement in its services with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits withholding his three annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of impugned punishment order onwards. Against which, the petitioner bank has preferred this writ petition.