S VIJAY KUMAR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a cashier/teller at Kadugodi Branch of State Bank of India, on 13-7-1991, received cash of Rs. 200/-tendered by Smt. Girija Saranath of Robertsonpet for crediting to SB Alc. 88 of Sri Sathya Sai central Trust, maintained at Kadugodi branch, representing donation made to the trust, and issued to the depositor, a counterfoil, of even dated, on behalf of the Bank, affixing the cash receipt stamp, but did not account the said sum in the bank books of account including the cash receipt scroll for 13-7-1991, which is said to tantamount to misappropriation of the bank's amount for personal gain. The Bank, instituted disciplinary proceedings for the act of misconduct by issuing a charge sheet leading to an enquiry and recording a finding that the charge was proved, followed by an order of dismissal from service, which when questioned by raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act, led to an order of the Central Govt. referring the dispute to the Presiding Officer central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for short "tribunal", registered as RCR 268/ 1997, whence the State Bank of India arraigned as party respondent, filed its counter. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues, recorded the depositions of MW1 witness for the Management while the workmen examined himself as ww-1. The preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry, was held in the affirmative by order dated 21 st June, 2004 and by award dated 11th April, 2005, the Tribunal accepted the version of the Bank and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had rendered 11 years unblemished service, exercised jurisdiction under Sec. 11-A of the Act, to convert the order of dismissal into one of termination of service, entitling the petitioner to service benefits. Hence, this petition.

(2.) THE act of misconduct committed by the petitioner on the factual matrix proved in a domestic enquiry, accepted by the disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Industrial tribunal being a pure question of fact, in my opinion, does not call for interference. I say so because the petitioner being a custodian of moneys belonging to the customers of the bank was required to be diligent and honest while accounting for the same in books of account of the Bank. A Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity, holding a position of trust, it would not be proper to deal with the matter lightly. The interference in a matter of dishonest conduct of the petitioner would amount to misplaced sympathy. The Industrial tribunal having exercised its jurisdiction under Sec. 11a of the Act, reduced the punishment of dismissal to one of termination of service, which is not questioned by the State Bank of India.

(3.) IN B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 : (AIR 1996 SC 484), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, observed that "if the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case". In Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hotilal (2003) 3 SCC 605 : (AIR 2003 SC 1462), the Apex Court observed thus "if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are in-built requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where a person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust worthiness is a must and unexceptionable.