UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the award dated 18.07.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court -II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CILC') in I.D. No. 57/1997 whereby the punishment of 'stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect' imposed by the management of Union Bank of India on the respondent was modified to the 'stoppage of one increment for one year only' (non -cumulative).

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stating the case of the petitioner is that the respondent was working as a clerk -cum -cashier in the petitioner bank and at the relevant time, he was posted in Nayaganj Branch at Ghaziabad of the petitioner Bank. On 18.03.1998, when the respondent was working as a scroll clerk (one who has to enter the particulars of the depositors in a scroll register and put the scroll number on the pay -in slip), one customer of the Bank namely Mr. Kirpal Singh came to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,100/ - in his saving account. The respondent who was assigned with the duty of entering the particulars of the depositors in scroll register and put the scroll number on the pay -in slip, filled up the pay - in slip for the customer and gave him the scroll number of the same but did not scroll the same in the scroll register. The said customer deposited the money with the cashier who gave him stamped receipt on the counter foil and posted the entry in his passbook but did not deposit the amount in the account of the said person. When the said fraud was detected, the respondent was requested by the account holder for reconciliation of the passbook with the ledger. When the amount did not tally, instead of bringing the matter to the notice of the Branch Manager, the respondent took the account holder to the ground floor of the branch and offered him Rs. 7,100/ - and advised him not to complain to Branch Manager thereby colluding with the cashier Mr. V.K. Verma in perpetuating the fraud. As the said act, as committed by the respondent, amounted to serious misconduct, the disciplinary authority of the Bank served a charge -sheet [CO:IRD:8144:89/343] dated 22.08.1989 on the respondent.

(3.) THE respondent preferred an appeal to the appellate authority on 16.04.1990 which was finally dismissed by the disciplinary authority vide order No. DP:ZO:LKO:5532/NP dated 12.09.1990 and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed.