SYNDICATE BANK Vs. SANJAY KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 23-2-2004 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman with 50% back wages.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the respondent/workman was working as a clerk with the petitioner bank. He was having a Saving Bank Account in the same branch where he was posted. Because he was working in the same branch he was well versec with the hank record ledgers etc. He made fake entries in the ledger containing his account and by falsification of account he withdrew an amount of Rs. 5410. When the matter was discovered, be was told by the bank that he had overdrawn amount from his saving bank account. He then deposited this amount back with the bank. However, a charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of falsification of account and withdrawal of amounts as a result of falsification of accounts. The petitioner gave reply to charge-sheet taking a plea that he had already deposited the amount, he was under the impression that now no action would be taken against him. He, however, denied the charges. An enquiry was initiated against the respondent into the charges. The respondent deliberately did not attend the enquiry. He was served a" notice of 28th July, 1992 asking him to appear on 8th August, 1992. He did not turn up on that day. The enquiry officer despite the protest from the management witnesses, who had come to depose, adjourned the enquiry to 21st September, 1992 and sent a notice to the respondent informing him about the next date of hearing and asking him to attend the enquiry on that date. The respondent again did not attend the enquiry on 21st September, 1992. The management witnesses were present, the enquiry officer posted the case at 2. 30 p. m. on the same date. The respondent did not attend the enquiry though he was attending the office on that day. The enquiry officer posted the enquiry for 22-9-1992 and on that day also the respondent did not appear, instead the respondent met the enquiry officer and told that he would BE attend the enquiry the enquiry officer made a note of his unwillingness to attend the enquiry and recorded the statement of witnesses. After recording the statement of witnesses, lie gave his report holding that the charges against the respondent of falsification of account and then withdrawal of money after falsification were proved. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report and giving opportunity to the respondent to make representation, imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service. Against the order of Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed. The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal in the following terms:

(3.) THE Tribunal after noting the pleas of both the sides observed that there appeared to be a haste in conducting the enquiry. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of management witnesses and gave his report. The workman was not given an opportunity to produce his witnesses. If the workman was not present on 21-9-1992 and 12-9-1992, the enquiry officer should have given a notice to the workman. Thus, The enquiry was conducted in haste. The Tribunal, further observed that no report of handwriting expert was called and the respondent did not work in the saving bank department so there was no question of manipulation in the record in his own hand-writing. The Tribunal held the enquiry as bad and directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages.