VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 10th March, 1998 passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal( in short ' the Tribunal'), New Delhi, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a clerk-cum- cashier with the respondent bank. He was found involved in a fraud as an accomplice of one Jagbir Singh Yadav. An account was opened jointly by the petitioner and Jagbir Singh Yadav in Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred to this account by playing fraud with the petitioner bank. Out of sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5000/- came into the share of the petitioner, which was deposited by the petitioner in his own account. This fraud was discovered and an FIR was lodged against Jagbir Singh as well as petitioner under Section 420/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the petitioner and trial started against Jagbir Singh Yadav. Thereafter the bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.5.1979, observing that the petitioner bank had reasons to believe that the petitioner was associated in fraud with Jagbir Singh Yadav. The petitioner admitted his involvement in the fraud during the investigation and made a confessional statement to the police on 15.7.1974. He received half share out of the amount of Rs.10,000/-. Because of involvement of the petitioner in the fraud, bank has lost confidence in him and considered that it was not fit to retain him in the service of the bank. He was asked to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with due to loss of confidence.

(3.) An enquiry was conducted into the charges and after conducting the enquiry, it was found that the charge of loss of confidence was proved and the petitioner's service were terminated vide order dated 26.3.1980. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute but the Central Government refused to refer the same to the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner, against the order of the Central Government of refusing to refer the dispute, went up to Supreme Court. Vide an order dated 14th January, 1985, a consent order was passed and it was directed that the appropriate Government will make a necessary reference under Section 10 of the Act. As a result of this, following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal: