STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. G D SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 21st July, 2004 in ID NO.104 of 1996 whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") came to conclusion that the findings of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were misleading, imaginary and misconceived and so the same cannot be sustained. He ordered for reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and also directed that 50% of the back wages may be recovered from disciplinary authority and appellate authority as they did a wrong in passing the dismissal order and caused loss to the bank.

(2.) In brief,the facts are that the respondent was working as a Head Clerk at Modi Nagar Branch of the petitioner bank. The petitioner received complaints from its customer regarding his cheques and drafts not having been credited to his account. After holding a preliminary enquiry about the complaint, the petitioner bank found that respondent Mr. G.D Sharma was involved in a large scale fraud by opening fictitious accounts and depositing the drafts of the customers in these accounts and then withdrawing the money from the accounts. Following charge sheet was served upon the respondent G.D. Sharma on 6th April, 1990:

(3.) The respondent denied the charges and an inquiry was held into the charges by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer, after recording evidence of both sides, gave a report holding that the charges levelled against the respondent were not proved. The inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry officer's report, disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer and opined that the misconduct was sufficiently proved and since the misconduct was serious and prejudicial to the interest of the bank, it warranted capital punishment(dismissal from service). Detailed reasons were given by the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the inquiry officer's report and a show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him as to why punishment of dismissal be not imposed on him. He was also given an opportunity for personal hearing. The respondent gave reply to the show cause notice of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after giving personal hearing to the respondent and after considering the reply, passed a final order holding that the misconduct against the respondent stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal of respondent without notice. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority heard the respondent and after hearing him, maintained the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the respondent raised an industrial dispute against the action of management in dismissing him which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal in following terms: