PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SHRI MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned Award of 1st Feb., 2017 upholds the finding returned in the departmental proceedings against respondent, who had rendered 21 years of service as a Clerk and had superannuated on 31st Oct., 2015, and substitutes the penalty of dismissal from service with that of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for petitioner-Bank is on the ground that punishment of dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate and so, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) ought not to have interfered with the penalty of dismissal inflicted upon respondent as he was found to be having disproportionate assets of Rs. 5 lacs odd in his own name and in the name of his wife. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Devendra Swamy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (2002) 9 SCC 644 to submit that the penalty of dismissal ought to be restored. Reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench decision of High Court of Orissa in The Branch Manager, Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd, Gundichapada Vs. State of Orissa and Another, (2017) 152 FLR 372 to submit that if the integrity of an employee is found to be adverse, then the order of dismissal ought not to be substituted with order of reinstatement in service. Nothing else is urged on behalf of petitioner.

(3.) Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, documents on record and the decisions cited, I find that in Devendra Swamy (supra), punishment of dismissal was not interfered with because the delinquent employee was found to be earlier involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature, whereas in the instant case, respondent has an unblemished service record.