SURESH CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26.12.1972, the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the services of the respondent No. 2 Bank. In November 1992, he was still working as a peon when Smt. Raj Kali lodged her complaint on 22.11.1992 alleging that she had given Rs. 600/- to the petitioner for depositing in her savings bank account, but he did not deposit the same and made fictitious entry her pass-book. Exact allegations in this behalf are contained in the charge-sheet dated 17.6.1980, which was served upon the petitioner, alleging as under :-

(2.) The petitioner denied the charges by submitting his reply; departmental enquiry was ordered and the enquiry commenced on 21.11.1983. While this enquiry was in progress, Smt. Raj Kali addressed a letter dated 15.12.1983 to the Manager of the respondent Bank in which it was stated that she had not made any complaint on the basis of which enquiry was started and in fact, she had not given Rs. 600/- to the petitioner for depositing in her account. The Bank still decided to proceed with the enquiry. Enquiry proceedings were concluded on 22.3.1984 on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.5.1984 holding that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Show Cause Notice dated 30/31.07.1984 was served upon the petitioner. Personal hearing was also accorded. Thereafter, punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide orders dated 21.9.1984. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed on 6.5.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute. Dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the 'CGIT') with the following terms of reference:

(3.) Parties appeared before the CGIT. The petitioner filed his statement of claim to which written statement was filed by the respondent followed by rejoinder of the petitioner. Evidence was recorded. The learned Presiding Officer, CGIT, has given his award dated 28.12.1989 in the said ID No. 91/87 holding that enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in para 19.12(a) of the Bipartite Settlement Agreement and also that principles of natural justice were fully observed. He has, thus, held that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent Bank is legal and valid and fully justified. Challenging this award, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.