KANGRA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. SEEMA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Industrial Adjudicator") deciding the preliminary issue "whether management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry against the workman?" against them, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the order dated 05.08.2017.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as an Office Assistant with the petitioner bank vide office memorandum dated 16.04.1996 and later on she was posted as Senior Assistant at Govindpuri Branch of the petitioner-bank. On 03.01.2007 a charge sheet was issued against her to the effect that she had misused her ID and wrongfully fed four entries in the month of July and August, 2006 in the bank computer. The respondent was suspended on 08.10.2006. Thereafter, one B.M. Malhotra was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the respondent. Since the enquiry was conducted in total violation of principles of natural justice and no procedure of domestic enquiry was explained to the workman at the start of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer behaved rudely and used indecent language against the workman, a representation was given by the respondent on 28.04.2007 to the General Manager of the petitioner. She also sent a reminder dated 27.08.2007. Vide letter dated 16.10.2007 Mr. Amrit Pal Singh was appointed as new Enquiry Officer in place of Mr. B.M. Malhotra. The respondent was issued another charge sheet on 10.12.2007 after 14 months of her suspension. The respondent replied to the charge-sheet on 19.01.2008 denying the charges. On 05.12.2008, the said Enquiry Officer gave his findings holding the respondent guilty of charges levelled against her. On 25.02.2009, Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner-bank had imposed the punishment of her dismissal from service.

(3.) Grieved of the dismissal order, the respondent approached the Industrial Adjudicator and filed her claim.