FRANCIS Vs. BANK OF COCHIN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a checking clerk in the Kaloor Branch of the 1st respondent bank, was dismissed from service on 10-7-1978 after a domestic enquiry finding him guilty on the charges framed against him based on a complaint Ext. P7 dated 28-9-1976 by a depositor in the bank. The 1st respondent bank was later amalgamated with the State Back of India impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the O. P. On receipt of the complaint Ext P7 the Manager of the bank issued a memo Ext. P1 to the petitioner calling for explanation for the unauthorised withdrawal of Rs. 11,100/- from the savings bank account of the complaint on 31-5-1976. It is stated in Ext. P1 that on verification of the relevant records it was noticed that a spare cheque leaf was issued by the petitioner on 28-5-1976 and the same was utilised for the unauthorised withdrawal which was seen checked by the petitioner before payment was effected. Ext. P2 dated 1-10-1976 is a copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner wherein it is stated:-

(2.) The petitioner submitted Ext. P9 statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal and the management submitted its written statement, a copy of which is produced as Ext. R1. The Tribunal after adjudication passed Ext. P10 award dated 15-6-1981 wherein it is found that the domestic enquiry was just and fair, it was not vitiated by any of the circumstances alleged by the petitioner and was perfectly in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It was also found that the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry were based on evidence and cannot be assailed. On these findings the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the petitioner was fully justified and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext. P10 award as one passed in violation of natural justice on two grounds viz., (1) the Law Officer who conducted the domestic enquiry is an officer lower in rank than the Personnel Officer who was the presenting officer on behalf of the management, and (2) the petitioner's prayer for the services of a lawyer to defend him was wrongly rejected by the law officer at the domestic enquiry.