FRDERAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. T SREEKANTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of convenience of reference WP (C) 24901 of 2007 filed by the Employer / Management (which is the first case) is taken as the main case, where the interference made by the second respondent as per Ext. P7 Award, substituting the punishment of Dismissal by Discharge with superannuation benefits, even after arriving at a finding that the disciplinary authority was definitely justified in imposing major punishment (paragraph No. 10 of the Award) is subjected to challenge. WP (C) No. 35711 of 2007 is filed by the worker, challenging the very same Award, in so far as the second respondent has upheld the validity of the Enquiry and arrived at a finding that the misconduct stated as committed by the worker stands proved.

(2.) The worker was serving the employer Bank as a Typist Clerk and on 13/02/2003, he committed some serious misconducts as detailed in Ext. P1 charge memo. The charges levelled against the worker were that he behaved in a riotous, disorderly and indecent manner to a co worker and threatened him of dire consequences including to life in the presence of higher officials, colleagues and customers; that the conduct of the worker was quite unbecoming of a Bank employee; that the said action tarnished the image and good will of the Management before the public / customers and further that the delinquent employee behaved in an indecent manner to a co worker who was part time Sweeper. The worker was simultaneously suspended from the service as per the very same proceedings, also ordering domestic enquiry.

(3.) In the course of the enquiry, both the sides adduced evidence, oral as well as documentary. On completion of the enquiry, the worker was found guilty vide Ext. P2 enquiry report, a copy of which was forwarded to him giving an opportunity of hearing for proving his innocence, if any. After considering the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority proposed the punishment of 'dismissal' without notice in respect of the first charge and 'reduction of basic pay by one stage' in respect of the second charge. The explanation given by the worker as to the proposed punishment was found not acceptable and after considering the entire evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority arrived at a finding that the misconducts committed by the worker were proved and that the proven misconducts were very serious which deserved dismissal. Accordingly, the worker was dismissed from the service as per Ext. P3 order dated 23/02/2005.