STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Bank of India represented by its Deputy General Manager, Coimbatore has brought this writ appeal, having been aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 23/12/2014 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.23923 of 2007, in and by which the award dtd. 18/8/2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short, "the Industrial Tribunal") in I.D.No.117 of 2005, setting aside the punishment imposed against Mr.B.Muthukumar, the second respondent herein as illegal, was confirmed.

(2.) Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank argued that when the charge-sheeted employee, Mr.B.Muthukumar was working as Assistant at Ketty Valley Branch, he had committed several misconducts during the period 1999-2001, therefore, he was placed under suspension during July, 2001, because he raised fictitious credits in various savings bank accounts and posted extraneous credits in the ledger accounts and also fraudulently prepared withdrawal forms forging the signatures of the account holders and passed the same for payments and unauthorisedly obtained payments from the payment cashier. Moreover, the second respondent also raised fictitious entries in the STDR and STDR interest accounts with a view to avoid detection of fraudulent withdrawals made by him in various savings bank accounts; that he had destroyed the account opening forms and transaction sheets and also destroyed the account opening form and ledger sheet pertaining to an inoperative savings account; that he had also destroyed the ledger sheet of savings bank account holder Smt.R.Chandra upto February, 2000, as a result, he withdrew the amounts and made fictitious credit entries in the customers accounts. Hence, charges, numbering 12, were framed against him. After the explanation furnished was found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed who, in the domestic enquiry, held that except two charges, the other charges have been proved and thereafter, the disciplinary authority also, concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer on all the charges except one charge, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the delinquent. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.117 of 2005. On receipt of the reference, the first respondent, framing the following two issues,

(3.) Arguing further, Mr.S.Ravindran submitted that when the appellant Bank examined 11 witnesses before the enquiry officer and marked 182 documents, the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal failed to refer to any of the witnesses or the documents. Moreover, when the second respondent did not even give any evidence before the enquiry officer in proof of his stand taken in the explanation, the Industrial Tribunal is not justified in brushing aside the well considered findings of the enquiry officer, more particularly, when the enquiry officer has given cogent and convincing reasons, finding him guilty. Taking support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T.Mani, (2005) 3 SCC 254, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that once the domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the Appellate Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. Moreover, the Industrial Tribunal has come to a wrong conclusion that there is no iota of evidence to prove the charge of forgery by the second respondent, ignoring the evidence adduced by the appellant before the enquiry officer. Again assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge, learned Senior Counsel argued that when the Industrial Tribunal has only elicited the contentions made on behalf of the second respondent in paragraphs 8 & 11 of the award, the learned single Judge, without application of mind, has erroneously accepted the said contentions as the findings of the Industrial Tribunal, while dismissing the writ petition. When the Industrial Tribunal has not found anywhere that the second respondent committed the misconduct at the instance of higher officials, the learned single Judge has held that at the instance of the higher officials, the second respondent has committed the misconduct. Without any evidence, the learned single Judge has given a finding that a set of officials were involved in the misappropriation and they were let off with the minor punishment, whereas the second respondent alone was imposed with the punishment of dismissal, when it is nobody's case that the officials were involved in the misappropriation. Therefore, when the award of the Industrial Tribunal itself is perverse and suffers from manifest errors of law, the learned single Judge, ignoring completely this vital aspect, has wrongly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Bank. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.