K SAMINATHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner while working as a Clerk in the second respondent/bank was served with a charge memo dated 16.8.1983, alleging that he had been indulging in abusive and false propoganda against the management and had been spreading false rumours against the management and that his activities had resulted in the degradation of the reputation of the Bank. The petitioner furnished a reply on 25.8.1983 refuting allegations. Another charge memo dated 3.12.1983 was also served on the petitioner alleging that while he was working in Karambakurichi branch, he had made several wrong entries in the accounts of the branch and had thereby caused loss to the Bank.

(2.) According to the Bank, a domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges after due notice to the petitioner. But he was refusing to participate in the enquiry and therefore, an ex parte enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, by order dated 24.3.1984 he was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed and the appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. He raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.303 of 1986 and subsequently transferred to the Labour Court, Tiruchy, as I.D.No.8 of 1992. While dealing with the issue as to whether the domestic enquiry had been properly and validly conducted, by order dated 31.5.1991, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry had not been properly conducted. The management was directed to adduce proper evidence before the Labour Court and on a full-fledged enquiry and taking into account the evidence let in by both sides, the Labour Court concluded that the order of dismissal was valid. Hence, the above writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award and to direct reinstatement of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for the employee contended that the entire action against the writ petitioner was due to vindictive and mala fide reasons arising out of the circumstance that the petitioner was the General Secretary of the employees' Union of the Bank which was affiliated to A.I.B.E.A. As an active office-bearer he was espousing the cause of the Bank on several occasions in effective manner and dealing with only the labour policies and actions of the Bank. In the said context, he has been sending representations to the management and raising demands on behalf of the Union. The management finding the petitioner uncompromising in his actions, had taken a very vindictive attitude against him. The very nature of the first charge against the petitioner would expose the real motives of the management namely, that he had defamed or brought down the image of the Bank by sending a Letter dated 6.7.1983. All that he was doing was to point out the misdeeds of the management in the capacity of a General Secretary of the Union. He was commenting only about the commissions and omissions of the management as regards certain issues pertaining to the labour and not personally against any Officer of the Bank. The sequence of events would clearly disclose mala fides on the part of the Bank. Being irked by the Trade Union activities of the petitioner, the Special Officer had made defamatory and abusive remarks against the petitioner in his personal file in an unjustified manner. The petitioner had caused the issue of a lawyer's notice on 5.8.1993 calling upon the Special Officer to withdraw the said remarks. By a reply dated 16.8.1983, the Special Officer, through his Advocate, had taken a very curious stand that he does not remember to have written in the file in the manner stated by the petitioner and that the connected file was missing and at any rate there was no malice as alleged. This was immediately followed by the first charge memo on the same date viz. 16.8.1983 and the petitioner pointed out in his reply that the comments made by him about the functioning of the Bank was only on behalf of the Union pertaining to the interest of the Labour. The management was fully convinced that they have no case to substantiate the first charge and therefore propped up the second charge after fishing out the past account books, making much out of the small errors and discrepancies for which the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible. The entire episode betrays absolute mala fides.