S JEGANNATHAN Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an award dated 1.4.2002 made in I.D.No.105 of 2001 on the file of the third respondent, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of clerk in State Bank of India, represented by the first and second respondents herein, with effect from 3.1.1998, the petitioner had preferred the above writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.04.2002 passed in I.D.No.105 of 2001 by the third respondent herein and quash the same and further directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with entire backwages along with all other attendant benefits.

(2.) In a nut shell, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in terms of paragraph 521 of the Shastri Award for certain alleged misconduct, which according to the respondents 1 and 2, are grave in nature; an enquiry was conducted; charges were held proved and an order of dismissal was passed on 3.1.1998, of course, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The misconducts alleged by the respondents in their final and revised charge sheet dated 30.11.1 996 was the subject matter of the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings and the charges read as follows, i.The petitioner passed vouchers for payment unauthorisedly. ii.The petitioner raised a withdrawal slip for a sum of Rs.354/- from his savings bank account No.S32 in S.B.I., Tiruchuli, eventhough he had only Rs.2/- to the credit of his account. iii.Instead of signing in the attendance register, the petitioner had written his grievances as to his inability to come to office at 10 ' O clock and that his seniority in the respondent bank was not properly appreciated. iv.The petitioner had written certain unwarranted comments in the day book to the effect that the management did not follow its own orders; nor respond to the orders of the Court. v.The petitioner cancelled the savings bank vouchers dated 23.7.1996 and 25.7.1996, when he had no power to do so. vi.The petitioner had cancelled the initials of the checking officials with respect to the savings bank ledger namely S.B.P1/41, 24.35281; 24/3545; 25/3665. vii.The petitioner shouted at the Branch Manager in louder voice on 1 5.2.1996, presuming that the branch manager refused to exercise his power when he approached him for renewing the overdraft facility. viii.The petitioner is in the practice to attend the office late everyday. ix.The petitioner came late on 18.7.1996, and however asked the branch manager to be punctual. x.The petitioner placed placards on 23.8.1996 with derogatory remarks on the officials of the bank. xi.The petitioner was working in the counter between 19.6.1996 to 24.6.1996 without wearing the shirt, spoiling the entire decorum of the bank and causing much embarrassment to the transacting customers as well as the staff. xii.The petitioner made some derogatory comments in the bank hall against officials of the local head office at Chennai. 3.1. But, the petitioner denied all the charges and contended that he never committed any of the above mistakes, neither made any derogatory statement against the officers concerned; nor shouted against the branch manager; nor used any harsh words against the officers as alleged in the charge sheet. According to the petitioner, the charges were not specific, but vague and he was constrained to protest inside the bank by discharging his duties, without wearing his shirt, as a peaceful demonstration. Similarly, the petitioner also explained that he made remarks in the attendance register expressing his grievance only as a mark of protest, as the respondent management failed to consider his request for due position in the bank inspite of his repeated requests; and as he was humiliated by frequent transfers viz., from Sattur branch to Manali in the year 1986, from there to Rajapalayam from 4.6.1992 and within two years to Thiruchuli from 1.6.1994, which caused much hardship to him.

(3.) The enquiry officer, however, rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner and in his report dated 18.11.1997, found all the charges were proved, based on which the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service by an order dated 3.1.1998.