DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Management seeks for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/ Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I. A. No. 77 of 2004 dated 14. 7. 2004 in I. D. No. 74 of 2000 and to quash the same.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in 1998, the second respondent was working as a Cashier in the Adambakkam Extension Counter of the petitioner-Bank. On 11. 11. 1998, a charge sheet was issued to the second respondent alleging misconduct of misappropriation of money belonging to a customer, which act was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. On 28. 11. 1998, the second respondent is alleged to have given a reply, admitting his guilt and pleading for leniency on the ground that he had a family of aged parents, wife and two female children to support. He was inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments. Subsequently, he was transferred to Anna Nagar Branch.

(3.) EVEN thereafter, the petitioner was alleged to have indulged in a misconduct and on 8. 3. 1999, a charge memo was issued to the second respondent, charging with a misconduct under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19. 10. 1966, alleging that he had retained cash belonging to the customers with a dishonest intention. On 19. 3. 1999, the petitioner, however, replied stating that he had not retained the cash with any dishonest intention. He was asked to appear for an enquiry and according to the petitioner, the second respondent had admitted that he had initially made a false statement that he had not received any excess cash from one Prakash. It is further stated that even when he admitted the receipt of cash amount of Rs. 88,850/-, he made a false statement that the excess amount was kept in the cash cabin, when as a matter of fact, he had carried the said excess amount to his home and that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 88,850/ -. The Management contends that the second respondent had admitted the misconduct and that, based on his own admission, the enquiry officer gave his report on 16. 4. 1999, holding that the charges were proved. The second respondent was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 4. 5. 1999 and before the disciplinary authority, he only pleaded for leniency. After considering his representation, orders were passed on 17. 5. 1999, discharging the second respondent from service and while awarding the said punishment, the punishing authority had taken into account the earlier punishment awarded to the second respondent in December, 1998.