M. GOWRISHANKAR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present review applications have been filed to review the common order dated 17.10.2014 made in W.P. Nos. 2529 of 2013 and 24952 of 2012 respectively.

(2.) W .P. No. 24952 of 2012 was filed by the respondent bank / management questioning the award dated 30.4.2012 passed in I.D. No. 90 of 2006 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai. Questioning the same award, the workman / petitioner filed W.P. No. 2529 of 2013. The short facts which are necessary to decide these review petitions are as follows: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that one of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that on 15.7.2004 during office hours, the petitioner with the help of outsiders, hit the nail on the wall panel at the entrance hall of the Bank in the ground floor and hung a portrait of Dr.Ambedkar without prior permission from the management. But, during the enquiry proceedings before the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant General Manager, Mylapore Branch, Chennai, the petitioner as W.W.1 had stated in his evidence that on 15.7.2004, one Jayakumar brought the photo of Dr.Ambedkar in the branch office at 3.00 p.m. and he had further stated in his evidence that he had not seen the person who had hung the photo. But, the Enquiry Officer, without considering the evidence of W.W.1 properly, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner brought the outsiders into the bank premises and hit a nail on the wall of the bank and hanged a photo of Dr.Ambedkar without the permission of the superior officers. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to the finding of the appellate authority and submitted that the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that charge No. 7 has not been conclusively proved through oral or documentary evidence, whereas the Enquiry Officer while passing orders in the enquiry proceedings, has observed that charge No. 7 was partly proved. This contradiction found in between the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer and the appellate authority would show that the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner was not properly considered by the authorities concerned. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the circular dated 1.8.2002 issued by the Personnel and HRD Department, State Bank of India to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, submitted that the various charges levelled against the petitioner will not fall within the definition of 'gross misconduct' as defined under clause 5 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 between the management and their workmen. But, without considering all these aspects, the Enquiry Officer has passed an order of dismissal. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that absolutely there is no evidence as against the petitioner to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against him are proved. Therefore, the common order passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed by considering the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer.