S MURUGADHAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein 5 with a direction to approach the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal from service.

(2.) THE short facts are as follows : The appellant/writ petitioner was an employee working as clerk-cum-typist of the Bank in its Coonoor Branch. In respect of certain acts of gross misconduct which he was reported to have committed, a charge-sheet dated July 4, 1984 was issued to him by the disciplinary authority. The charge against the appellant was that he obtained payment of a sum of Rs. 2,728/- by way of reimbursement in respect of journeys under leave fare concession allegedly performed by him partly by bus and partly by taxi, producing in support of his claim a trip sheet in respect of taxi No. TMV 5444 covering the period December 2, 1983 to December 11, 1983, which trip sheet was reported as a fabricated one. In other words, the charge against the appellant was that he received taxi fare from the bank in respect of journeys which he had not actually performed by Taxi on the strength of a false and fabricated trip sheet and that if proved would be an act of gross misconduct in terms of paragraph 521 (4) (f) of the Sastry Award (i. e. , doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank ).

(3.) THE appellant submitted an explanation in answer to the said charge sheet. As the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation, he ordered a domestic enquiry to be conducted in respect of the said charge. The appellant participated in the enquiry where evidence was recorded and the appellant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to defend. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority after going through the report of the enquiry and on proper consideration of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case concurred with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was guilty of having committed the act of misconduct covered by the charge sheet, proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from service without notice and issued notice to the appellant as to why the said punishment be not imposed on him. After affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing as regards the punishment of dismissal without notice, the second respondent imposed the said punishment by the order DIS/con : 786 dated September 16, 1985, the validity of which is challenged by the appellant in this writ petition.