CANARA BANK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.12.2001 in W.P. No. 1313 of 1996.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/petitioner is that the second respondent employee who was working as a Shroff, Uthamapalayam Branch of the Bank was charge sheeted for alleged misconduct within the meaning of Chapter-XI Regulation 3 Clause (I) of the Canara Bank Service Code. THE crux of the charge is that the second respondent by making wrongful entries in the record, had caused cash shortage of Rs. 50,000/- and had misappropriated the said amount. THE criminal complaint which was filed against him ultimately ended in acquittal by order dated 16.12.1988. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings commenced and charge memo was issued on 31.1.1989. An enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's findings and recommendations, the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the second respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, the employee raised a dispute in I.D. No. 33 of 1992. Though the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, by its order dated 19.9.1995, found that the charges were established; however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate him in service without continuity of service and without back wages and imposed a punishment of withholding four increments with cumulative effect. Hence, the bank filed the writ petition to quash the award passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE second respondent, by name, Krishnamoorthy was working as a Shroff in the Uthamapalayam Branch of Canara Bank. He was charge sheeted for alleged misconduct. THE charge is that the 2nd respondent, by making wrongful entries in the record, had caused cash shortage of Rs. 50,000/- and also had misappropriated the same. A criminal complaint filed against him in this regard ended in acquittal by order dated 16.12.1988. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings commenced and charge memo was issued on 31.1.1989. THE Deputy General Manager was the disciplinary authority. He, accepting the Enquiry Officer's reports and findings, had dismissed the second respondent from service.