DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD Vs. AZIM A CHARANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the Part-1 Award dated 3-2-2000 given by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II at Mumbai in Reference No. CGIT-2/45 of 1998.

(2.) THE Petitioner earlier operated as Development Co-operative Bank Limited but has been converted into a Joint Stock Company known as Development Credit Bank Limited w. e. f. 1-6-1995. The Respondent joined the predecessor of the Petitioner as a Clerk in 1979. He was progressively promoted as Supervisor, Assistant Officer and, in the year 1988 as an Officer. His qualifications are B. Com. LL. B. (Gen. ). The Respondent was also imparted training and was thus well versed in the Banking operations of various departments of the Petitioner-Bank. The Respondent was also the General Secretary of the Union and, therefore, had the opportunity to defend employees working in the Petitioner Bank in the enquiries. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent is an expert with regard to the rules and regulations of the Bank. The Respondent was working as an Officer at Mohammed Ali Road branch of the Petitioner Bank. On a number of occasions the Petitioner has reported for duty rather late. The Respondent has disobeyed the written instructions which were issued on 22nd June, 1995. By this letter he was directed to take charge of the Current Accounts Department. The Petitioner requested that the instructions be issued in writing. These instructions were issued to him in writing on 27th June, 1995 and 4th July, 1995. Thereafter by his letter dated 4th July, 1995 the Respondent is stated to have made false allegations against the Petitioner Bank. The Respondent also called upon the Petitioner Bank to clarify the nature of duties of the Officer's cadre to be performed in the Current Accounts Department. By letter dated 5th July, 1995, the Petitioner supplied the necessary list of duties to be performed in the Current Accounts Department by an Officer. The Respondent by his letter dated 9th July, 1995 informed the Petitioner Bank that the duties enumerated were not of an Officer but are managerial and administrative in nature and not connected with his designation. Since he was not working in that post he would not accept the duties and responsibilities. The Respondent did not take charge of the Current Accounts Department. He was reporting late for duty from 22nd June, 1995 till 1st July, 1995. The Respondent was also remaining absent without prior permission or intimation from 3rd July, 1995. On 14th July, 1995 the Respondent was asked to report for duty within 3 days. Respondent, however, by his letter dated 22nd July, 1995 alleged that he was being marked absent and not allowed to resume duties by the Petitioner Bank. He was insisting that he would report only to the Cash Book and Reconciliation Department and not to the Current Accounts Department. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Bank, therefore, decided to conduct an enquiry. A charge-sheet was issued on 7th September, 1995 to the following effect.

(3.) THE Reference of the Industrial Dispute made by the Central Government is as follows: