UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. K K SALIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employee in the present case, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1997 filed by the employer, was a Special Assistant in the service of the Union Bank of India. A charge-sheet dated 6th July, 1984 was issued to him, in which a disciplinary enquiry into a charge of misconduct was proposed to be held. The charge against the first respondent was that while in the employment of the bank, he had fraudulently enrolled 84 members in the guise of floating a Co-operative Housing Society. As the Chief Promoter, the first respondent was alleged to have collected an amount of Rs. 7. 20 lakhs by cheque and in excess of Rs. 1 lakh in cash over a period of 6 years. (These members who were enrolled, it is common ground, were employees of the Bank ). The charge-sheet recited that false assurances were given to the members to the effect that the clearance of the Government of Maharashtra had been received by the first respondent and on these assurances amounts were collected from the proposed members of the Co-operative Society. Since no progress was achieved in the fulfilment of the object of the society, the members requested the first respondent for a refund of their moneys and complained that despite their request, the moneys had not been refunded. One of the members of the Society Smt. V. J. Dsouza (who is, it is common ground, an employee of the Union Bank) was issued a cheque drawn on the Nariman Point Branch of the petitioner Bank, which was jointly signed by the first respondent and by the co-promoter of the Society, Shri K. A. Sirur, On three occasions the cheque was returned unpaid for want of sufficient balance in the account. A Joint Savings Bank Account was maintained at the Nariman Point Branch of the petitioner Bank into which the collections from the members were deposited. Out of a total amount of Rs. 4. 87 lakhs collected by the first respondent, an amount of Rs. 2. 82 lakhs was unaccounted and the account which was maintained at the Nariman Point Branch of the bank showed a balance of only Rs. 5/ -. The second charge against the first respondent was that he had entered into a business in the name and style of M/s. Harish Industries having its office at 170/133, Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad (West) and that he had invested the moneys which had been fraudulently collected from the members of the proposed society in the said business. The first respondent was accordingly charged with having committed gross misconduct consisting of (i) cheating; (ii) misappropriation; (iii) entering into and carrying on business without obtaining permission from the Bank; (iv) acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank; and (v) issuing cheques without sufficient balance in the Account.

(2.) THE disciplinary enquiry which was held against the first respondent culminated in a finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges against the first respondent were proved. On 15th September, 1984, the penalty of dismissal came to be imposed upon the first respondent. The departmental appeal preferred by the first respondent was rejected. The appropriate Government, in the present case, the Central Government, upon a demand made by the workman made a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the dispute raised by the first respondent in regard to the order of dismissal from service that was passed against him.

(3.) BEFORE the Central Government Industrial Tribunal the submission which was urged on behalf of the workman was that the charge of misconduct was outside the purview of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the petitioner-Bank since the action complained of did not relate to the course of employment or arise out of the discharge of the duties of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal by its Award dated 20th December, 1994 accepted that submission and came to the conclusion that the action of the employer in dismissing the first respondent from service was not justified. On behalf of the employer it was sought to be submitted before the Industrial Tribunal that in the present case, the first respondent had invited the employees of the Bank by a general circular which was issued by him to make their contributions towards the proposed Co-operative Society in pursuance of which a large number of employees had in fact, made their contribution. Similarly, the fact that the first respondent had opened an account with the Bank in which the moneys which were collected had been deposited; and that the first respondent had issued a cheque from the account which had not been honoured and had been returned on three occasions, was sought to be urged as grounds in support of the submission that there was in the present case a sufficient nexus between the act of misconduct and the employment of the first respondent with the Bank. These submissions were rejected in the Part I Award of the Industrial Tribunal. In the Part II Award dated 8th July, 1995 the Industrial Tribunal considered the question as to whether the first respondent was entitled to the relief of reinstatement and backwages which had prayed. In its Part II Award, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the first respondent was employed in a Banking Institution and Banking being a sensitive industry the acts complained of against the first respondent were serious enough not to warrant an order of reinstatement or for that matter of backwages. The Industrial Tribunal noted that it was common ground that even until date an amount of Rs. 1. 80 lakhs had not still been refunded by the first respondent to his colleagues-the employees of the Bank from whom moneys were collected for the ostensible purposes of floating a Co-operative Housing Society which would give them a residential flat each. The Tribunal noted that the first respondent has collected a huge amount; that he had failed to get the society registered and residential flats constructed and, in the process had failed to return the moneys which had been received by him. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that this was an exceptional case in which the relief of reinstatement should be refused.