BANK OF INDIA Vs. KAMLAKAR VISHWAMBHAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -RULE. Returnable forthwith. The first respondent, who is an Advocate, has appeared in person. The first respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE first respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the Bank of India, which is the petitioner before the Court, in 1966. In 1975, he was promoted to the Officers Cadre but, subsequently on 8th March, 1976, he was reverted back to the Clerical Cadre at his request. On 24th October, 1987, the first respondent was placed under suspension on the charge of having misappropriated the funds of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 30,000/ -. A disciplinary enquiry came to be held thereafter, upon which, an order dated 2nd September, 1989 came to be passed, dismissing the first respondent since the charge of misconduct was held to have been proved. An industrial dispute was thereafter raised and referred to adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. On 14th February, 1997, the Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal and came to the conclusion that the finding of misconduct has been proved. It must be recorded that earlier, by a Part-I Award dated 18th August, 1995, the Industrial Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated by non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Consequently an opportunity was given to the employer, the petitioner Bank to lead evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct. Evidence was thereafter adduced before the Industrial Tribunal which by its award dated 14th February, 1997 held that the charge of misappropriation was proved. Consequently, the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the first respondent was held to be justified. Writ Petition No. 1363 of 1998 filed by the first respondent to challenge the award of the Tribunal is pending in this Court.

(3.) BY a file note dated 21st March/24th April, 1997, the Assistant General Manager, in the Mumbai Main Branch of the petitioner Bank, sought the approval of the Joint Zonal Manager in the Mumbai South Zone of the Bank for the forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the gratuity that is payable to the first respondent, being the extent of the financial loss suffered by the Bank. Though the first respondent was eligible to receive gratuity in the total amount of Rs. 49,110/- under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, forfeiture was sought to the extent of the loss which had been suffered which was Rs. 30,000/ -. On 13th May, 1997, the Joint Zonal Manager passed on Order recording that the services of the first respondent had been terminated for an act of gross misconduct due to which a loss of Rs. 30,000/- has been caused to the Bank. A decision was accordingly taken to recover the amount by forfeiting the said amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the gratuity of the first respondent.