BANK OF BARODA Vs. DEVSHI VALJI KUNDADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Bank has filed the present petition challenging Part-II and Final Awards passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai (CGIT). By Part-II Award dtd. 28/5/1997, the CGIT held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse. By Final Award dtd. 24/4/2012, the CGIT has set aside the order of dismissal from service dtd. 15/2/1993 and has directed reinstatement of the Respondent with 60% backwages.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner was formerly Dena Bank, a statutory corporation constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act VI of 1970. Dena bank has merged with Bank of Baroda. Respondent was impleaded as Typist-cum-Clerk and was posted at Dongri Branch of Dena Bank at the relevant time. It appears that on 14/9/1991, Respondent was asked to perform duties of Cashier on account of nonavailability of regular Cashier. It appears that shortage of cash of Rs.10,000.00 was detected with the Respondent on 14/9/1991. He was apparently transferred from Dongri Branch to City Regional Office. In order not to have any blot on him, Respondent made good the shortage on his personal account.

(3.) Show cause notice dtd. 4/11/1991 was issued to Respondent alleging that he misappropriated Rs.10,000.00 out of Rs.50,000.00 received from the account holder M/s. S.M. Jewellers by deliberately indicating erroneous figures of denomination on the reverse of the pay-in-slip. It was alleged that the Petitioner deliberately mentioned the cash particulars as Rs.50.00 x 200 = 10,000 instead of Rs.20,000..00 It was further alleged in the show cause notice that Shri. S.T. Suryawanshi, Clerk had reported late for duties and was advised by the Branch Manager not to sign the muster and to go home. That Respondent allowed Shri. S.T. Suryawanshi to sit with him in his cabin and handed over a cover/envelope containing two bundles of Rs.50.00 Notes totaling Rs.10,000.00 to Shri. Suryawnashi and with instructions to deliver the same at his residence. This is how the charge of misappropriation of Bank's money, commission of fraud on Bank and doing of act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank were leveled against the Respondent in the show cause notice dtd. 4/11/1991. Respondent refuted the charges by filing reply dtd. 7/12/1991, inter-alia, contending that he had already made good the shortage of Rs.10,000.00 and that as per the Manual, in case of shortages, if the concerned employee makes good the shortage, no further action is to be taken against him. He denied having handed over any monies to Shri. Suryawanshi. He also cried victimisation on account of his trade union activities.