ASHOK Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent - Bank, dated 28.9.2004 awarding the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the withdrawal of special allowance on permanent basis. The petitioner also challenges the order of the Appellate Authority dated 7.6.2006 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in Bank of Baroda in the year 198 The petitioner was promoted to the post of clerk-cum-cashier in the year 1988 and was then designated as a head cashier in the year 2001. A chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 7.1.2004 levelling as many as nine charges against the petitioner. The charges related to not balancing of the OBC, not attending the OBC work, not attending the dispatch work, leaving the office, not releasing the vouchers after balancing the account, not being careful in attending the duties and leaving the cash-counter at 3:15 p.m. on 30.10.2003 with an assurance to return after half an hour but returning at 5:45 p.m., thereby resulting into closure of cash at 6:15 p.m. The petitioner denied the charges. A departmental enquiry was conducted and six of the nine charges that were levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that the respondent - Bank was successful in proving that the petitioner had not performed the duties of balancing of OBC, had not attended the dispatch work, had not released the vouchers after balancing the amount, was not careful in attending the duties and had left the cash-counter at 3:15 p.m. on 30.10.2003 with permission to return after half an hour but had returned after 5:45 p.m., thereby resulting into closure of the cash at 6:15 p.m. After the petitioner was held to be guilty of misconduct as per the six charges that were levelled against him, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the special allowance payable to the petitioner was also withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority in the instant petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the service conditions of an employee are governed by the Bipartite Settlement and also the Shastri and Desai Awards, the provisions of the Standing Orders would have an overriding effect on the aforesaid Settlements and since the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is not provided under the Standing Orders, the same is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the Standing Orders would be applicable in this case. It is submitted by making a reference to the Bipartite Settlement between the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) and the Bank Employees and specially Clause - 6 thereof that only one punishment could be inflicted on an employee and since Clause - 6 (f) of the Bipartite Settlement provides for the punishment of stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect and since Sub Clause - (g) of Clause - 6 of the Settlement provides for the punishment of withdrawal of special pay, either of the two punishments could have been inflicted on the petitioner, more so, when between each clause the conjunctive word "or" is used. It is submitted that the respondents could have inflicted only one punishment on the petitioner and not two punishments of stoppage of increments and withdrawal of the special allowance.