NARENDRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these writ petitions raise challenge to the award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the impugned award are that the petitioner- employee in Writ Petition No.8141/2018 had made an application for being appointed on a post in the clerical cadre with the respondent-employer. On 14.10.2008 the employee submitted his bio-data along with an attestation form. He gave various particulars as required in the form. Column 19 pertains to particulars of any prosecution/detention/fine/conviction awarded to the applicant while column 20 related to particulars of any proceedings pending against the applicant in any Court of law. The employee answered both the columns in the negative. On 05.01.2009 the petitioner was issued an appointment order on probation for a period of six months on the post of Assistant (Accounts and Cash) and he was directed to report at the Chandrapur branch of the employer. The employee accordingly joined his services on 09.03.2011. The employee submitted another attestation form to the employer. As per Column 12 thereof the details were sought as to whether the employee had been arrested or kept under detention or convicted by the Court of law for any offence. The employee answered the same in the negative. The employer thereafter sought verification of the information furnished by the employee. On 07.07.2011 a police verification report was received in which it was stated that an offence under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (for short, 'the Act of 1887') was registered against the employee and that case was pending in the Court. After receiving that information, the employer on 22.11.2011 issued a charge-sheet to the employee proposing to hold an enquiry against the employee for failure to disclose the aforesaid facts in the information furnished by him. The employee submitted his reply and thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the employee. After considering the enquiry report the employer on 25.08.2012 awarded punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits but without disqualification from future employment. The employee preferred an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 04.12.2012. The employee therefore moved an application before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). A reference was thereafter made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer found the departmental enquiry held against the employee to be legal and proper by observing that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter by the award dated 27.12.2017, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that there was no scope to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service as imposed by employer. However on the ground that the procedure was not followed in the departmental enquiry, monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement was awarded to the employee.