STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. REETA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the correctness and validity of order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure- P/12) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby the reference made to it by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under:-

(2.) The facts of the case in a narrow compass are:- That the respondent/employee was working as a Deputy Head Cashier at Khargone Branch in the petitioner's Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.06.1985 (Annexure-P/1) levelling two charges and thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which the Enquiry Officer submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority holding both the charges found proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter passed an order of punishment on 26.11.1986 (Annexure-P/5) dismissing the respondent from service.

(3.) The order impugned passed by the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioner/Bank by filing the instant petition mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the reference by reassessing the sufficiency of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that once the enquiry is held legal and valid, the scope of interference by the Tribunal is very limited to the extent of examining as to whether the punishment imposed upon the respondent is commensurate with the charge levelled or not. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank has placed reliance upon a case of State of Gujarat & another Vs. Bhanji Gopal Karchhar reported in (2016) 12 SCC 645. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred while reappreciating the evidence as it was sitting in appeal and also by weighing the sufficiency of the evidence. He submits that if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are seen, the same appear to be based on the principle of 'preponderance of probability'. As per learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank, being an employee of a financial institution it was expected from the respondent/employee to discharge its obligations with high degree of integrity. On the contrary, it was never expected from him to behave in a manner which would weaken the faith of the customers of the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that in view of the material produced by the prosecution during the course of enquiry and considering the statement of the charge-sheeted employee, charge No.1 was rightly found proved resulting in dismissal from service. The punishment inflicted upon the respondent cannot be said to be illegal and the order of dismissal in any manner, was not required to be interfered with, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.