STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. TARUN KUMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dtd. 15/10/2012 (Annexure P/15) and award dtd. 16/7/2014 (Annexure P/16) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short "CGIT") in case No. CGIT/LC- 241/1997, whereby, the order dtd. 6/9/1995 imposing punishment of termination of the respondent-workman, has been set aside and the respondent- workman has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back wages.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent/workman was appointed in the petitioner-Bank on 1/9/1975 on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. He was confirmed in service w.e.f 1/3/1976. On account of some financial irregularities relating to withdrawal of certain amount, a charge sheet dtd. 11/3/1993 (Annexure P-1) was served on the respondent- workman, wherein, as many as 06 charges were leveled against him. The charges are mainly related to fraudulent withdrawal of certain amount with an object to take wrongful pecuniary advantage, causing loss to the Bank, utilizing official position and violating the rules- procedure applicable to the employees of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent-workman was required to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The respondent-workman denied all the charges vide communication dtd. 25/11/1993 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was directed to be conducted.

(3.) Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Branch Manager, Nawgaon Branch was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, whereas, Shri A. Shastri, Branch Manager, City Branch, Damoh was appointed as Presenting Officer. Five witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges against the respondent- workman. After departmental inquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority on 14/2/1995 (Annexure P-3), wherein, all the charges were found to be proved against the respondent-workman. The disciplinary authority after considering the material available on record was, prima facie, of the opinion that the charges were found proved and, accordingly, an action was required to be taken against the respondent-workman. Pursuant to it, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent-workman on 25/4/1995 (Annexure P-4) proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority also provided opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent- workman. Being satisfied with the material available on record against the respondent-workman, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment dtd. 6/9/1995 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman preferred an appeal (Annexure P-8) which has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dtd. 8/11/1995 (Annexure P-9).