JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT Vs. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal dtd. 18/3/2019, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner bank and modified the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indore Division, Indore. The Joint Registrar had directed re-instatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages, which has been slightly modified by the Tribunal to re- statement with 25% back wages.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner bank has raised a singular contention before this Court that there was admission made by the respondent workman in response to the show cause notice issued to him and therefore, there was no requirement to conduct a regular enquiry, because there was admission of guilt by the respondent workman and in case of admission of guilt, regular enquiry is not mandatory to be conducted. By placing reliance on the letter dtd. 26/11/2015 issued by the respondnet employee whereby he admitted to have committed malpractices in bank accounts of two customers, namely Harihar S/o Vithal Sakarkar and Manisha Gambhir Chaudhary, it is contended that it was not required to conduct any further detailed departmental enquiry and therefore, the order of the Joint Registrar and of the Tribunal in setting aside the termination order only on the ground of non- observance of principles of natural justice and not conducting detailed departmental enquiry can not be given stamp of approval and these orders deserve to be set aside. As alternative argument, learned counsel for the petitioner bank also argued that if there was any defect in the enquiry, then at the most the matter could have been remanded back to the bank, but even that liberty has not been given to the bank by the Joint Registrar and the Tribunal.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has not only considered that no departmental enquiry was carried out, but has also considered that indeed a detailed enquiry was required to be carried out, because it is required to be examined that what was the actual scandal which took place and how many employees were involved in the scandal and only making one low paid employee as an scapegoat would not serve any purpose and therefore, the order passed by the Joint Registrar as well as the Tribunal are valid and the Tribunal has not erred in slightly modifying the back wages from 50% to 25%, which is just to do complete and equitable justice between both the parties.