K UMAR Vs. MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an employee of Syndicate Bank (hereinafter the bank). He was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings vide order dated October 27, 2009. Thereafter, he was proceeded against departmentally by the bank. A chargesheet was issued against him on November 18, 2009 by the Deputy General Manager and disciplinary authority, the respondent no.3. It was alleged therein that while the appellant was on leave on sick ground, he went to the PBMC Branch of the bank at Port Blair on September 23, 2009 during business hours and demanded the branch attendance register to be shown to him without any authority. He had questioned the authority of Shri Ramit Sengupta, Probationary Assistant Manager to mark one 2 Smt. Nadira, clerk of the PBMC Branch of the bank, absent on September 22, 2009 in the said register, although she remained absent without sanction of leave. It was further alleged that he had entered into an unwarranted argument with Shri Sengupta and shouted at him in filthy and unparliamentary words in the open hall of the branch premises in the presence of customers and the Branch Manager and in the process had also passed derogatory remarks against senior officials of the bank. It was also alleged that such attitude of the appellant indicated that his visit to the branch was pre-planned to create unpleasant scene to threat the bank officials. The acts of the appellant were viewed to be highly objectionable, subversive of office discipline, discourtesy shown to the superiors and tarnishing the image of the bank in the eye of the customers and the public, constituting misconduct as per provisions of the bipartite settlement (memorandum of settlement dated April 10, 2002). Consequently, the appellant was charged with "riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank " vide clause 5(c) and "doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank " vide clause 5(j) of the aforesaid bipartite settlement. The chargesheet referred to the complaint dated September 23, 2009 of Shri Sengupta addressed to the Regional Office of the bank at Chennai and the covering letter of the Branch Manager dated October 05, 2009, whereby the aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the General Manager, Regional Office of the bank at Chennai.

(2.) THE appellant having denied and disputed the material allegations leveled against him in the chargesheet, an enquiry 3 followed. Three witnesses deposed as management witnesses while the appellant himself, the said Smt. Nadira and two others deposed as defence witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated May 28, 2010 holding that the charges leveled against the appellant have been conclusively proved during the enquiry. The report was forwarded to the appellant vide a letter dated June 06, 2010 inviting his response thereto. The appellant in his letter dated July 19, 2010 alleged that the report of enquiry is totally one sided and prepared with ulterior motive to malign him. The report of enquiry and the response of the appellant were considered by the disciplinary authority and by his notice dated August 07, 2010, he conveyed to the appellant that he concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct. It was, accordingly, proposed to award the appellant the punishment of "reduction in basic pay by two stages for a period of two years ". The appellant was called upon to attend personal hearing on the proposed punishment on August 28, 2010. The appellant submitted a written reply in response to the notice of hearing dated August 08, 2010 and prayed that the finding of the Inquiry Officer and concurrence therewith by the disciplinary authority, as recorded in the aforesaid notice, may be reviewed/recalled on the ground that clear evidence pointing to innocence of the appellant was overlooked and that there was clear violation of principles of natural justice in proceeding against him. The disciplinary authority upon consideration of the said written reply passed the final order of punishment dated September 13, 2010. In modification of the proposed punishment, 4 the appellant 's basic pay was reduced by two stages for a period of one year and it was further ordered that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty and that he would not be entitled to any back wages/notional increment/consequential benefits whatsoever during the period of suspension other than what has been paid to him as subsistence allowance.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the appellant attempted to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by approaching the Central Labour Commissioner by writing a letter dated April 27, 2011. However, the parties to the dispute could not be ad idem and hence the proceedings ended in failure. The failure report was forwarded to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi by the Conciliation Officer but the Central Government did not make any reference for adjudication.