RAJINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was dismissed after inquiry in which three charges were proved against him. The charge was committing acts of misconduct in fraudulently withdrawing money from subscribers' savings Bank accounts maintained by the respondent-State Bank of Patiala where the petitioner worked in the capacity of a Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper. The charge sheet was based on two complaints made by account holders Gurnam Singh and Angrej Kaur in the years 1996 and 1997. The report was considered and the petitioner was awarded penalty of dismissal from service without notice in terms of para. 21 (iv) (a) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February, 1995 read with the provisions of Sastry/Desai Awards for withdrawing payments from the Bank accounts of the two complainants. He was placed under suspension on 7th January, 1997 and was dismissed on 31st July, 1998 when the disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry report.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.179 of 15th September, 1999 challenging the order passed on the basis of the inquiry report dated 13th May, 1998. The suit was contested by the Bank. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2001 held that the dispute between the parties involves recognition, observance or enforcement of the rights or obligation created by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the workman had been dismissed from service on account of a charge of fraud levelled against him then as per the Bipartite Settlement which governs the condition of service of the plaintiff in the Bank, the dispute between the parties involved industrial rights. Since action was taken under the Bipartite Agreement the proper forum for the plaintiff was to approach the Labour Court and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The order of the Civil Judge was not appealed against.

(3.) Then the petitioner invoked his remedy before the Labour Court by serving a demand notice on the Bank on 6th December, 2001 as mentioned in para. 9 of the pleadings. The dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, U.T., Chandigarh by the appropriate Government vide reference order dated 13 th September, 2002 to adjudicate the issue whether the State Bank of Patiala was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service. The issue of fairness or unfairness in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings was decided as a preliminary issue vide order dated 4th August, 2009. The Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by the Bank was fair and proper and was perfectly in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The Labour Court rightly separated the two principles involved; One, of the inquiry being fair and proper and the other being as to the correctness or the perversity of the decision making process in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal and on this basis the trial proceeded with the remaining trial. Both the parties were afforded adequate opportunity to adduce evidence on perversity or otherwise of the inquiry proceedings for the first time before the labour court and to contradict and support the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings, to test proportionality of punishment inflicted. The evidence was recorded. An opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the parties. The entire inquiry file was made part of the record.