DARSHAN SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether misconduct bordering criminal transgression committed in a Bank by an employee bound by a fiduciary relationship between the customer and Bank has necessarily to be dealt with by putting the criminal law in motion, irrespective of financial loss not caused to the Bank? Or whether it would suffice to hold a departmental enquiry? This is the star argument raised in this writ petition which arises out of a departmental enquiry leading to the petitioner's dismissal from service on 6th Aug., 1996.

(2.) The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded in his report where charges levelled were proven. The petitioner submitted his reply to the report. The petitioner accused one R.K. Gupta, Manager said to be the mastermind behind the whole action taken against the petitioner. The evidence produced by the petitioner of the customers in whose accounts alleged misappropriation and irregularities were committed categorically admitted that the amounts alleged to be misappropriated, were received by him but were deposited later on. If this was not embezzlement or misappropriation, they most certainly tantamount to temporary embezzlement or misappropriation and that would be sufficient to bring home the charge.

(3.) Against the dismissal order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (for short the "the Labour Court") for determination. The Labour Court has answered the reference against the petitioner and in favour of the Bank and dismissed the case.