ANIL KUMAR JAGGI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On certain charges of misconduct imputed against a workman in a Nationalized Bank, after constituting an enquiry, the management imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for charge 1 and also the very same punishment for charge 2 and directed that the punishment for charges 1 and 2 shall run concurrently. The same order also provided that the employee, who was placed under suspension shall be treated as not spent on duty for any purpose whatsoever. This punishment was challenged by means of an appeal to the Appellate Authority which by the proceedings dated February 19,1988 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment. On a challenge after reference to the Labour Court, the Labour Court passed the impugned order stating that the Bank imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments for each charge with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not spent on duty was legal and justified and that the workman shall not be entitled to any relief.

(2.) The challenge to the award by the workman was on the ground that there had been really no misconduct that could be attributed to him but he had conceded to the charge only on an assurance that the management would impose a very lenient punishment. Even without reference to admission of the charge, there was no provision under the relevant Service Rules enabling the management to direct under the circumstances treating the suspension period as not spent on duty. The attempt of the learned counsel for the workman was also to show that the Labour Court while rejecting the reference had wrongly observed that the workman was liable to forfeit two increments for each charge as though four increments were to be cut for the alleged misconduct. The learned counsel would submit that the order of the Labour Court has been so construed by the management and hence it had applied seven incremental cuts namely, four increments for the alleged proof of two charges and three increments earned during the period of suspension from April 19, 1985 to August 29, 1988.

(3.) The first submission on behalf of the workman by the learned counsel Shri K.L. Arora was that the charge itself was nothing substantial but it was a case availment of priority deliveries of Bajaj Scooters against foreign exchange remittance which he obtained on two occasions, in the year 1976 and in the year 1981. According to him, the deposits had been made through the Foreign Exchange to the Bank but cash in rupee was withdrawn for personal use but re-deposited into the same account. Consequently, when the cheques had been prepared in the name of the scooter Company with endorsements that the cheques had been issued against foreign exchange remittances, there was no element of untruth in it and the charge was wholly ill-conceived. Although there was no loss to the Government since the Foreign Exchange had been remitted into India, there was no basis in assuming that he had committed any offence. As a matter of fact, according to the learned counsel, a FIR had also been lodged on the basis of a complaint given by the management but the complaint was referred, as no case having been established and that the workman was innocent.