PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. DURGA DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the employer) is directed against the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-curn-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated June 20, 2002 whereby he has held that the action of the employer in dismissing the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) from the bank's services is not justified and has ordered the reinstatement of the employee into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits including seniority etc. The employer has also been held liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the back wages from the date they became due and payable.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the, case are that the employee joined the services of the employer in the year 1978. He was posted at Shimla in 1982. On August 9, 1983 the CBI registered a case against the employee under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 IPC. The allegations, in brief, against the employee were that he has been filling in applications for grant of loan on behalf of certain bogus parties and had himself signed some of the documents on behalf of the so called loanees and misutilized the loan amounts. It was also alleged that he had been instrumental in having a loan sanctioned in favour of one lady who was not entitled to the said loan. The police case was in respect of loan of one Sh. Suresh Chand.

(3.) After the criminal proceedings were started the employee was suspended on March 28. 1983. He was charge-sheeted on April 25, 1983 and disciplinary proceedings were started against him. Since the first charge in the disci-plinary proceedings related to the case of Suresh Chand, was covered by the criminal proceedings the Inquiry officer held the said charge in abeyance pending conclusion of the criminal trial. Another charge levelled against the employee was that he had destroyed the bank records and the Inquiry Officer held that this charge had not been proved. The other two charges levelled against the employee were; (i) that he had filled in an application in the name of one Sh. Jagdish Chand Sharma with wrong information to defraud the bank. It was alleged that he has signed the guarantee letter of Jagdish Chand Sharma by signing as one Sh. S.S. Thakur. The bank also alleged that the employee had withdrawn the loan amount of Rs. 5,000 by impersonating as J.D. Sharma, and (ii) that the employee had knowingly given wrong information with regard to one Smt. Parkasho and had sanctioned her loan even though she was not entitled for the same. The Inquiry Officer held that these charges stood proved against the employee. The inquiry was concluded in November, 1985 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on March 13, 1986.