PURAN DASS Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioner has sought the quashing of award, dated 23.4.1993, Annexure P-1, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Judicial Complex, Second Floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh, whereby punishment of stoppage of seven increments, with cumulative effect, has been substituted for the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the Writ petitioner by his Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No.2, besides seeking certain other reliefs.

(2.) WRIT Petitioner, while working as Peon-cum- Chowkidar on the establishment of State Bank of Patiala, was placed under suspension in the year 1984 and was chargesheeted for committing three acts of misconduct, namely Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? he had accepted Rs.300/- from one Barfi Devi, a customer of the respondent-Bank, with instructions to deposit the same in her (Barfi Devi's) account but did not deposit the said amount of money in her account and instead misappropriated the same, he accepted money from various customers for being deposited into their respective accounts but did not deposit the said amounts of money nor did he refund those amounts to the customers and, third, he remained wilfully absent from duty. Regular enquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of all the charges in the course of the enquiry and thereafter major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. He approached the Central Government, which made reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide order dated 8.4.1988. Before the Tribunal, the representative of the petitioner did not challenge the merits of the case but only submitted for intervention by it (the Tribunal) in the punishment awarded, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, after noticing the various submissions made by the representative of the petitioner, ordered that instead of dismissal the petitioner be awarded punishment of stoppage of seven increments and be reinstated within four weeks from the publication of the award. The petitioner was held to be not entitled to back wages.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have denied the allegations that there was any delay in reinstating the Writ Petitioner or that his posting at a distant place is malafide. They have stated that the penalty has been imposed, in terms of the award of the Tribunal, and that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to any arrears, on account of back wages, as per award Annexure P-1.