STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RANJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioners -State Bank of India and two of its functionaries have sought judicial review of award dated 16.6.2004 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Chandigarh, whereby order dated 8th August, 1996 passed by petitioner No. 3, regarding dismissal of respondent Ranjit Singh as upheld by the Appellate Authority by order dated 15.11.1996, has been set aside and it has been ordered that respondent Ranjit Singh is to be treated on duty right from the date he was ordered to be dismissed from service.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be stated thus. Respondent Ranjit Singh passed his matriculation examination in the year 1986. In the year 1992, petitioner No. 1 sent a requisition, Annexure P -2, to Regional Employment Officer, Dharamsala for sponsoring candidates for appointment as messengers. As per this requisition, educational qualification was as under:

(3.) EVEN though respondent Ranjit Kumar was matriculate, at the time when form Annexure P -4 was filled in, he did not make mention of his having passed matriculation examination. Respondent was selected and offered appointment, vide Annexure P -5 dated 28.1.1994. He accepted the offer and joined as a Messenger. After the appointment of respondent, petitioners somehow came to know that he was in fact a matriculate and this fact he had not disclosed. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent for not disclosing that he was a matriculate, which fact would have allegedly rendered him ineligible for the post of Messenger. Inquiry was conducted. Respondent took the plea, in the course of disciplinary proceedings, that he had appeared for matriculation examination in the year 1986 and then left his village and did not come to know till he appeared for the interview for the post of Messenger, whether he had passed the matriculation examination, or not. On the culmination of departmental proceedings, respondent was dismissed from service, vide order Annexure P -9, and departmental appeal against that order was dismissed vide order, Annexure P -10. Respondent then approached Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court at Chandigarh. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order.