UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 25.7.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3718 of 2006 (United Bank of India versus Union of India & others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Patna, has been upheld. The Bank had dismissed the employee (respondent no. 6 herein) on account of fraud and misappropriation of funds in the Bank, and the punishment has been substituted by the learned Tribunal by a lesser one.

(2.) We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no. 6, at the relevant point of time, was working as a Typist-cum-Clerk in the appellant bank. The Bank noticed that he had opened fake account in the name of one Asha Devi, a fictitious person, and the writ petitioner was transferring amount from other accounts. This was detected in the Bank, and respondent no. 6 promptly restored the amounts to their respective accounts. The bank initiated departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 6, leading to his dismissal from service. This was followed by Reference case no. 10(c) of 2005, which was disposed of by award dated 30.12.2005, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. The learned Tribunal found the charges to be proved, but reduced the punishment from the order of dismissal to that of lowering down by two stages in the basic pay that he was getting at the time of his dismissal. The Bank challenged the same by preferring the writ petition, which has been dismissed.

(3.) It appears to us that the Tribunal agreed with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Inquiry Officer that had found him guilty of misappropriation of funds. However, the learned Tribunal also observed that it was perhaps a case of bona fide error leading to alteration in the punishment. We feel that the learned Tribunal was not justified in disagreeing with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Inquiry Officer. It does not appear to us to be a case of bona fide error, but was really a case of well thought-out plan to divert funds from other accounts to a fictitious account opened by him. In such a situation, reduction in punishment also becomes a case of uncalled for interference. The learned Tribunal also seems to have given weightage to the domestic situation in the employees family, which we once again feel to be a wholly unjustified ground to dilute the guilt of the employee. Law is well settled that needless compassion should not be injected into judicial proceedings. We do not agree with the order of the learned Tribunal nor that of the learned Writ Court. However, we would have interfered with the order of the learned Tribunal but we refrain from doing so because the employee has already reached the age of superannuation way back in the year 2007.