IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI W.P.No.10896 of 2004 All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. 2.Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 762, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction of like or any other nature calling for records pertaining to the impugned order (Award) of the first Respondent dated 09.01.2003 forwarded by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour bearing No.F.No.I.D.No.97/2001 dated 4/7.4.2003 and quash the same directing the second Respondent to reinstate M.Rajangam, the workman with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : M/s.Vembadiyan For Respondents : Mr.Srinivasamoorthy for Mr.N.G.R.Prasad O R D E R
Challenge in this Writ Petition is the Award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.97/2001 dated 09.01.2003 whereby the Industrial Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of punishment dismissing the workman Rajangam from the services of the 2nd Respondent Bank.
2. Brief facts are that Workman Rajangam was appointed as Messenger in the subordinate cadre in 1983 in the 2nd Respondent Bank and was attached to their Nachalur branch. Savings Bank Account No.3386 in the name of Petitioner’s brother Krishnamurthy was opened on 28.11.1990 with Rs.25/-. A small loan of Rs.5000/- was sanctioned in the name of Petitioner’s brother Krishnamurthy on 30.11.1990 for provision shop and the same was credited to his S.B. Account No.3386. An amount of Rs.5029/- was debited to his account for issuing Bankers’ Cheque favouring Arunachalam Maligai. The above Bankers’ cheque of Rs.5029/- and another Bankers’ cheque of Rs.5015/- totalling Rs.10,044/- was credited to S.B. Account No.2263 of Arunachalam. Arunachalam had given withdrawal slip on 01.12.1990 for withdrawing Rs.10,044/- However, he has received cash of Rs.5015/- only. The balance of Rs.5029/- was said to have been received by the Petitioner from the Cashier. The above said act amounts to gross misconduct in terms of Para 17.5(d) and 17.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement between the Bank and its workmen. The Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet to the delinquent on 10.05.1993. A show cause notice was issued to the delinquent and in the personal hearing the delinquent Rajangam is said to have admitted his mistake stating that he has committed the same unknowingly and to sympathetically consider his case. By the order dated 27.04.1996, Petitioner was dismissed from 2nd Respondent Bank service with immediate effect. Onbehalf of delinquent, Union has raised the Industrial Dispute.
3. Resisting the Claim, 2nd Respondent Bank filed counter stating that the documents produced by the Management would show the irregularities committed by the delinquent. According to 2nd Respondent, enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed punishment of dismissal from service.
4. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Management marked documentary evidence Exs.M1 to M27. No oral evidence was adduced by both parties. Upon consideration of documentary evidence, Industrial Tribunal held that proper enquiry has been held and the charges levelled against the delinquent has been established. Industrial Tribunal further held that charge sheeted employee [Petitioner] himself has admitted his guilt before the Disciplinary Authority in the personal hearing and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service and the same is justified.
5. Heard Mr.M.Vembadiyan, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent.
6. Challenging the impugned Award, learned counsel for Petitioner has contended that even at the time of grant of loan to his brother, the workman has revealed that loanee is his brother and has also given authorisation that the monthly instalment of Rs.170/- per month each towards repayment of loan amount could be from his salary and it was only this background, the Branch has granted small loan to his brother. It was further contended that during personal hearing, 2nd Respondent Bank did not produce Mr.Subramanian Cashier at the Branch who allegedly made payment of Rs.10,044/- to Arunachalam Maligai and that the said Arunachalam who received payment of withdrawal slip was also not examined. Learned counsel for Petitioner would further contend that Industrial Tribunal failed to note that the delinquent was a Messenger staff of the 2nd Respondent Bank and belongs to poor Scheduled Caste community and since the workman volunteered and accepted the responsibility of repayment, no prejudice was caused to the interest of 2nd Respondent Bank at any time. It was further contended that delinquent’s brother has not made any complaint that the delinquent had misappropriated the proceeds of the loan of Rs.5000/- and that the workman himself has submitted suggestion for sanction of loan of Rs.5000/- to his brother could be a mistake unknowingly committed and the Industrial Tribunal failed to see that no prejudice or loss was caused to the 2nd Respondent Bank. Main contention of Petitioner is that loan amount sanctioned was a very small amount and that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate.
7. Learned counsel for 2nd Respondent Bank has submitted that there are number of documents relied upon by the Management to prove the irregularities committed by the workman. It was contended that enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and since the acts committed by the employee show moral turpitude on his part, the employee who committed misappropriation cannot be retained in service and any sympathy shown to him would be a misplaced one.
8. The issue was whether the delinquent enjoyed the loan proceeds sanctioned in the name of his brother Krishnamurthy. As pointed out earlier, Banker’s cheque of Rs.5029/- and another Bankers’ cheque of Rs.5015/- totalling Rs.10,044/- was credited to S.B. Account No.2263 of Arunachalam and that the said Arunachalam had given withdrawal slip on 01.12.1990 for withdrawing Rs.10,044/-. The said Arunachalam received cash of Rs.5015/- only and the balance of Rs.5029/- was received by the delinquent employee from the Cashier. It is stated that the usual practice of the Bank is the Cashier will note denomination of the cash given to the customer on the back side of the withdrawal slip or cheque. In this case, Cashier has noted denomination for Rs.5015/- only and the balance of Rs.5029/- was noted as adjustment which shows that the loan proceeds were obtained by the delinquent. Petitioner himself has given a letter on 30.11.1992 to the Bank authorising to deduct a sum of Rs.170/- per month towards the loan sanctioned to his brother’s name. On 29.06.1992, Rs.100/- was recovered from the salary of the delinquent towards the loan account and the delinquent himself remitted a sum of Rs.5840/- and closed the loan account. Verification of the records and the enquiry reveals that amount of Rs.5840/- has been adjusted from the proceeds of another Agri Card Loan No.1692 granted to one Mariappan on the same day. Based upon the materials and also the letter of authority given by the delinquent, Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that amount of Rs.5000/- was only enjoyed by the delinquent, even though, the loan was sanctioned in the name of his brother.
9. During enquiry, Management examined MW1-Seetharama Bhat, Officer of Inspection Department and MW2-Nagarajan, Manager of Nachalur Branch and also produced documents M1 to M10 to prove the irregularities committed by the delinquent. During personal enquiry, since the delinquent himself has admitted the commission of the act and prayed for leniency, the delinquent cannot contend that the Management ought to have examined Arunachalam and Cashier Subramanian who issued the cheque. Based upon the evidence, Enquiry Officer held that delinquent name has been entered in the small loan ledger as reference and delinquent has also given letter of authority to deduct the amount from his salary. In the personal hearing, delinquent has prayed for sympathetic consideration and not to impose punishment of dismissal from service.
10. Industrial Tribunal has rightly held that proper enquiry has been held and that the charges levelled against the concerned workman has been established. Industrial Tribunal has also pointed out that delinquent has admitted his guilt before the Disciplinary Authority and taking into consideration of all these aspects, Industrial Tribunal held that punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled.
11. It is fairly well settled that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. When the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Industrial Tribunal are based on evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot interfere.
12. Coming to the quantum of punishment, it is settled law that Courts/Tribunal cannot interfere with the question of imposition of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate. Observing that Court is not a Court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of punishment, in (1996) 3 SCC 750 [State of U.P. and others v. Nand Kishore Shukla and another], the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“7. It is settled law that the court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the misconduct proved against him. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the court. The only question is whether the disciplinary authority would have passed such an order. …..”
13. In 2006 (7) SCC 212 [State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde], the Supreme Court held that Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to preserve the interest of the Bank. In such cases, sympathy or generosity is not permissible. Having regard to the nature of charges, it cannot be said that punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate warranting interference. Industrial Tribunal has rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Writ Petitioner has not made out any substantial ground to interfere with the order of Industrial Tribunal.
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
bbr