Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank … vs Jagdishchandra & Ors on 21 February, 2001

Supreme Court of India
Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank … vs Jagdishchandra & Ors on 21 February, 2001
Author: S N Variava
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, S.N. Variava.
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1395  of  2001



PETITIONER:
ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARIYADIT

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
JAGDISHCHANDRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21/02/2001

BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & S.N. Variava.




JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J

Leave granted.

Heard parties.

This Appeal is against an Order dated 18th January,
2000. Breifly stated that facts are as follows :

Respondent No. 1 was employed by the Appellant Bank as
a Samiti Sevak. A show cause notice was issued to him to
explain certain financial irregularities and embezzlement of
monies by not depositing loan amounts recovered from the
members. On receipt of the show cause notice Respondent No.
1 made good to the Bank the amounts. Respondent No. 1 did
not reply to the show cause notice. Services of the
Respondent No. 1 were, therefore, terminated on 10th
August, 1977. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit under Section
55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act,
1960, for setting aside the order of dismissal. Respondent
No. 1 claimed the reinstatement with back wages. The
Assistant Registrar held on evidence that the Respondent No.
1 was guilty of the conduct alleged. However, the Assistant
Registrar noted that there had been no inquiry before
services were terminated. The Assistant Registrar therefore
declared the dismissal as illegal and directed reinstatement
but without back wages. On Appeal by the Appellants the
order of reinstatement without back wages was maintained.

On further Appeal to the Board of Revenue it was held
that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to back wages. The
Writ Petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the
impugned order dated 18th January, 2000. It was held that
once it was held that services were terminated unlawfully
then as a necessary consequence the employee would be
entitled to back wages.

In our view the Order passed by the Assistant Registrar
was correct. On facts it had been found that the Respondent
No. 1 had embezzled certain monies. The monies were
returned by him only after the show cause notice was issued
to him. His termination was set aside only on technical
grounds inasmuch as no inquiry was conducted. Under such
circumstances the Assistant Registrar correctly did not
award any back wages. In our view, on facts of this case,
the order directing payment of back wages cannot be
sustained.

Accordingly we maintain the order of reinstatement but
set aside that portion of the Order which directs payment of
back wages.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall
be no Order as to costs.

(D.P. MOHAPATRA)

(S. N. VARIAVA)

February 21, 2001.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *