Employers in relation to the Management of the Punjab National Bank vs Madhubala Devi and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Challenging award dated 28.03.2014 in Reference Case No. 55 of 2009 whereby, the Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the respondent-Workman with 75% back wages, the present writ petition has been filed.

The brief facts of the case are that, the workman namely, Jwala Prasad was appointed as Sub-staff of the petitioner-Punjab National Bank on 16.07.1973. The concerned workman was promoted as Head Cashier in the year, 2004. On 29.07.2006, the concerned workman was placed under suspension on the allegation of shortage of cash and a Charge Memo was issued to him on 27.02.2007. In the domestic enquiry, the concerned workman was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 19.02.2008, a copy of which was furnished to the delinquent employee on 12.03.2008. After considering the representation of the workman to the findings in the enquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 08.05.2008 for proposed punishment was issued to the workman. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of punishment dated 10.07.2008 discharging the workman from service with superannuation benefit and without disqualification from future employment. The workman preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2008, a copy of which was communicated to the workman by letter dated 18.12.2008. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the same was registered as Reference Case No. 55 of 2009. The Tribunal passed final award dated 28.03.2014 directing the management to reinstate the workman with 75 % back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner-Management of Punjab National Bank has approached this Court by preferring the present writ petition. After the hearing in Reference Case No. 55 of 2009 was concluded the concerned workman died leaving behind his wife and son.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents who are the legal heirs and successors of the concerned workman. It is stated that the charge against the workman was not proved. The workman deposited the short-fall in cash on the same day and therefore, no charge for short-fall of Rs. 8,000/- could have been pressed against the workman. In so far as, the charge of submitting forged T.A. Bill is concerned, it has not been proved. After detecting short-fall in cash, the workman lodged a case against one Enamul Tirue who was working as cleaner in the cash cabin and strong room. The said Enamul Tirue was caught red-handed in one of such incidents. Though a complaint was made by the workman against the said Enamul Tirue however, no enquiry was made on the complaint made by the workman.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-Punjab National Bank submits that the Tribunal erred in law in re-appraising the evidence brought before the domestic enquiry. The charge against the workman has been found proved on most of the counts and considering the representation/objection of the workman against the finding recorded in the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority passed order of discharge from service and the appeal preferred by the workman has also been dismissed. The Tribunal was not sitting in appeal over the finding recorded by the authorities and therefore, the Tribunal could not have recorded finding that the charge against the workman is not proved.

As against the above, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents who are legal heirs and successors of the deceased-workman reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. While supporting award dated 28.03.2014, the learned counsel submits that the punishment awarded to the deceased-workman was disproportionate to the charges levelled and found proved against him and therefore, no interference is required in the matter.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, I am of the opinion that award dated 28.03.2014 in Reference Case No. 55 of 2009 is liable to be interfered with. During the domestic enquiry, the workman was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The workman who was working as cashier at relevant point in time has been charged with short-fall of Rs. 8,000/- and for receiving payment for false T.A. Bills. During the domestic enquiry, the workman was allowed defence representative and he submitted brief notes of argument also. It is not a case pleaded on behalf of the workman that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Referring to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that charge of submitting false T.A. Bill was not proved, I find that the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that charge of submitting false T.A. Bill for journey to Deoghar two times has been found proved. Charges in respect of T.A. Bill No. 08/06 for Rs. 4050/- and T.A. Bill No. 09/06 for Rs. 4050/- have also been held proved. Only the charge for submitting false T.A. Bill No. 13/06 for Rs. 2850/- and T.A. Bill No. 17/06 for Rs. 2000/- has not been found proved. In so far as, Charge No. 1 relating to cash shortage of Rs. 8,000/- is concerned, the said charge has also been found partly proved. Referring to Rule 22, the Enquiry Officer has found that the said Rule does not provide that if the cash shortage is made good on the same day, it would not amount to misconduct. Rule 22 merely states that "cash shortage occasioned should be recovered from the cashier at fault on the same day, if possible. Failing recovery the same day, the amount must be debited to the protested account". The Enquiry Officer has recorded that Rule 22 provides that if a case of negligence/dishonesty against the cashier has been established, he should not be allowed to handle cash and disciplinary proceeding should be initiated. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the contention raised on behalf of the workman that charges against him were not proved, is unfounded and untenable. The Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (I), Dhanbad has erroneously recorded a finding in paragraph No. 5 of the Award dated 28.03.2014 that the Enquiry Officer found Charge No. 1 not proved however, the Bank authority discharged the workman. The Tribunal has further recorded an erroneous finding that misappropriation cannot be proved partly whereas, I find that the charge against the workman was that he did not perform his duty with due diligence, resulting in cash shortage from time to time and the charge was not of mis-appropriation. Further, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Bank Circular prescribes if the cash is deposited on the same day, no one will be held responsible. Such finding is contrary to the record. The Tribunal has committed serious error in law in recording a finding that charges have not been proved against the workman.

A reading of Award dated 28.03.2014 leaves one wondering how an Award can be made merely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. I find that the workman who was employed with nationalized bank and the charges levelled against whom has been found proved on most of the counts, has been let off lightly. Order of discharge from service does not bring stigma to the workman in as much as, order of discharge from service is without disqualification from future employment. I find that the order of discharge from service does not deprive the workman from superannuation benefits rather, discharge from service is with superannuation benefits as due otherwise at the time of punishment that is, on 10.07.2008. The learned counsel for the workman has contended that the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. I find no substance in this submission. As noticed above, the charge against the workman was serious. The question of punishment falls exclusively within the domain of the disciplinary authorities unless, it is arbitrary or so disproportionate to the charges found proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court. I do not find that the punishment awarded to the workman was disproportionate to charge framed and found proved against him.

Considering the above facts, award dated 28.03.2014 is hereby set-aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.