Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1517 (PNJ)

Sukhbir Chand v. Chief Manager

2008-09-04

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 03.04.2008, Annexure P-12, passed by the Labour Court, whereby the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was not found to be invalid. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.03.1991 alleging therein that the petitioner, while officiating as receipt-cashier in the Branch, has made payment of Rs. 5 lacs against the fictitious cheque of Mahajan Exports. In the departmental enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,49,920/- on 19.03.1990 in the account of the customers. It was further found that the petitioner was either himself or through somebody else got the cheque prepared and the money was withdrawn. On the basis of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.03.1992. After considering the reply by the petitioner on 10.04.1992, an order of punishment of dismissal from service was passed on 18.04.1992. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the same allegation First Information Report was registered against him on 19.03.1990 in which one Lakhi Dutt was accused along with the petitioner. The criminal trial arising out of that FIR resulted into acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 27.04.1999. Since the allegations before the criminal Court were the same, pertaining to identical facts, the petitioner claimed that the order of punishment requires to be reconsidered and recalled as a result of acquittal by the criminal Court. 4. It was the stand of the Management that in terms of Para 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 20.03.1991. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14.02.1992 found the allegations against the petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority after giving show cause notice to the workman and after giving opportunity of personal hearing and after providing a copy of the Enquiry Report, passed an order of dismissal. It was pointed out that the petitioner has disputed the order of dismissal after seven years, thus, the Reference is misconceived. The learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, vide Award dated 3.4.2008 found that the Management held a fair and proper enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer behaved in a most judicious manner and provided full opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. The learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, vide Award dated 3.4.2008 found that the Management held a fair and proper enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer behaved in a most judicious manner and provided full opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. The petitioner cross-examined the witnesses but chose not to produce any witness in his defence. The Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry proceedings number of times at the request of the petitioner and sufficient time was given to him to engage a defence representative. It was found that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is proper as no employer would afford to retain such an employee, who would play with the trust of the customers, the backbone of their business. 5. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlements between Banks and their Workmen, dated 19th October, 1966, to contend that the order of dismissal of services of the petitioner after his acquittal in a criminal case vitiates the said Bipartite Settlement. However, the said argument of the petitioner is not tenable for the reason that in terms of Para 19.3(c), in case of acquittal, it is open to the Management to proceed against the delinquent. The said clause reads as under: 19.3(c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the management to proceed against him under the provisions set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharges. However, in the event of the management deciding after enquiry not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination of service with three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. And he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and to all other privileges for the period of suspension provided that if he be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of such pay and allowances as the management may deem proper, and the period of his absence shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the management so direct. 6. 6. The argument raised by the petitioner on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case is without any substance in terms of above provisions and does not merit any further consideration. 7. Though the services of the petitioner were dismissed in the year 1992, but the petitioner has claimed Reference raising to industrial dispute in the year 2001. Such Reference suffers from gross delay and latches. Still further, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of his acquittal in the criminal case as the criminal case was not the basis of the order of punishment. The petitioner was imposed punishment after the enquiry, wherein the charge of misconduct was found proved. It is well settled that in the criminal trial, allegations are required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, the findings of misconduct can be recorded on the basis of probabilities and on the basis of evidence keeping in view the fact that Evidence Act is not applicable to the departmental proceedings. 8. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case cannot form basis for setting aside of the order of dismissal based upon misconduct of withdrawal of money of the customers. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.