Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 515 (KAR)

Syndicate Bank v. I. Bhagawandas Shetty

2009-07-16

K.L.MANJUNATH, RAVI MALIMATH

body2009
Judgment :- Manjunath, J. The management in this appeal is challenging the legality and the correctness of the order passed in Writ Petition No.9721/2005 dated 15th July, 2005. 2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:- The respondent was working as a Clerk in the appellant-Bank. On the ground that he misbehaved with his colleagues and abused there is a filthy language and assaulted them in a hotel premises (outside the appellant’s Bank premises), the charges were leveled against him. An enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry the charges are said to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report, having heard the respondent-employee terminated him from service relying upon Clause 5(c) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-2002. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority the respondent contended that Clause 5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement does not attract charges leveled against him and that he could not have been terminated from service. The Appellate Authority having examined Clause 5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent did not attract Clause 5(c) of the agreement. Accordingly, he set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, he remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to frame fresh charges on the same imputation of facts under Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The order of the Appellate Authority in directing the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges under Clause 5(j) of the Act was challenged by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 4. Sri. K. Radhesh Prabhu, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in allowing the Writ Petition since the Appellate Authority is having sweeping power not only to allow the appeal, but also to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to frame fresh charges since there was a technical error committed by the authority while framing charges. Therefore, he contends that the Learned Judge has committed an error, in allowing the Writ Petition. Therefore, he contends that the Learned Judge has committed an error, in allowing the Writ Petition. He alternatively contends that even if the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the Appellate Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction the Learned Single Judge did not consider that; there was no finding on the question of termination of service by the Appellate Authority as the Appellate Authority did not set aside the order of termination by examining the case pleaded by the parties. Alternatively he requests the Court to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Per contra, Sri. Prasanna, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others (1984) 1 SCC 1 contends that the appellant being an employer has no extra territorial jurisdiction to regulate the behaviour of workman out of the Banking hours. He alternatively contends that Clause 5(j) relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is also not applicable to the charges levelled against the respondent since clause 5(j) deals with only when there is negligence which results in causing loss to the Bank. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties we have to consider whether the Learned Single Judge has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is an employee of the appellant-Bank. It is also not in dispute that some incident has occurred outside the Bank premises in a Hotel wherein it is alleged that the respondent has used filthy language and abused his colleagues in a filthy language and attempted to assault his colleagues which resulted in the order of termination of services of the respondent. Reliance was placed on Clause 5 (c) of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as hereunder:- “(c) drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank.” Relying upon Clause 5(c) the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that in a drunken state the respondent has misbehaved with his colleagues and assaulted them which brought down the reputation of the Bank. Therefore, the order of termination was passed. Therefore, the order of termination was passed. Admittedly, the alleged incident has taken place outside the premises of the Bank after Banking hours. The said incident has taken place in a Hotel called ‘Riyaz’, after the Banking hours. If some incident has occurred outside the premises of the Bank after Banking hours Clause 5(c) cannot be pressed into service to terminate the services of the appellant. 8. The Appellate Authority having rightly noticed that Clause 5(c) is not attracted to the facts & circumstances of the case, has remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority giving directions to the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges. Therefore, what is to be considered by this Court in this appeal is whether the Appellate Authority has got sweeping powers to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority directing in what manner the Disciplinary Authority has to frame charges. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority directed to frame fresh charges against the respondent. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has issued the fresh charge sheet as per Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. The Charge Sheet issued to the respondent is nothing but a replica of the earlier charge except changing the provision of law mentioning as Clause 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14-04-2002. In this background, it is useful for us to refer to Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as hereunder:- (ii) “doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss; 9. Sri Radhesh Prabhu, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on account of misbehaviour of the respondent with his colleagues, the reputation of the Bank has been brought down. Considering the context in which Clause 5(j) has been introduced under the Bipartite Settlement we are of the opinion that the present incident cannot be brought within be provisions of Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. Since the respondent has not acted prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and his act cannot be considered as a gross negligence or a negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, since it s only a stray incident wherein the respondent has quarrelled with his colleagues abusing them in filthy language and assaulted them in a drunken state after office hours and outside the Bank Premises. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others (supra) has also ruled that such an incident cannot be a ground to terminate the services. Therefore, we are of the opinion that if we consider the arguments advanced that the Appellate Authority has powers to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to frame fresh charges as the charges levelled against the respondent does not come under Clauses of 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement. Therefore we have to dismiss the appeal. Even otherwise we have to observe that the scope of the appeal in Disciplinary proceedings is entirely different and the Appellate Authority cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal by directing the Disciplinary Authority in what manner the charge has to be framed and how the matter has to be proved. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Learned Judge is justified in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. This Court on 8-11-2005 had directed the respondent-workman to reinstate the appellant and to keep the back wages in a Fixed Deposit which earns maximum rate of interest. The back wages along with accrued interest shall be paid to the successful party. In view of the dismissal of the appeal the appellant Bank is directed to pay the entire back wages along with interest accrued in terms of the order dated 8-11-2005 to the respondent.