Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1235 (KAR)

B. Giridhar v. State Bank of Mysore

2015-11-09

S.SUJATHA

body2015
ORDER : S. Sujatha, J. 1. This petition is directed against the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in C.R. No. 07/2009 dated 17.10.2013. 2. The brief facts are that: "The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the respondent Bank with effect from 14.9.1999. He was initially appointed in the Nimbalgere Branch of the Bank in Bellary district. The petitioner was working at Sandur Branch on 16.11.2004 as Cashier. It transpires that at about 6.30 pm while closing Branch cash transaction, he put his initials in the vault register, recorded the cash balance, but did not initial the cash balance. He was advised by the Branch Manager to initial the cash balance in the vault register as envisaged in Chapter-9 of the Bank's Book of Instructions. The petitioner instead of complying with the lawful instructions, gave reply to the Branch Manager "to do whatever he wanted to do". When the Branch Manager advised to behave properly, it is alleged that he hit him with his fist, causing serious injuries to S.K. Kadam, the Branch Manager. At that time, Chandrashekar, another staff of the Branch interfered and stopped further assault on S.K. Kadam by the petitioner. It is also alleged that as a result of the said blow, right tooth of S.K. Kadam got damaged and started bleeding for which S.K. Kadam was compelled to take medical treatment leaving his work. It is also noticed that the petitioner has given a confession letter on the same day accepting the incident and misconduct done by him. It is considered to be gross misconduct committed by the petitioner as per the rules governing the service conditions of the employees to which the petitioner also belongs. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Management and charge sheet dated 24.1.2005 was issued to him providing an opportunity to make his submission on the said charge sheet. The petitioner, in reply to the charge sheet did not deny the incident specifically and gave an untenable reply and as the reply to the charge sheet was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority by exercising power provided, ordered for full fledged domestic enquiry by appointing an official of the Bank Sri. Ramachandran, the then Manager [Planning] as the Enquiry Officer and Sri. Bhaskar Chakravarty, the then Deputy Manager, JVSL Branch as Presenting Officer to represent the Management before the Enquiry Forum. Ramachandran, the then Manager [Planning] as the Enquiry Officer and Sri. Bhaskar Chakravarty, the then Deputy Manager, JVSL Branch as Presenting Officer to represent the Management before the Enquiry Forum. The petitioner was also provided with an opportunity to appoint office bearer of the Union to defend his case. After the enquiry being conducted by the Enquiry Officer so appointed, the same being forwarded to the disciplinary authority, and further the disciplinary authority sent copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to make submissions, if any, affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the disciplinary authority along with representative of his choice Sri. M.S. Katti and regretted for the incident. The disciplinary authority having considered the representation of the petitioner and defence representative imposed punishment of dismissal from service with superannuation benefits i.e., pension or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules i.e., regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment under provision 6[b] of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 on disciplinary action procedure for workmen vide Staff Circular 56/02-03 dated 22.8.2007." 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and considering the submissions made by the petitioner at the time of personal hearing, along with documents produced by him, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, against which the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and the Labour court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour court, the petitioner is before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour court having held that the incident which took place on 16.11.2004 was trivial in nature ought not to have denied the back wages. It was only an incident of exchange of words. The disciplinary authority not having appreciating this aspect and accepting the enquiry finding which clearly establishes that it was the exchange of words with the officiating Branch Manager, would have imposed lesser punishment on the petitioner. It was only an incident of exchange of words. The disciplinary authority not having appreciating this aspect and accepting the enquiry finding which clearly establishes that it was the exchange of words with the officiating Branch Manager, would have imposed lesser punishment on the petitioner. The Labour court having held so, without assigning any reasons, denied the back wages to the petitioner though directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Admittedly, the petitioner having been acquitted of the offence alleged against him in the criminal trial, which is evident from Annexure-A, the Labour court ought not to have denied back wages to the petitioner and accordingly seeks for modification of the order passed by the Labour court and seeks to award back wages which the petitioner is entitled to from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the Labour court and contends that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hospet had charge sheeted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 504, 323 of IPC and section 3[1][x] of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1959 in the Court of the Special Judge, Bellary and the same came to be registered as Special Case No. 86/2005 and the Court of trial by a Judgment dated 22.3.2010 convicted the petitioner under section 504 and 323 of IPC and also imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner. Petitioner having preferred an appeal before this court which came to be numbered as C.A. No. 2627/2010 and by Judgment dated 23.1.2012 acquitted the petitioner. However, this court did not nullify the incident of assaulting the Manager by the petitioner. The misconduct being proved before the disciplinary authority, the Labour court considering the observations of this court and the evidence available on record, denied back wages, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and other consequential benefits which is just, proper and is reasonable and does not call for interference by this court and that the respondent has complied with the order passed by the Labour court and has reinstated the petitioner and accordingly learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that on 16.11.2004 a complaint was lodged by the Assistant Manager, State Bank of Mysore, ADB, Sandur Branch, as joint custodian and officiating Branch Manager and the petitioner herein was incharge head cashier went to the vault room on the closure of the cash and had not initiated the denomination in the cash register and when the officiating manager asked to initial the cash balance, the petitioner refused the same and accosted the Manager with some foul language in Hindi. It is proved beyond doubt that there was an altercation triggered due to the misconduct of the petitioner who fisted on the face of the Officer due to which the Officer sustained injuries and he has also taken medical treatment. On his complaint, the charges were framed and all the three charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The enquiry was conducted after following due procedure of law and the same has been confirmed by the disciplinary authority and further by the Labour court. However, the Labour court having observed that it was a trivial incident, exchanging the heated words between the petitioner and the officiating Manager, the punishment of removal for such a trivial incident is too harsh, however, considering the circumstances of the case, held that misconduct being proved beyond doubt and that in the criminal proceedings the petitioner being acquitted, would not absolve him from the charges of misconduct levelled against him and the petitioner having undergone the ordeal since 2006, the year in which he suffered punishment of removal from service and in view of the subsequent acquittal in the criminal cases by this court, the Labour court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without back wages. Denial of back wages is held to be the sufficient punishment for the misconduct proved. In such view of the matter, the Labour court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case extensively has given a justifiable decision that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits without back wages which cannot be found fault with. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.