CWP No. 6820 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6820 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 21-04-2011 Bank of India, Ludhiana Zone, Ludhiana ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned the award dated 3.1.2011. The allegation against the respondent-workman was that she used one leaf out of DD book and used it as a cheque for her own transaction. The charge-sheet was issued upon the respondent – workman on 5.3.2003 on the allegation that it amounts to gross negligence in the discharge of her duty and constitute gross mis-conduct in terms of 5(j) of Memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002. Her services were terminated and an appeal against that was also dismissed. She then claimed a reference to the following effect:- “Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ludhiana Zone, Ludhiana to dismiss the service of Smt. Surinder Kaur from the Bhullar of the Bank w.e.f 25.4.2003 on the allegation of removing one DD leaf and issue the same with her own signatures for financial benefit of Rs.36,000/- is illegal and unjustified? If so, what relief the CWP No. 6820 of 2011 (O&M) 2 concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?” The Tribunal accepted the reference and set aside the order of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned award is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. He has contended that there was a clear establishment of gross negligence as the respondent workman used the leaf out of a DD book for a cheque even though it was for her own transaction yet since the rules and regulations of the Bank do not permit her to do so, this was sufficient to establish her mis-conduct for which the punishment of termination had been rightly awarded. On due consideration of the matter, I find that the contention raised before this Court are frivolous. The Tribunal observed that the charge-sheet was issued on 5.3.2003 and it was in great haste that on the same very day that the inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges against her even before the reply of the respondent workman could be solicited to the charges levelled against her. If the allegations against the respondent are to be examined then it transpired that she merely used one leaf out of the DD book and issued it as cheque for Rs.36,000/- in favour of one Kewal Krishan from whom she had raised a loan and the cheque was presented to the same very Bank and debited from her account. It was clear that she had merely used one DD leaf out of book concerned to use it as a cheque which may ostensibly have been done to create confidence in the financial transaction. In any eventuality there is no such material on record from where any fraud can be inferred. The said cheque was also cleared from the account of the respondent – workman and the petitioner was not put to any loss and merely one particular document has been used in a way CWP No. 6820 of 2011 (O&M) 3 in which it was not intended to be used ought to have been treated as a mere irregularity and for it such a serious inflictment such as termination can hardly be expected to be the consequence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity committed by the learned Tribunal and further I am of the opinion that the writ petition is completely devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. April 21, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge