CWP No. 22532 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22532 of 2011. Date of decision: December 05,2011. Ajit Singh ...Petitioner v. The Personnel Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank & Another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Surya Kant, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 7th December, 2009 [Annexure P-12] passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh whereby the reference “whether the action of the Management of the Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ajit Singh is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?” has been answered against him. [2]. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the Punjab & Sind Bank as a Clerk on 29th December, 1978. He was served with three charge-sheets dated 7.8.1981[ Annexure P-1], dated 20.10.1981 [Annexure P-3] and dated 26.05.1983 [Annexure P-6]. While the first charge-sheet alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.8000/- by the petitioner from the Saving Bank Accounts of four customers, the second charge-sheet contained more serious allegations of CWP No. 22532 of 2011. ::-2-:: cheating, forgery, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust on account of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1000/- from Saving Bank Account No. 2417 by forging or getting forged the signatures of the Account Holder who had passed away. The third charge-sheet also alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.3000/- by the petitioner from the S.B. Account No. 790. [3]. The replies submitted by the petitioner to the above mentioned charge-sheets were found to be unsatisfactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed who held a joint inquiry into all the three charge-sheets and vide his report dated 30th March, 1988 [Annexure P-9], held that the allegations contained in all the three charge-sheets were proved. [4]. The petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice and after consideration of his reply thereto, was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal also failed. The aggrieved petitioner raised an 'industrial dispute' and as stated earlier, the reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh to decide whether the action taken by the Management against the petitioner was justified in law. [5]. The Tribunal framed the following issues to be answered by it:- “1. Whether a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer? 2. Whether enquiry officer has rightly reached to the conclusion for proving all the charges against the workman? 3. Whether disciplinary authority has complied with the principle of natural justice awarding the punishment to CWP No. 22532 of 2011. ::-3-:: the workman? [4.] Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct? [5]. Relief, if any”. [6]. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Tribunal categorically held that the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer proving the charges are correct and it concurred with the findings of the Inquiry officer after assigning its own independent reasons. The Tribunal thereafter has held as follows:- “Thus, on the basis of the above observation, I am of the view that enquiry officer has not only conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner but he has rightly given his findings on all the charges being proved against the workman. On perusal of proceedings, I am of the view that disciplinary authority has afforded the opportunity of being heard to the workman. In his oral cross-examination, the workman has admitted that show cause notice was given to him. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority has conducted the disciplinary proceedings as per the rules of the department and there has been no violation of the principle of natural justice by the disciplinary authority as well. Show cause notice with purposes punishment was given. Workman was heard properly before awarding the punishment. Workman preferred an appeal which was dismissed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case by the appellate authority. Accordingly, issues No. 2 and 3 are answered”. [7]. The Tribunal has also considered the nature of punishment imposed on the petitioner in the context of its powers CWP No. 22532 of 2011. ::-4-:: under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but having regard to the proven charges of misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud and cheating, it held that “the punishment of termination of the workman from the services is proportionate to the committed misconduct……”. [8]. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [9]. It is vehemently contended that no expert witness was produced to prove the alleged forgery of signatures and the finding has been returned only on the basis of oral evidence. Similarly, the alleged confession by the petitioner was not in writing and the Inquiry Officer, in a way, conducted ex-parte inquiry against him. [10]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the inquiry report [Annexure P-9] as well as the impugned award, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. It is well settled that the strict rules of evidence are not attracted in a domestic inquiry. The nature of proof produced before an Inquiry officer need not be at par with the evidence to be led before a Criminal Court to prove the charges beyond the pale of doubt. In any case, the Inquiry Officer has duly considered the record including the forged vouchers etc. and on consideration thereof, coupled with the petitioner’s own implied admissions, has firmly held the charges proved. The Industrial Tribunal also independently considered the evidence led before the Inquiry officer and has agreed with those findings. Such like findings of fact call for no interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [11]. Dismissed. CWP No. 22532 of 2011. ::-5-:: December 05, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE