IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 716 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 State Bank of India …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal by the State Bank of India, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 9.4.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 6652 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has opined that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the mandatory requirement of issuing show cause notice has not been complied with by the appellant-Management before terminating the services of the workman-respondent No. 2. It has been held by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court as also by the learned Single Judge that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer was under obligation to serve a copy of the dissenting note on the workman-respondent No. 2 so that he could tender his explanation with regard LPA No. 716 of 2010 to reliance on evidence in the dissenting note. Without calling for the explanation of the workman-respondent No. 2, the action on such a report could not have been taken. The learned Single Judge has upheld the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by setting aside the punishment and relegating the parties to the position of supplying the dissenting note and grant of opportunity to the workman-respondent No. 2 before passing any fresh order. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that no exception is provided to interfere in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge as also that of the Industrial Tribuna-cum-Labour Court. It is well settled that when the disciplinary authority is not itself an inquiry authority then it could disagree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. However, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority that before taking any action on the re-appreciated evidence and recording of fresh findings, a copy of the inquiry report along with the dissenting note should have been served on the workman-respondent No. 2 and his views should have been elicited. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have adopted an approach which is consistent with the requirement of law. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interference and admit the appeal. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 LPA No. 716 of 2010 (A.N. JINDAL) July 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3