- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2459 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.744 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 1998 ... Chhotelal Vaghelu Tripathi ...Applicant v/s. Union Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the Applicant. Mr.A.D.Shetty with Ms.Mira Iyer for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2009 - 2 - P.C.: 1. For the reasons disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the motion as also in the affidavit dated 13th March, 2009, motion is granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.) - 3 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.744 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 1998 ... Chhotelal Vaghelu Tripathi ...Applicant v/s. Union Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the Applicant. Mr.A.D.Shetty with Ms.Mira Iyer for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2009 - 4 - P.C.: 1. The appeal is not on board for final hearing. However, with the consent of both sides we have heard the Appeal finally. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. By the Appeal, the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court dated 29-11-1999 in Writ Petition No.1143 of 1998. That writ petition was filed by the present Petitioner challenging the award dated 21st November, 1996 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference No.CGIT/1/10/1995. 3. The relevant facts are that admittedly, the Petitioner was in the service of the Respondent-bank as a telephone operator. Allegations of misconduct were made against him. Domestic inquiry was held and in the domestic inquiry charges are held to have been proved. Disciplinary committee accepted the report and passed order dismissing the Appellant from service. The order is dated 9-8-1984. In the - 5 - reference proceeding, the Industrial Court set aside the order imposing punishment directed reinstatement in service of the workman with full back wages. That order was challenged by the Respondent in Writ Petition No.2123 of 1989. That writ petition was decided by the learned single Judge of this court by order dated 6th December, 1994. The order of the Industrial Court was set aside. This court held that the inquiry is legal and proper and remanded the matter back to consider whether the charges have been proved and whether the punishment imposed is proper. The parties were permitted to lead fresh evidence only on the question whether the employee was gainfully employed during the period reference was pending. After the remand, the Industrial Court passed the award dated 21st November, 1996 holding that all the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved and that considering the nature of charges no interference at the hands of the tribunal is called for in the punishment. Against that order, Writ Petition No.1143 of 1998 was preferred. The learned single Judge held that the finding of the inquiry officer which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court that charges have been proved against the Petitioner cannot be disturbed and - 6 - considering the nature of the charges that have been proved against the Appellant, it cannot be said that the punishment is in any way excessive. 4. In the present Appeal the only question we have to consider is whether the award passed by the Industrial Court and the order passed by the learned single Judge call for any interference at the hands of this court. The departmental inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, the industrial tribunal and the learned single Judge of this court have concurrently found that the inquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved. Therefore, we will not be justified in interfering with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by all these authorities and court that the charges levelled against the Appellant have been proved. So far as the question, whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the Appellant, who is said to be a blind person, can be said to be grossly disproportionate, is concerned, if one refers to the nature of the charges levelled against the Petitioner, who was working in the commercial organisation like the nationalised bank, in our - 7 - opinion, it can not be said that the punishment imposed on the Appellant is in any way excessive. In our opinion, the Appellant deserves that punishment. The nature of charges have been referred in detail by the Industrial Tribunal in its award as also by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to refer to it again. Suffice to say that the charges are extremely serious. Thus, there is no substance in the Appeal. Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)