HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8220 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.08.2011 **** Gurvinder Singh Bhatia . . . . Petitioner VS. Chief Regional Manager, Bank of India & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P8) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh whereby the reference – “as to whether the action of the management of Bank of India in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service…. is legal and just” – has been answered against him. (2). The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Bank of India on 08.01.1981 as Clerk-cum-Cashier. On 9.2.2000, he issued a withdrawal slip of Rs.25000/- mentioning Saving Banks Account No.10575 and entered the slip in the ledger of folio under his initials. Thereafter, he approached his colleague staff officers for CWP No.8220 of 2011.doc - 2 – cancellation of the said withdrawal slip which they cancelled in routine and the petitioner, in this manner, got the cash payment of Rs.25000/- from the Cashier. It was detected that the amount withdrawn by the petitioner was from his own closed account. (3). The petitioner was charge-sheeted and in reply thereto, he is said to have admitted his ‘mistake’ and explained the circumstances in which the amount was withdrawn. Based upon the said ‘voluntary admission’, the enquiry officer submitted the report dated 3.6.2000 and accepting the same, the Punishing Authority dismissed the petitioner from service. (4). The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which, as stated earlier, has been answered against him by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. (5). The Labour Court summoned the records of enquiry proceedings and after scanning the same, held as follows:- “Full opportunity was afforded to the workman to prove the facts which lead to his admission non- voluntary. Any departmental enquiry on admission is not bad and fatal. If the workman has voluntarily admitted the charge the enquiry officer has nothing to do but to give his report on the basis of the admission. He has to ensure that workman has voluntarily admitted the charge. On the perusal of the proceeding of enquiry, it is 2 CWP No.8220 of 2011.doc - 3 – evidently clear that enquiry officer has ensured the voluntary nature of admission. The workman has not admitted once but thrice at every stage of the proceedings namely during enquiry proceedings, during disciplinary proceedings and during appellate proceedings. It was before this Tribunal that workman challenged the nature of admission. Adequate opportunity for adducing evidence was given to the workman to prove that his admission was not voluntary. On the basis of the perusal of the entire materials on record, I am of the view that the enquiry officer has rightly submitted the enquiry report on the basis of the admission of the workman. It was not only the oral but written admission in Punjabi language which is part of the record.” (6). With reference to the quantum of punishment, which the petitioner alleged to be disproportionate to the committed misconduct, the Labour Court observed that :- “The workman has also narrated a paragraph of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in his pleadings showing that punishment should be proportionate to the committed misconduct. It is stated by the workman that he withdrew the amount from his own saving back account which was having insufficient funds. He was promised by Shri CJ Badhan to deposit Rs.25000/- in his account and under this impression that the person mentioned above has deposited the amount, he withdraws the same. If the situation 3 CWP No.8220 of 2011.doc - 4 – has been such, the punishment awarded had been definitely disproportionate. But this is not the correct version of the facts. The account had been closed much earlier by the workman and he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.25000/- from the closed account. If the account has been alive and having insufficient funds the attempt to withdraw the amount would have been different then withdraw the amount from a closed account.” (7). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned Award as well as the records. (8). In my considered view, no exception can be taken to the view formed by the Labour Court that the petitioner was fully aware of his bank account already lying closed and the manner in which he withdrew the amount of Rs.25000/- established beyond any doubt the intentment of misappropriation of the said amount. It was a clear case of the loss of confidence also. The punishment of dismissal from service thus cannot be said to be disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against the petitioner. (9). Dismissed. Dasti. 08.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4