Civil writ Petition No.3238 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil writ Petition No.3238 of 2009 Decided on : 21.7.2010 Smt. Amrik Kaur .... Petitioner VERSUS Divisional Manager, UCO Bank & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. Present: Mr. Jasvinder Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate, for respondent No.1. RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the respondent- Bank for some misconduct for embezzling some amount of Bank. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet. An enquiry officer was appointed. Finding the reply of the charge-sheet not satisfactory, an enquiry was held and punishment imposed. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the very first day of enquiry, certain documents were produced and without examining any witness, the charge was held established on the following day and ultimately, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner, accordingly, pleaded that the impugned order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to her to defend herself properly. To indicate denial of opportunity, the petitioner pleaded that she had to send an application along with medical certificate from a qualified Medical Civil writ Petition No.3238 of 2009 -2- Practitioner to the Manager of Bank through her husband seeking adjournment of the enquiry proceeding as she was not well. The said certificate though was produced before the enquiry officer, but enquiry officer did not adjourn but deferred the proceedings till 12.30 p.m. on the same day. The petitioner was directed through a letter either to appear in the proceedings or to produce medical certificate issued by a Civil Surgeon. After receiving the said letter, the husband of the petitioner appeared to express his inability to produce such a certificate and also to request for adjournment. The prayer was declined and the enquiry proceedings were held ex parte. Aggrieved against this action, the petitioner sought reference of the dispute before the Labour Court. The dispute was ultimately referred for adjudication before Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh. The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal on number of grounds which are noted in the impugned award and are as under :- “1. That the charge sheet dated 23.11.1983 and 20.1.1984 are illegal , wrong and without legal force. The Manager is not the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary action. 2. She was not supplied the copies of the documents, which were relied by the competent authority 3. That appointment of enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority was against the provisions of rules and laws. 4. That the enquiry was not conducted as per the rules and it was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice. The enquiry officer acted in undue haste and completed the formality of enquiry on 2.5.84 in an ex Civil writ Petition No.3238 of 2009 -3- parte proceedings without affording the proper opportunity of hearing. 5. Only documentary evidence was relied upon by the enquiry officer. Two witnesses for oral examination were likely to be summoned but without examining any witnesses on the basis of unproved documents enquiry report was given in very much haste. 6. The disciplinary authority also give the punishment arbitrarily without considering the facts of the case.” The respondent-Bank, however, filed written statement. It was pleaded that the claim as raised by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 26.6.1984 and had served a demand notice on 26.3.1991 i.e. after 7 years of dismissal order. Otherwise, also it was stated that the petitioner was supplied with the required documents and full opportunity was given to her to defend herself. On the basis of pleadings and various submissions made before the Labour Court, the reference was decided against the petitioner on the ground that the same was delayed. Finding further is that the petitioner herself had confessed the embezzlement of the amount. As is noticed, the petitioner had signed a confessional letter and had agreed to deposit the money, which she had allegedly embezzled. In fact, the petitioner had deposited some amount in the Bank and had undertaken to deposit the remaining amount, if any found, having been misused/embezzled by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner would dispute the factual findings as returned by the Labour Court. Counsel would submit that the finding by the Labour Court that the reference was Civil writ Petition No.3238 of 2009 -4- sought with a delay of 7 years will be belied from the documents on record. He explained the circumstances under which the statement was made by the petitioner, which has been construed to be a confession and relied upon. During the course of the arguments, the statement of the petitioner termed as confession, has been perused by me. In this statement, the petitioner has admitted in no uncertain terms that she had misappropriated the amount, which was deposited back also. It would be difficult to say that this statement is not a confession. The petitioner has admitted to have withdrawn the amount from certain accounts and the fact that she had deposited some amount back in the account . The plea by the counsel to explain the contents of this statement is not a permissible mode under law. It is not legally permissible to explain the contents of the document. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No ground is made out for interference in the findings of the fact as recorded by the Labour Court. Dismissed. 21st July, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) Monika JUDGE