THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the award made in I.D.No.113 of 2002 dated 29.4.2005 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 was rejected without granting any relief. Petitioner is workman and respondents 2 and 3 are management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Attender with effect from 2.7.1982 in the respondent Bank and subsequently he was promoted as Clerk in the year 1990. While that being so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 8.1.1996 and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 8.6.1998 dismissing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act in I.D.No.113 of 2002 before the Labour Court. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted, therefore it requires to be invalidated. Absolutely there was no misconduct on his part and there was no evidence to prove that he was guilty of the charges and even assuming that the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to that of the misconduct and he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and all attendant benefits. The respondent-management filed its counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by either side. However, on the basis of the record available, Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was proper and valid and further held that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved in full, therefore passed an award rejecting claim of the petitioner while approving the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a farce of an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and not based on any evidence. The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the issues before it and it ought to have seen that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the charges alleged against him are not established. Petitioner did not receive any amount of Rs.25,000/- on 24.12.1994 and regarding entry of Rs.30,000/- on 10.10.1992, he made entries in the passbook on seeing the voucher produced by the said customer. In fact, petitioner was not cashier to receive any amount on the said date. When he was not the cashier, question of paying any amount to him does not arise. Though, the third charge regarding issuing of cheques without keeping funds in his account, which was dropped, the disciplinary authority however relied upon the said charge to impose punishment of dismissal. The past conduct of the petitioner was not taken into consideration while passing dismissal order as required by Sastry Award. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the acts of the petitioner are unbecoming of an officer of the Bank. He made the customers believe that he has been receiving money and depositing the same into Bank by manipulating the passbooks held by the customers. This is a very serious charge requires to be dealt with sternly. May be, there was no loss caused to the Bank, but the reputation of the Bank was at stake and this charge itself is sufficient to dismiss the petitioner from service. Therefore, question of looking into past record of the petitioner as per Shastri Award does not arise. There are cases and cases, the present case requires to be looked into from a different angle in the very nature of offence committed by the delinquent employee. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available. Admittedly, this is a case where the petitioner is involved in making the customers to believe that he has been receiving money and depositing the same into Bank. Petitioner appears to have swindled the money and of course has made good of the same to the customers and even according to the Bank, petitioner has not caused any loss to the Bank activities purported to have been committed by him. However, it cannot be said that such acts of the petitioner can be approved under the rules. The only question that remains to be examined is whether the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment of dismissal, had looked into the past conduct of the petitioner or not. Admittedly, in this case, the past conduct of the petitioner was not taken into consideration as required under Shastri Award, which reads as under: “In awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action, the authority concerned shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any of the employee, and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances exist, the misconduct may be condoned and in case such misconduct is of the ‘gross’ type, he may be merely discharged, with or without notice or on payment of a month’s pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Such discharge may also be given where the evidence is found to be insufficient to sustain the charge and where the bank does not, for some reason or other, think it expedient to retain the employee in question any longer in service. Discharge in such cases shall not be deemed to amount to disciplinary action”. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment in SEETHALAKSHMI MILLS LTD. v. LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND OTHERS[1] wherein it was held that the order failure of employer to take into consideration the past record of employee while awarding punishment as required under Standing Orders is in contravention of Standing Orders and cannot be legally sustainable. In ANDHRA CEMENT CO. LTD. v. MOHD. ILYAS[2], it was held that discharge of an employee from service on the ground of misconduct without applying the provisions of Rule 20(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishment Rules was held to be illegal. In B.SUBBAIAH v. THE ANDHRA HANDLOOM WEAVERS’ COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.[3], it was held; “However grave the misconduct may be when an establishment punishes its employees after holding an enquiry it has got to take into account not only the gravity of the misconduct but his previous service record as well. It is also required to take into account the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, if there are any. In other words, having decided that the delinquent employee had committed an act of misconduct, the quantum of punishment to be awarded to him must bear the reflection of his previous service record and must also be decided in the light of extenuating or aggravating circumstances which might be existing”. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents relied upon decisions in STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS v. MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK[4] , STATE OF GUJARAT v. GAJANAND M.DALWADI (DEAD) BY L.Rs.[5], UCO BANK AND ANOTHER v. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR[6], RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER[7], CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND OTHERS v. P.C.KAKKAR[8], CANARA BANK v. V.K.AWASTHY[9] and U.P.S.R.T.C v. RAM KISHAN ARORA[10] and submitted that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, the Courts would not normally interfere and any other extraneous considerations, merely not taking into consideration of past service of the petitioner, would not make any difference in a case on hand. Taking into consideration of past service is a useless formality. The cases of this nature should be dealt with iron hand and on the ground of past service not taken into consideration, the dismissal order cannot be interfered. In all the above cases, the Supreme Court held that the cases have to be dealt with iron hand. But the case on hand is altogether different. In spite of there being a provision in the standing order of the bank, the disciplinary authority did not exercise the same by taking into consideration of past record of the petitioner for deciding the quantum of punishment. The Shastri Award is applicable to the present case. In the two judgments of this Court, as noticed above, it was made clear that, if any extenuating circumstances exist, the misconduct may be condoned and in case such misconduct is of ‘gross’ type, he may be merely discharged. But the disciplinary authority cannot ignore the standing orders totally. Following such a procedure as contemplated in the standing order cannot be, either said to be useless or unwanted formality. In this case, admittedly though there is a provision in the standing order (Shastri Award), the respondents have not followed the same. Therefore, on this ground alone, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and accordingly, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and the award dated 29.4.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for imposing any other lesser punishment after taking into the past service of the petitioner into consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.7.2010. DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9 of 2006 6.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9 of 2006 Date: 6th July, 2010 Between: P.Narsimhulu .. Petitioner And Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents [1] FJR P.70 (Vol.56) [2] 1988(1) APLJ 581 (DB) [3] 1977(1) APLJ 171 (DB) [4] (2008) 7 SCC 580 [5] (2008) 1 SCC 716 [6] (2007) 6 SCC 694 [7] (2007) 9 SCC 15 [8] (2003) 4 SCC 364 [9] (2005) 6 SCC 321 [10] (2007) 4 SCC 627