CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5592 OF 1995 ---- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---- MANAGEMENT OF THE UCO BANK (previously known as United Commercial Bank) having its Head Office at 10, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700 001 and a Zonal Office at Maurya Lok Complex „4th Floor‟ „A‟ Block, P.S. Kotwali, Patna- 800 001------------ Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. 3.The Assistant Labour Commissioner©, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Maurya Lok Complex, Block A, 2nd Floor, Patna-1 4.UCO Bank Employees‟ Association, Bihar State Committee, through its Secretary, C/o UCO Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna 800 001. 5.Shri A.P.Gupta formerly (PFM No. 10909), Special Assistant, UCO Bank, Jogbani Branch, since dismissed, now through the UCO Bank Employees‟ Association, Bihar State Committee, UCO Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna---------------------------------------------- Respondents ---- For The Petitioner :Mr.R.P.Birinaway,Advocate For The Respondents :none ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ---- A.K.Tripathi,J. The management of UCO Bank has filed the present writ application challenging the award dated 7.2.1995 rendered in Reference case no. 27 of 1993. The reference was “whether the action of the management of Uco Bank in dismissing Shri A.P.Gupta from the services of the Bank justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?” 2.A few facts is being recorded which led to the passing of the award contained in Annexure-7. Respondent no.5, namely, Shri A.P.Gupta was posted as Special Assistant at the Jogbani Branch of the 2 Bank since 1969. Some time in the year 1988 certain serious omissions and commissions committed by the employee in question came to the notice of the management of the Bank. There were serious irregularities and misappropriation of funds from various accounts of the customers of the branch in question. The irregularities related to the period 1985 till 1986 and thereafter. The management was of the opinion that it was a matter which required holding of a departmental enquiry, as a case for gross misconduct was made out. A detailed chargesheet listing out seven charges, having some sub charges as well to the seven charges came to be issued against the delinquent. Chargesheet has been brought on record as Annexure-1. The Court need not record in detail all the charges but reading of the charges would show that they are serious in nature and related to fraudulent withdrawals from various accounts of the customers of the branch. Some of these withdrawals were also from account of dead customers which were inoperative for a long time. 3.A detailed enquiry came to be held and the enquiry officer found all the charges to be proved except charge no.5. Based on the findings rendered by the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority issued him a show cause as to why a punishment 3 commensurate with the findings be not imposed upon him. After due deliberation and after considering the show cause of the delinquent, punishment of dismissal without notice in terms of Clause 9.6 of the Bipartite settlement dated 19th October, 1966 came to be imposed upon him. 4.It is this punishment order which became the matter of reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award thereafter was answered by the Industrial Tribunal which is Annexure-7 to the writ application and is under challenge. 5.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management submits that the Tribunal has got carried away by extraneous consideration and beyond the ambit of the dispute. An illegal if not erroneous award has come to be passed in favour of the employee. Attention of the Court is drawn to the findings recorded by the Tribunal itself in the award. Paragraph 23 of the award has significance in this regard. The Tribunal has this to say with regard to the dispute: “Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the enquiry being held properly and fairly was justified to hold the concerned workman to be guilty of the charges leveled against him irrespective of his bright career or services life which will be discussed 4 later on. In view of the discussions made above I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry authority holding the concerned workman to be guilty of the charges leveled against him and also I do not find any wrong disallowing the appeal preferred against that finding before the Appellate authority confirming the decision. I have carefully perused the report of the enquiry officer as well as finding of the appellate authority and I concur with the finding and thus it is held that the concerned workman Shri A.P.Gupta is liable for the commission of the irregularities as discussed and pointed out earlier and he should be imposed with penalty. However, we are to discuss later on about the extent of such penalty or punishment.” 6.With a finding of the above kind having been categorically recorded by the Tribunal, the submission of learned counsel for the Management is that the Tribunal had no occasion to state that the punishment in question imposed against the delinquent was harsh. It is a misplaced observation that he required a more sympathetic consideration. The Tribunal seems to have been carried away only because of the fact that the petitioner‟s good work was appreciated in the past and that he had been an employee of the Bank for a long period of time. 7.The past conduct or behaviour of the petitioner have no significance when it comes down to imposing order of punishment of dismissal when the findings are loaded against the delinquent and 5 the Tribunal itself did not raise any finger with the enquiry report or the findings rendered by the enquiry officer. Out of seven charges only one was disproved. Rests are all held out against the employee. The charges are serious in nature having serious financial implication and for the reputation of the Bank. 8.Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent decision reported in the case of M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited vs. N.K.Singh (2007(1) PLJR SC 83. Hon‟ble Supreme Court has this to say in a similar situation : “We find that the Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair and proper. The conduct highlighted by the Management and established in inquiry was certainly of very grave nature. The Labour Court and the High Court have not found that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the finding on facts that the acts complained of were established has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the Labour Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. The case of R.P.Singh was not on a similar footing. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set 6 aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.” 9.The Court is of the opinion that keeping the ratio of the case of M/s Tata Engineering (supra) the award dated 7.2.1995 contained in Annexure-7 cannot be sustained. 10.The writ application is allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 is quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Patna High Court Dated 5th day of December, 2008 Spal/N.A.F.R.