Case: S.B.I Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee

t issued to respondent No. 1 reads that at about 11 a.m. on June 23, 1973 Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury, a customer of thehanded over to respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,002.40 along with two draft applications each for Rs. 1,001.20; that even though respondent No. 1 received excess amount of Rs. 1,000/over Rs. 2,002.40, he neither refunded the same nor asked the customer as to the manner in which the said amount was to be deposited either by depositing the same in the savings bank account or deposit the same in the Sunday (Sundry ?) deposits account; that instead he retained the said money with him with intention of misappropriating the same; that thereafter Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury returned at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day and demanded the said amount of Rs. 1,000/handed over to respondent No. 1 in excess, which he flatly denied; that on a report being made to the Branch Manager by Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury he inquired about the matter; that when a preliminary search failed to trace the amount and a physical search of all the employees was being conducted, respondent No. 1 threw away the said amount of Rs. 1,000/on the floor; that thereby he retained the amount with him with a criminal intent to misappropriate the same and thus lowered the image of theand thus acted in a manner highly prejudicial to the interest of theRespondent No. 1 replied to the saidby stating that on a memorandum being issued to him directly involving him in an alleged misappropriation of the said sum on June 23, 1973 he was compelled to sign a statement which he was not allowed to go through even. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension. He alleged that he is a victim of serious conspiracy specially while after his recent promotion from Messenger to Cashier he was looking forward for a bright future and he denied all the charges levelled against him and he claimed to be innocent.2. A domestic enquiry was held against him and three witnesses were examined. Respondent No. 1 did not adduce any evidence nor be examined himself. On the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry by a report made finding him guilty of charges against him, on January 27, 1976 respondent No. 1 was asked to show cause as to why an appropriate punishment should not be imposed upon him and he was heard in the matter. The Regional Manager thereafter communicated to the respondent No. 1 the decision to dismiss him. On dismissal being made an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal). The Presiding Officer held that the domestic enquiry conducted was just, fair and proper. However, on examination of the material on record the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the finding of guilt against the first respondent was not just on the evidence on record and, therefore, he set aside the same. This award was challenged by a writ petition which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and the award given by the Presiding Officer was quashed. On a further appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that the learned single Judge could not have interfered with the award made by the Tribunal and set aside the same and restored the award made by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
on nothing worthwhile was elicited to tilt the evidence tendered in theThis statement of Shri A.R. Dutt is corroborated by Shri S.K. Mitra who was Head Clerk at the relevant time. Again nothing worthwhile is elicited in hisexcept to state that he belonged to S.B.S.S.A. The Tribunal, however, went on to say that even though the first respondent had not examined himself nor was anydirected at the witnesses to the question of his being a victim of conspiracy by the employees of thewho are members of another rival Union to which he belonged and placed heavy reliance onion of money,ed confessional statements andof any evidence which may have been available. But as far as the evidence tendered by the two witnesses is concerned who actually saw the incident having taken place in the manner referred to earlier, the charge of misconduct against the first respondent stood proved to the tilt (hilt ?) and we fail to appreciate as to how the Tribunal could have taken any other view.A customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry conducted as such a course would not be conducive to proper Banker customer relationship and, therefore, would not be in the interest of the Bank. Further, when money was secured a prudent banker would deposit the same in the account of the customer complaining of loss of money and, therefore,of money also would not be of much materiality. When in the course of the domestic enquiry no reliance was placed on theconfessional statement made by the first respondent, thenof the same is also of no significance. Thus, in our opinion, these circumstances are irrelevant and the Tribunal could not have placed reliance on the same to reach the conclusion it did and, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in interfering with the same. In the writ appeal the learned Judges on the Division Bench reiterated the view expressed by the Tribunal which we have found to bedo not think so. What is stated therein is that when sufficient evidence was produced to conclude one way or the other, the evidence not produced will not be of any significance unless there was such evidence which was withheld would have tilted the evidence adduced in the course of domestic enquiry. No such evidence is forthcoming in this case. Therefore, this argument deserves to be rejected.9. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order made by the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the learned single Judge.