This is suit for Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction.

1. Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that Plaintiff Sh.Sudarshan Uttam was an employee of defendant no. 1 and was working as Special Assistant in Branch Office, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi.

Defendant No.1 is a Statutory Banking Company created under the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act,1970 and is an instrumentality of Government of India and is thus another authority under Art.12 of Constitution of India.

Services of workman staff of the defendant bank are governed by various Awards like Sastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite settlement entered into between the union and the Banking Federation from time to time. The working conditions of the officer staff are governed by the Union Bank of India Officers Employee(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and Union Bank of India Officers Employee(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended from time to time.

Plaintiff was appointed as Clerk in the defendant bank with effect from 01/06/1965 . In November 1973, when plaintiff was working in Khari Baoli Branch, Delhi, a fraud took place wherein amount of Rs. 50,000/­ from the account of M/S Kaycee Traders, Delhi was withdrawn on 15 16 and 19 November 1973. In connection with the said alleged fraud, th th th the plaintiff along with four others was arrested and thereafter suspended from the service. Ultimately, a criminal case was filed against the plaintiff and others in the court of Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 2 OF 17 Metropolitan Magistrate.

That pursuant to the repeated requests and representations of the plaintiff, the suspension was revoked vide orders dated 29/09/1977. That, thereafter, the trial proceeded and ultimately the plaintiff was acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 17/04/1986.

That although the charge relate to 1973, the plaintiff was served with the charge sheet only after a period of 4­1/2 years i.e. On 06/03/1978 and the charges leveled against him were that he issued the cheque book containing cheques nos. 024951 to 25000 in the name of M/S Kaycee Traders without obtaining the prescribed requisition of the same from the party and the amount was withdrawn to the tune of Rs. 50,000/­ by issuing the cheques from the said cheque book and further on verification of the signatures of the drawer of these cheques, the admitted signatures of the party on specimen signature card considerably different in the signatures found. Accordingly, the plaintiff was charged for grossly neglecting in the performance of his duties.

Shri Ravinder Raj was appointed as inquiry Officer vide memo dated 02/07/1979 to inquire into the charges. However, no inquiry was initiated even thereafter for a long period of 8 years and suddenly the plaintiff received a memo dated 25/06/87 from Sh. Ravinder Raj that the inquiry would be held on 09/07/1987.

That the plaintiff was shocked to receive such a letter and that too after the acquittal of the plaintiff by the Criminal Court and accordingly he submitted his representation dated Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 3 OF 17 12/07/87 stating interalia that inquiry had become redundant after the court's judgment dated 17/04/86 and the present inquiry after 14 years of the alleged incidence and 9­1/2 years after framing of the charge sheet was not at all proper. Not only this, during this period, the bank had given the plaintiff two promotions and his work and conduct had been good. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff had already undergone lot of harassment, torture and uncalled for pecuniary loss during the last 14 years of court trials and as such it would be against the principles of natural justice to deny him the arrears of salary, increments and hold the inquiry.

That, however, despite the said objections/representations of the plaintiff, the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report dated 28/09/1987. The plaintiff received the inquiry report along with the impugned order dated 30/09/87 on 15/10/1987 stating that the charges leveled against the plaintiff in the charge sheet dated 08/03/78 were proved.

That on the basis of the said impugned finding of the inquiry officer, the defendant no. 2 passed an order dated 30/09/87 thereby imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect under charge no. 1 and penalty of stopping of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months of misconduct covered under charge no. 2; directing further that both the penalties would operate concurrently.

That it is submitted that the aforesaid inquiry and resultant punishment was clearly untenable, against law and vitiated on various grounds. Under the circumstances, the Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 4 OF 17 plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 30/09/1987 of the Disciplinary Authority with the Appellate Authority viz the defendant no. 2 by filing appeal dated 24/11/1987 and challenging the inquiry and the punishment on the following grounds:

It is submitted that the punishment as imposed is clearly not sustainable on these accounts.

Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for following relief from this court:

2. Defendants were served and has filed his written statement in which defendant has taken the preliminary objections that plaintiff is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and is governed by various awards and memoranda of bipartite settlement arrived at between the Management of all the banks and workman employed in the banks under the provisions of the Act. The present court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the grievance if any of plaintiff can be redressed in terms of the machinery provided under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 . In reply on merits, defendant submits that plaintiff was reverted to the post of Clerk by order dated 17/05/1988 however these orders could not be served on plaintiff and in view of the status quo order of this court, the plaintiff at present is working as a Special Assistant.

It is submitted by defendant that Workmen's Staff is not governed by the Union Bank of India Officer's employees (Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation, 1976 and Union Bank of India Office's employees (Conduct Regulation, 1976) These regulations are applicable only to the Officer's of the bank. Plaintiff was governed by the Promotion Agreement according to which he was first designated as Special Assistant on adhoc basis and thereafter Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 7 OF 17 promoted as an Officer in the Jr. Management Grade, Scale­I again on adhoc basis in terms of para 2.1 (c) of the said agreement. The plaintiff was charge sheeted for certain acts of misconduct committed by him and after holding the proper inquiry penalty was also imposed on him. The Management had placed the plaintiff under suspension as he was arrested by the police under various sections of IPC . The suspension of plaintiff was revoked vide order dated 29/09/1977 after the plaintiff had submitted a representation to the Management for revocation of the order of suspension.

The proceedings of the criminal case continued in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and judgment in this case is dated 17/04/1986. the documents pertaining to the charges levelled against the plaintiff vide charge sheet dated 06/03/1978 were common to the case of Sh. S.K. Gupta, S.K. Mishra and the plaintiff and these documents were seized by the police in connection with criminal trial. Accordingly, the inquiry against the plaintiff was kept in abeyance till the criminal case pending with the court was disposed off. This explains the delay of 8 years in conducting the inquiry by the defendant department. The Departmental inquiry was to be held independently of the criminal trial in accordance with the provisions of law. The higher assignment/ promotion was given to plaintiff on adhoc basis in accordance with para 2.1(c) of the Promotion Agreement in terms of which the Management is entitled to revert the plaintiff to the post from which he was given higher assignment/promotion in case penalty is imposed upon him and the said penalty is confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. Defendant denies if any principles of natural Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 8 OF 17 justice have been violated in not paying the arrears of salary ad increments. The objections/ representations of the plaintiff were duly considered by the inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank applicable to the plaintiff and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The inquiry Officer found the plaintiff guilty of the charges and the punishment was imposed accordingly. It is admitted that plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dated 30/09/1987 before the Appellate Authority however it is submitted that the grounds raised in appeal were duly considered by the Appellate Authority and thereafter the orders was passed by the Appellate Authority and the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to re­appreciate the evidence produced before the inquiry Authority in these proceedings. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of plaintiff vide order dated 16/01/1988 the punishment has been modified and the punishment of censor has been imposed on the plaintiff and the findings of the inquiry hence confirmed. Thus in nutshell, defendant submits that plaintiff was promoted on in adhoc basis as an Officer in the Jr. Management Grade scale­I in terms of para 2.1 (c) of the Promotion Agreement and also on the basis of seniority in his cadre. It is specifically denied that this promotion amounted to waiver of charges against plaintiff.

The plaintiff was charged of serious act of misconduct committed by him. The charges have been duly proved in the departmental inquiry and thereafter the punishment was imposed on the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank as Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 9 OF 17 applicable to the plaintiff. It is denied that the orders passed by defendant are illegal or untenable or have been passed in violation of provisions of Article 14 , 16 ad 20 (3) of Constitution of India and it is submitted that plaintiff is not entitled to full salary of suspension and further consequential benefits as claimed. Defendant submits that no cause of action arises against the defendants and the suit is also not properly valued in terms of provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act and the Suit Valuation Act hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant in which he has denied the contents of written statement and reaffirmed the averments of plaint as correct.

4. On completion of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 28/02/96:­

(i) Whether the plaintiff is governed by promotion agreement dated 28/10/75, if so, its effect? (OPD)

(ii) Whether the suit is barred before this court in view of the provision of Industrial Dispute Act and specifically in view of the application alleged in preliminary objections no. 1 of the W.S.? (OPD)

(iii) Whether the inquiry against the plaintiff and impugned action in pursuance of the said inquiry vitiated being null and void if so , to what effect? (OPP)

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for, if so, in what nature and to what extent? (OPP)

(v) Relief.

Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 10 OF 17

5. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and carefully perused the record, relevant legal provisions and the case laws supplied by the parties.

6. I have given my findings on issues in following order:

28. Exclusion of Jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the constitution. ­ "On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post,1no Court except ­

(a) the Supreme Court; or

(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 15 OF 17 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such requirement or such service matters."

On the basis of evidence on record and in light of relevant legal provisions, I am of the view that the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of present court as the civil court cannot look into the legality of the departmental inquiry as same falls within the ambit of service matters.

In my view the relief as prayed can only be granted by the concerned public service tribunal or by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of their writ jurisdiction and jurisdiction of civil court is excluded in such types of matters.

The legality of the inquiry conducted by the defendant department cannot be reviewed by the present court being beyond the jurisdiction of present court. Thus the relief as prayed can not be granted to plaintiff hence these two issues are decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

Issue no. (i)and(ii):

In view of above observations on issue no (iii) & (iv), plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit of plaintiff stands dismissed.

Parties to bear their own cost.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to record room as per rules.

Announced in open court on this day of 11 December, 2012.

th (Richa Parihar) CJ­06/Central 11.12.2012 Certified that it contains 17 (seventeen) pages signed by me.

(Richa Parihar) CJ­06/Central 11.12.2012 Sh. Sudarshan Uttam vs. Union Bank of India CS­342/10/88 17 OF 17