Karuppan vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and another

A.M. Shaffique, J. - Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 26/2006. By virtue of the order, the Industrial Tribunal did not interfere with the order of dismissal passed against the employee Sri. Karuppan.

The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was working as a Record Keeper (sub-staff) in State Bank of Travancore. He was suspended from service w.e.f. 22/5/2000 on allegations of misconduct. A charge sheet was issued alleging misappropriation of amounts of customers which were entrusted to him for credit in their deposits, for borrowing money from customers etc. A domestic enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report, petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 16/6/2001.

Though an appeal was filed against the order of dismissal, the same was rejected by the appellate authority and accordingly, at the instance of the Union, following reference was issued by the Central Government:

"Whether the dismissal from service of Sri. Karuppan, Record Keeper of Marayur by the management of State Bank of Travancore is fair, proper and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?".

Tribunal found that the enquiry was conducted after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter and therefore the domestic enquiry was upheld. Having found so, the Tribunal further considered the factual issues involved in the matter as to whether the findings in the enquiry were justified or not. After evaluating the evidence on record and on a re-appreciation of the said facts, the Tribunal came to a finding that the findings in the enquiry are unimpeachable and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

Thereafter, the question of punishment was considered and Tribunal came to a finding that the charges levelled against him were very serious in nature. It was found that 19 customers had entrusted money to the delinquent for remittance in their accounts, which he did not remit whereas he had made entries in the passbook stating that the amounts were credited. This, according to the Tribunal, was a serious misconduct as far as the Bank is concerned, which also affects the reputation of the Bank and customers will loose faith in the Banking institutions. Having regard to the aforesaid finding, Tribunal found that no leniency can be shown to the petitioner and the punishment is not disproportionate to the proved charges and accordingly, no interference was made to the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner however would submit that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the period when enquiry was conducted which aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. That apart, in the criminal action taken on the very same factual background, the petitioner was acquitted and therefore the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner had availed of the opportunity of participating in the enquiry and there had been no situation where the petitioner had suffered any prejudice on account of non payment of subsistence allowance. Under such circumstances, merely for the reason that there is an allegation that no subsistence allowance was paid will not suffice to set aside the enquiry.

Now coming to the question regarding validity of the enquiry, it is clear from the Award passed by the Tribunal that principles of natural justice had been complied with. Therefore, there is no reason to set aside the enquiry on that ground. That apart, the Tribunal had evaluated the entire evidence on record and had come to a finding that the enquiry report is unimpeachable. In regard to the punishment also, the Tribunal had clearly evaluated the nature of allegations raised and did not interfere with the same. A perusal of the charge memo by itself would indicate that the charges are very serious in nature and when it is found that there has been misappropriation of funds, manipulation of records, passbooks, etc., the order of dismissal cannot be found to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Award.

There being no specific reason to interfere with the said Award passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed.