AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The petitioner was working as clerk-cum-cashier in the Mughalsarai Branch of Union Bank of India. It appears that on 2.4.1999, Life Insurance Corporation of India wanted to make deposit of Rs. 48,840.25 Paise after 1 P.M. Since it was Saturday, the petitioner refused to accept the cash even after the Accountant instructed him to accept the same and make the deposit. On his refusal, the Branch Manager also instructed him in writing at about 1.15 P.M. to accept the late payment but the petitioner refused on the ground that his working hours were over. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded that the instructions be given to him in Hindi, in writing. In this way. he delayed the matter and Sri Ram Singh was handed over the charge of cashier at about 6 P.M. who accepted the deposit.
Charge sheet dated 5.7.1988 was issued to the petitioner accusing him of adopting delaying tactics deliberately to avoid compliance of the instructions of superiors for doing acts pre-judicial to the interest of the Bank; willful insubordination i.e., disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors and willful slowing down in performance of work. He was also charged with the minor misconduct of negligence of work.
Enquiry in the matter was conducted and by Memoradnum dated 1.4.1989. the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why punishment of stoppage of two increments for the major misconduct and stoppage of increments for six months for minor misconduct be also not imposed on him. The petitioner was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing and he also submitted his representation dated 21.4.1989. was awarded the following-punishments vide order dated 22.4.1989 :-
ORDER
Gross misconduct
(i) For the gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, Sri Ram Ashrey''s two annual increments be and is hereby stopped with cumulative effect, which will have the effect of postponing of his future increments by a period of 2 years.
(ii) For the gross misconduct of willful insubordination and disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors, Sri Ram Ashrey''s two annual increments be and is hereby stopped with cumulative effect, which will have period of 2 years.
(iii) For the gross misconduct of willful slowing down in performance of work, Sri Ram Ashrey''s two annual increments be and is hereby stopped with cumulative effect which will have the effect of postponing his future increments by a period of 2 years.
Punishments to run concurrently.
Minor misconduct.
For the minor misconduct of neglect of work Sri Ram Ashrey''s increments be and is hereby stopped for a period of 6 months.
The punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect for each of the approved gross misconducts will be effective after the expiry of punishment for the minor misconduct i.e. after a period of 6 months.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the appellate authority which was rejected vide order dated 14.7.1990
It appears that after rejection of the appeal, the petitioner filed a fresh appeal on 18,8.1990 which is contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there was only one instance of misconduct reference to which has been made in the charge sheet i.e. the petitioner did not accept money brought by the Life Insurance Corporation of India after 1 P.M. on Saturday. It is contended that on the day of incident, the petitioner had received more than 100 vouchers which was more than the work on any normal day and he was over burdened. The disciplinary as well as appellate authorities have not looked into the circumstances and have passed the impugned order of punishment which is highly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. She also raised factual controversies in the instant writ petition which can only be decided on the basis of evidence documentary and oral to be adduced before Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as it would not be possible to decide the controversies involved in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the proper course for the petitioner in the circumstances is to exhaust alternate remedy.
For the reasons stated above, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate and efficacious remedy to the petitioner available before the appropriate Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. No order as to costs.