State Bank of India vs R. Srinivasa Rao

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This petition though listed for hearing on IA for vacating stay, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

Petitioner is said to be constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, carrying on activity of banking and non-banking services. Respondent, it is said, was appointed in the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2.6.1980 at its J.C. Road Branch, Bangalore and thereafter transferred to St. Marks Road Branch, Bangalore. On 18.4.1991 respondent was served with a charge sheet alleging certain acts of misconduct in the discharge of duties as a Teller at Bangalore Branch, on 8.2.1991 when he accepted Rs. 2,000/- tendered by the representative of one Sri Kumaran Vasudevan to be credited to his S.B. A/c No. 169/172016 and issued a counter foil of the paying slip to the remitter by affixing a seal thereon. That amount, it is alleged,, was not accounted for in the Teller Receipt Scroll on 8.2.1991 and the credit voucher not released on the very same day, however, on receipt of a complaint from the Account Holder on 11.2.1991, respondent released the voucher dated 8.2.1991 bearing a receipt stamp dated 11.2.1991 and accounted for it in the Teller Cash Receipt Scroll on 11.2.1991. In addition, it was alleged that on 11.2.1991 respondent withdrew Rs. 3,000/- each from the SB Accounts of one Sri K.C. Muthanna and another Smt. Kamala Rao and utilized part of the amount to account for the receipt of Rs. 2,000/-. The further allegation was that respondent misutilized leave fare concession facility to the extent of Rs. 2,700/-. Following the issue of charge sheet, respondent submitted an explanation denying the charges where afterwards disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer who conducted an enquiry, submitted a report and thereafter the disciplinary authority extended an opportunity by issuing a second show cause notice, to which a reply was tendered, where afterwards by order dated 16.3.1999 imposed the punishment of discharge from service.

Respondent having initiated conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short I.D. Act led to reference of an industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, for short ''Tribunal'', registered as CR 24/2010 whence parties filed their respective claim statement and counter statement leading to framing a preliminary issue over whether the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner employer was fair and proper. Enquiry officer was examined for the petitioner as MW-1 who introduced six documents marked as Exs. M1 to M6, while the respondent was examined as WW-1. The Tribunal by order dated 7.8.2013 Annexure-E returned a finding in the negative over the preliminary issue holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Hence this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the Tribunal was not justified in recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper on the premise that the customers/complainants were not examined, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee and Others, observing that a customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry, as such a course would not be conducive to proper Banker-customer relationship and therefore, would not be in the interest of the Bank.

The answer to the question as to whether the customer/complainant was required to necessarily testify, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in law that in every case a customer of the Bank should not be involved in a domestic enquiry. In SBI''s case supra, in the first place, the challenge was to the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal setting aside the order of termination from service after holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper. In the present case the challenge is to the order on a preliminary issue over validity of the domestic enquiry and not over the validity of the order of termination from service. On that score, this Judgment would not apply to the facts of this case. Secondly, the allegations in that case as set out in the Judgment discloses the charge against the cashier of the Bank was receiving excess monies from the customer and retaining with an intent to misappropriate which was held proved against the cashier in the domestic enquiry. On those facts too, this Judgment has no application.

There is considerable force in the submission of Sri Kuttappa, learned counsel that the decision in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, applies on all its fours. The Apex Court in that Judgment deprecated the tendency of managements rushing to writ courts against orders on preliminary issues in industrial adjudication and observed that Managements must await a final decision in the dispute and if aggrieved, may also question the order passed on preliminary issue. Petitioner instead of awaiting a decision over the merit or demerit of the adjudication over the reference made by the Government to the Tribunal has come rushing to this Court calling in question the finding on the preliminary issue and therefore, petition is not maintainable.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the order Annexure-E on the preliminary issue, if aggrieved by the award that may be passed, this petition is rejected.

IA-I/2014 for vacating stay is dismissed as unnecessary.