Arbitrary Disciplinary Proceedings By SBI, Termination Held Invalid, Orissa HC Awards Compensation
A Division bench of the Orissa Excessive Courtroom comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Justice Okay.R. Mohapatra held that disciplinary motion however scrutiny on equity and procedural compliance is bigoted, and in instances of superannuation of Workman, financial compensation could also be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
Background Details
The workman was appointed as a Messenger within the State Financial institution of India on 26.03.1992. On 03.10.2000, an quantity of ₹20,000 was withdrawn from the financial savings account of a deceased pension account holder. The withdrawal was made utilizing a withdrawal slip bearing a left thumb impression. It was found subsequent day that the account holder had died way back and the cash was withdrawn by her grandson. A departmental enquiry was initiated towards 4 workers, together with the workman. The allegations had been that the workman had facilitated the withdrawal by presenting the slip and requesting issuance of a token. Later the withdrawn quantity was recovered and redeposited within the deceased’s account.
After the enquiry, Workman was discovered responsible of gross misconduct and dismissed from service. The opposite three officers had been let off with minor punishments equivalent to warnings. Being aggrieved, the Workman most popular an attraction earlier than the appellate authority, which was dismissed. The Workman challenged the dismissal on the grounds that he had no function in processing withdrawals. Additional that he was not given a good alternative to defend. He additionally claimed that he was neither supplied with related paperwork, nor allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The Central Authorities Industrial Tribunal handed an award on 14.02.2017 directing reinstatement with 50% again wages.
Aggrieved by the award, the State Financial institution of India filed a writ petition. Throughout the pendency of the petition, the Workman had already attained the age of superannuation in 2022.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the Workman was duly issued a charge-sheet, supplied with related paperwork, and was given full alternative to take part within the enquiry proceedings. It was additional submitted that initially occasion, the Workman admitted to have assisted withdrawal of the quantity in good religion to assist the authorized inheritor of the deceased account-holder, however subsequently disowned the identical and completely denied his involvement in the complete incident. That itself confirmed the mala fide of the Workman. The petitioner additionally argued that equity of the enquiry was by no means challenged as a preliminary situation, and within the absence of any formal plea or proof proving violation of pure justice, the Tribunal erred in holding the enquiry to be unfair. It was said that the Workman had signed each day proceedings and was represented all through, which clearly confirmed that he was not prejudiced.
Alternatively, it was submitted by the respondent (Workman) that he was neither supplied with the listing of witnesses nor the paperwork relied upon through the enquiry, which severely affected his capability to defend himself. Furthermore, he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Administration, nor allowed to current his personal witnesses in assist of his case. It was additional submitted that the Workman, being a Messenger, had no responsibility or authority to cope with buyer transactions or deal with withdrawal slips. It was contended that the Workman had assisted within the restoration of the withdrawn quantity.
Findings of the Courtroom
It was noticed by the Courtroom that though the equity of the departmental enquiry was not raised as a preliminary situation earlier than the Tribunal, the Workman had particularly pleaded violations of pure justice through the enquiry course of. It was noticed by the courtroom that merely labelling an enquiry as legitimate will not be ample, the method should additionally stand up to scrutiny on equity and procedural compliance. It was famous that the Workman was not given entry to important paperwork, was denied the chance to cross-examine witnesses. Additional he was not allowed to current his personal defence, together with the testimony of an important witness, the grandson of the deceased account-holder.
It was additional noticed by the courtroom that no sturdy materials was introduced on file to show that the Workman was concerned within the unlawful withdrawal. As per the responsibility chart, his job duties didn’t embody dealing with of withdrawal slips or money transactions. It was additionally famous that different officers who really processed the withdrawal had been let off with minor penalties however the Workman alone was dismissed from service, which raised critical doubt on the impartiality and equity of the complete continuing. Additional that the Workman had helped get well the withdrawn quantity.
It was held by the Courtroom that there was no perversity or illegality within the Tribunal’s findings. Accordingly, the award handed by the Tribunal was not interfered by the courtroom. It was famous by the Courtroom that the Workman had already attained the age of superannuation. Thus, reinstatement was not possible. Due to this fact, the Courtroom modified the Tribunal’s aid of reinstatement to financial compensation within the curiosity of justice. Accordingly, it was directed by the Courtroom that the Administration shall pay ₹5,00,000 to the Workman as a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and 50% of again wages inside a interval of two months.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Identify: State Financial institution of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & One other
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 22135 of 2017
Counsel for the Petitioner: Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate Assisted by Okay.T. Mudali, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Durga Prasanna Das, Advocate
