SYNDICATE BANK Vs. M HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, having appointed the respondent as a clerk, directed him to work at Srirama Nagar Branch during the period 11-4-1979 and 21-3-1988 and while discharging duties in the Postal Outward Department, in the said branch, from 27-8-1987 to 29-1-1988, allegedly made entries In the postal Outward Register maintained at the branch and secured reimbursement of the amounts declaring/indicating actual postal expenditure incurred by him on behalf of the bank in respect of 279 articles consisting of notices to borrowers/pigmy balance confirmatories, etc. out of which entries against 33 items of registered post, were indicated with receipt numbers said to be assigned by the Postal Department. It is the allegation of the petitioner, that the respondent did not actually post the letters, but secured reimbursement of the monies after making entries in the register giving the impression of having dispatched the 279 articles through post. The petitioner having noticed the irregularities, on 29-1-1988, withdrew the respondent from the Postal Outward Department and on 30-1-1988,263 unstamped Inland letters said to have been dispatched by post were handed over to the Branch Manager. The respondent, by letter dated 3-2-1988 addressed to the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bellary, confessed to have not sent 263 notices issued by the Advances department during the period from August 1987 to January 1988 and the amount drawn as reimbursement of postal expenses, was misutilised by him and sought the imposition of a minor punishment of warning. By another letter dated 15-2-1988, the respondent requested 90 days' time or until the date of disbursement of bonus amount for the year 1987, whichever was earlier to reimburse the amount misutilized.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted a Disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet dated 16-5-1989 Annexure-"b" charging the respondent of having committing acts of misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, in accordance with Clause 19. 5 (j) of the Bipartite settlement. The petitioner though acknowledged the charge-sheet, did not submit a reply, leading to the appointment of an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges, who held an enquiry and submitted a report dated 2-11-1990 Annexure-"c" holding the charges proved. The Assistant General Manager, the disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner, concurred with the findings of the En-quiry Officer and held the respondent guilty of the charges of misconduct, which in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority being grave, and having gone through all the papers placed before him, by order dated 14-1-1991 Annexure-"d", dismissed the respondent from the services of the Bank. The respondent preferred an appeal whence the appellate Authority, having regard to the material on record, the evidence of the witness for the Management adduced before the enquiry Officer and the Enquiry report, concluded that the respondent committed acts of misconduct of misappropriation of monies and falsification of records and Accounts during the period between 14-9-1987 to 25-1-1988 and derived undue pecuniary benefit, in a manner unbecoming of a Bank employee and having found no extenuating circumstances warranting reconsideration of the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 10-4-1991 Annexure-"g", dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE respondent initiated Conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short Act, by filing a petition dated 4-10-1995 Annexure-"h" which when ended in a failure report, the Central Government, the appropriate authority, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Act, referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (for short Tribunal' ). The reference was numbered as C. R. 109/1999, whence the respondent filed a claim statement, inter alia, alleging that he admitted the charges at the instance of the Enquiry Officer who had stated that by such admission, nothing untoward would happen to him. In addition, it was contended that two other employees by name allan Faria and Ravi M. Halli similarly circumstanced, the Management had taken a lenient view by imposing a minor punishment. The petition was resisted by filing Statement of objections dated 3-10-2001 of the petitioner arraigned as the 2nd party in the proceedings, denying the allegations set out in the Claim statement. The petitioner contended that the punishment of dismissal from service was commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved and in the absence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, imposition of minor punishment did not arise.