- (1.) The writ petition is directed against the soundness of the impugned award passed by the first respondent-Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 96 of 2001, dated 30.09.2002, dismissing the reinstatement in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was working as Head Cashier in Srirangapuram Branch of the Central Bank of India, he was issued with a charge memo dated 15.09.1989, calling upon him to explain in respect of three charges, which are extracted as under: i. Petitioner in collusion with Mr. R. Madhalaisekaran, Branch Manager of Srirangapuram Branch, raised 26 cattle loans in the name of fictitious borrowers for an amount of Rs.98,500/-and shared the amount with Mr. R. Madhalaisekaran; ii. Petitioner colluded with Mr.R.Madhalaisekaran in destroying some of the documents pertaining to loan accounts; iii. Petitioner managed to get loan sanctioned in the names of his close relatives. On receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanations dated 20.09.1989 denying all the allegations. Dissatisfying with the explanations offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted in respect of three charges, and thereafter, the enquiry officer found him guilty of all the charges. Accepting the said findings, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service for the proved charges. Thereafter, the matter was questioned before the Tribunal. The said Tribunal has not raised any preliminary issue as held by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma & Another, 2001 2 LLJ 199, that the Labour Court / Tribunal should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But, when the matter is in controversy between the parties, that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. When that is the legal position, it is therefore incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. But, the Tribunal has not followed the said procedure. On that basis, the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it is tantamount to violation of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in KSRTC's case .
(3.) Secondly, it was argued that the decision relied on by the respondent bank regarding the integrity of the bank officer, are relevant only when the charges levelled against the petitioner, is proved in the fair enquiry. On the other hand, the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been established through any legal evidence in the enquiry, hence, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition.;