REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. P.K.VENUGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invocation of the power vested with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, modifying the punishment of 'dismissal' to that of 'discharge', as upheld by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. The sequence of events pointed out in the pleadings and proceedings is that the 1st respondent herein, while working as a Cashier in the service of the appellant Bank, was proceeded against for misappropriation, issuing Ext.P1 charge sheet on 22.11.1996. It was alleged that a shortage of cash, to an extent of 42,977/- was noted in the accounts between 15.10.1996 and 16.10.1996, which was allegedly misappropriated by the 1st respondent. It is also stated that, on bringing the instance of shortage to the notice of the employee, he was not in a position to explain how the shortage had occurred, but readily repaid the same, by effecting deposit of the due amount on 18.10.1996 (within 48 hours). A supplementary charge sheet by virtue of Ext.P2 was issued on 24.01.1997, stating that there was extensive borrowing by the said employee from different persons (sums of 5,000/-, 10,500/-, 10,000/-, 10,000/-) and that the said instances also would constitute a misconduct.

(3.) A domestic enquiry was ordered and on culmination of the enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer finding the delinquent employee guilty of the first charge, however, exonerating him in respect of Ext.P2 supplementary charge. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant Bank imposed the punishment of 'dismissal' as per Ext.P12. Though this was sought to be challenged by the employee by submitting an appeal, it did not turn fruitful and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by Ext.P13. This made the respondent employee to raise an industrial dispute in terms of the relevant provisions of the ID Act, causing a reference to be made by the appropriate Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, where it was numbered as I.D.No.25 of 2006.